209 files changed, 17 insertions, 31122 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7b82bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+*.txt text eol=lf
+*.htm text eol=lf
+*.html text eol=lf
+*.md text eol=lf
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..51ad654
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #60518 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60518)
diff --git a/old/60518-0.txt b/old/60518-0.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 135f7da..0000000
--- a/old/60518-0.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,14743 +0,0 @@
-The Project Gutenberg EBook of Military Architecture in England During the
-Middle Ages, by Alexander Hamilton Thompson
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
-other parts of the world 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.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
-to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
-
-Title: Military Architecture in England During the Middle Ages
-
-Author: Alexander Hamilton Thompson
-
-Release Date: October 19, 2019 [EBook #60518]
-
-Language: English
-
-Character set encoding: UTF-8
-
-*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND ***
-
-
-
-
-Produced by MWS, Brian Wilcox 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.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Transcriber’s Notes:—
-
-Italic text is denoted _thus_.
-
-The spelling, hyphenation, punctuation and accentuation are as the
-original, except for apparent typographical errors which have been
-corrected.
-
-Further transcriber’s notes can be found at the end of the book.
-
-
-
-
-  MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN
-  ENGLAND DURING THE MIDDLE AGES
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  _Frontispiece_
-
-ROCHESTER: GREAT TOWER.]
-
-
-
-
-  MILITARY ARCHITECTURE
-  IN ENGLAND DURING THE
-  MIDDLE AGES
-
-  BY
-  A. HAMILTON THOMPSON
-  M.A., F.S.A.
-
-  Illustrated by 200 Photographs, Drawings, and Plans
-
-  HENRY FROWDE
-  OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
-  LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO, AND MELBOURNE
-  1912
-
-
-
-
-  _Printed at_
-  THE DARIEN PRESS
-  _Edinburgh_
-
-
-
-
-PREFACE
-
-
-Apart from the late Mr G. T. Clark’s _Mediæval Military Architecture_,
-published in 1884, the greater portion of which is a series of
-monographs dealing with individual castles, there has been no attempt,
-until within the last few years, to apply systematic treatment to
-this branch of science. Recently, however, more than one book has
-been published upon the general subject of the castles of England.
-Mr Alfred Harvey has lately given a lucid account of the growth of
-the castle, with a valuable essay upon English walled towns; and the
-present year has seen the appearance of a book in which Mrs Armitage
-has embodied the result of labours of the utmost importance, extending
-over many years. In addition to works of a general character, a
-number of separate monographs, indispensable to students, have been
-published during the last twenty years, in the transactions of various
-archæological societies. The contributions of Mr W. H. St John Hope to
-the study of castle architecture take a foremost place among these,
-with papers such as those by Mr J. Bilson on Gilling castle and by
-Mr Harold Sands on Bodiam and the Tower of London; and the late Mr
-Cadwallader Bates’ unfinished _Border Holds of Northumberland_ contains
-accounts of Warkworth and Bamburgh, as well as of smaller castles and
-peles, which must take rank among the classics of the subject.
-
-In the present volume an attempt is made to trace the growth of the
-general principles of medieval fortification, with special reference
-to castles, in which, within their limited area, the most complete
-illustration of those principles is given. In order to give greater
-clearness to the account of their evolution, a prefatory chapter deals
-generally with earlier types of fortification in Britain, and the
-critical period of Saxon and Danish warfare is treated in the second
-chapter with some detail. This leads us to the early Norman castle of
-earthwork and timber; and the stone fortifications to which this gave
-place are introduced by a brief account of the progress of siegecraft
-and siege-engines. The Norman castle and its keep or great tower are
-then described. The developments of the later part of the twelfth
-century and the arrangements of the thirteenth-century castle, with
-those of the dwelling-house within its _enceinte_, follow and prepare
-the way for the castles of the reign of Edward I. which represent
-the highest effort of military planning. In the last two chapters
-is related the progress of the transition from the castle to the
-fortified manor-house, which followed the introduction of fire-arms
-into warfare and preceded the Renaissance period. It will be seen that
-the castle is taken as the unit of military architecture throughout;
-but illustrations are constantly drawn from walled towns, which are, in
-fact, the castles of communities, and in the eleventh chapter extended
-allusion is made to the chief features of their plan and defences.
-
-In speaking of the walled town, however, as the castle of the
-community, it must not be forgotten that the castle is, in its origin,
-the stronghold of a single owner. That origin is still to some extent
-a vexed question; for the well-known theory of Mr G. T. Clark, that
-the castle of Norman times was identical with the _burh_ of the Saxon
-Chronicle, was accepted as a dogma by the antiquaries of twenty-five to
-fifty years ago, and a theory thus established, however precipitately,
-is not easily shaken. The patient and thorough work of Mrs Armitage,
-which deserves the admiration of every scholar, has done much to
-disturb the foundations on which Mr Clark built his hypothesis; and
-Mr Neilson, Dr Round, Mr St John Hope, and others, have contributed
-their share to the discovery of the real character of the evidence,
-and the formulation of a sounder theory. The present writer has
-devoted much time to the study of the original authorities for Saxon
-and Norman military history, and it is his conviction that the weight
-of documentary evidence is entirely upon the side of the views upheld
-with so much ability and originality by these recent investigators. At
-the same time, the earthworks of early castles still present several
-difficult problems; and the discredit into which Mr Clark’s theory
-has fallen is a warning against the too confident acceptation of the
-conclusions of a more critical age, and against the danger of forcing
-exceptions into the service of the rule.
-
-In the earlier part of this book, some allusion is made to methods
-of Roman warfare; and the main points of two of the sieges conducted
-by Cæsar and his lieutenants are summarily described. It need hardly
-be said, in view of what follows, that the methods of military
-architecture in the middle ages have, for the most part, their
-exact prototypes in Roman and Byzantine history. The student of the
-siege-campaigns of Philip Augustus will be constantly reminded, for
-example, of the relation by Ammianus of the exploits of Julian the
-Apostate. Too much emphasis cannot be laid on the importance, first,
-of the contact of the Northmen who overran England and France with the
-traditional expedients of Roman siegecraft, as they existed in the
-eastern empire, and secondly, of the influence of the Crusades upon the
-development of medieval fortification. The conditions of our military
-architecture in the middle ages were naturally governed by the methods
-of attack employed by a besieging force. As these had been brought
-to a high state of perfection in the east, an advance upon which was
-hardly possible, the history of English fortification, from the Norman
-conquest to the general adoption of fire-arms in warfare, is that of a
-progress towards a system of defence in which western Europe lagged far
-behind the older centres of civilisation.
-
-It is to be noted that, although the architecture of the castle and the
-fortifications of towns naturally took its share in the formal progress
-of Gothic art, the laws under which it was evolved bear no resemblance
-to the principles of construction, in obedience to which the medieval
-cathedral assumed its characteristic form. Ribbed vaults, Gothic
-mouldings, and traceried windows afford a clue to the dates of the
-various parts of a medieval castle, as they do to those of a church;
-but they are merely incidental to a type of construction to which the
-solid and impregnable wall is all-important. The cases are rare in
-which the builders of castles paid much attention to elaborate detail
-in the minor parts of their building: their decorative work is used
-with the economy and simplicity appropriate to the massive construction
-which their fortresses demanded.
-
-A vast amount of work still remains to be done in the exploration
-of our military buildings and the reconstruction of their history;
-and, until that is accomplished, no thoroughly satisfactory general
-hand-book can be written. Nevertheless, it is hoped that there is room
-for books which may serve as general indicators to what has been done,
-up to the present time, in this direction. The bibliography which will
-be found preceding the text of this volume includes a selected list
-of monographs or articles upon individual castles, many of which have
-appeared in the transactions of various archaeological societies.
-These vary considerably in value; but, taken as a whole, they serve to
-enlarge our knowledge of the history and architecture of the buildings
-with which they are concerned.
-
-The author desires to express his thanks, first to his wife, without
-whose constant help in the preparation of the book and in the provision
-of drawings and plans to illustrate its pages, it could hardly have
-been written. Mr Francis Bond, the editor of this series, has aided
-the author with unfailing kindness, by reading through the proofs,
-making suggestions as to the general form of the book, and arranging
-for its adequate illustration. To the following, who have kindly
-allowed the use of photographs, special thanks should be returned: Mrs
-Jessie Lloyd, the Revs. J. Bailey and G. W. Saunders, and Messrs Harold
-Baker, F. Bond, J. P. Gibson, F.S.A., G. J. Gillham, G. Hepworth, P. M.
-Johnston, F.S.A., R. Keene, W. Maitland, E. A. and G. R. Reeve, F. R.
-Taylor, and G. H. Widdows. The editors of the _Archaeological Journal_
-have sanctioned the use of various plans from the annual programmes
-of the Archaeological Institute. Mr A. Hadrian Allcroft and Messrs
-Macmillan have given consent to the reproduction of three illustrations
-from Mr Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_. Permission to found the plan
-of Chepstow castle on one in the official _Guide_ to that building
-was kindly given by his Grace the Duke of Beaufort, through Mr Noel
-H. P. Somerset. MM. Camille Enlart and Auguste Picard have permitted
-the insertion of a plan of Château-Gaillard, founded on that in M.
-Enlart’s _Manuel_. Mr R. Blair, F.S.A., has authorised a similar use of
-illustrations founded on those of Dr Bruce’s _Roman Wall_. Thanks are
-also due to the editor of the _Yorkshire Archæological Journal_ for the
-plan of Sandal castle, and to Mr W. G. Watkins, jun., for his plan of
-Lincoln castle. Special acknowledgments are due to Mr Godfrey L. Clark
-for his liberality in putting at the disposal of the writer valuable
-plans and drawings from his father’s work. The author much regrets that
-questions of space and cost have prevented him from taking advantage of
-more than a limited number of the generous offers of illustration which
-reached him during the preparation of the book for the press.
-
-
-
-
-TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
-
-  CHAPTER                                                       PAGE
-
-        PREFACE                                                  vii
-
-        BIBLIOGRAPHY                                            xiii
-
-     I. EARLY EARTHWORKS AND ROMAN STATIONS                        1
-
-    II. THE SAXON AND DANISH PERIOD                               21
-
-   III. THE ENGLISH CASTLE AFTER THE CONQUEST                     35
-
-    IV. THE PROGRESS OF ATTACK AND DEFENCE                        58
-
-     V. THE BEGINNING OF THE STONE CASTLE                         83
-
-    VI. THE KEEP OF THE NORMAN CASTLE                            110
-
-   VII. THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION: CYLINDRICAL TOWER-KEEPS        160
-
-  VIII. THE DWELLING-HOUSE IN THE CASTLE                         188
-
-    IX. CASTLES OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY: THE FORTIFICATION
-            OF THE CURTAIN                                       212
-
-     X. THE EDWARDIAN CASTLE AND THE CONCENTRIC PLAN             252
-
-    XI. MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN THE LATER MIDDLE
-            AGES: FORTIFIED TOWNS AND CASTLES                    287
-
-   XII. THE AGE OF TRANSITION: THE FORTIFIED DWELLING-HOUSE      334
-
-        INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES                              369
-
-        INDEX RERUM                                              381
-
-
-
-
-BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
-
-1. Chief Original Authorities cited.
-
-  ABBO, De Bello Parisiaco libri tres (Migne, _Patrologiae Cursus
-    Completus_, vol. 131 (1853), pp. 722-62).
-
-  AMIENS, GUY OF. Carmen de Hastingae proelio (Chroniques
-    Anglo-Normands). Rouen, 1836-40.
-
-  ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, ed. C. Plummer. 2 vols. Oxford, 1892-9.
-
-  ANNA COMNENA. Alexias, ed. A. Reifferscheid. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1884.
-
-  ANNALES BERTINIANI (Annales Francorum, vulgo Bertiniani dicti),
-    ed. Dom. M. Bouquet, _Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la
-    France_, vols. vi. (1749), 192-204; vii. (1749), 59-124; viii.
-    (1752), 26-37.
-
-  ARDRES, LAMBERT OF. Extracts in Bouquet, _Recueil des historiens_,
-    vols. xi. (1767), 295-307; xiii. (1786), 423-53; xviii. (1822),
-    583-8.
-
-  BEDE. Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. C. Plummer. Oxford, 1896.
-
-  BRETON (LE), GUILLAUME. Philippidos libri xii., ed. Bouquet, _Recueil
-    des historiens_, vol. xvii. (1818), 117-287.
-
-  CAESAR. Commentaries, ed. B. Kübler. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1893-6.
-
-  COLMIEU, JEAN DE, canon of St Martin, Ypres. Vita beati Joannis
-    Morinorum episcopi (_Acta Sanctorum_, January, vol. iii. 409-17).
-
-  DICETO, RALPH DE. Historical Works (Ymagines Historiarum and
-    Abbreviationes Chronicorum), ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (Rolls Series,
-    No. 68).
-
-  DOMESDAY BOOK (Record Commission). 4 vols. Lond., 1816.
-
-  HENRY VIII., LETTERS AND PAPERS, ed. Brewer and Gairdner, vol. iv.
-
-  HOVEDEN, ROGER OF. Chronicle, ed. W. Stubbs. 4 vols. (Rolls Series,
-    No. 51).
-
-  JOINVILLE, JEAN, SEIGNEUR DE. Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. N. de
-    Wailly. Paris, 1874 (translation of Chronicle by Sir Frank Marzials,
-    London, 1908).
-
-  MONTE, ROBERT DE (Robert de Torigny, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel).
-    Cronica (continuation of Sigebert of Gemblours), ed. Migne,
-    _Patrologiae Cursus_, vol. clx., 423-546.
-
-  ORDERICUS VITALIS. Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. A. le Prévost. 5 vols.
-    Paris, 1838-55.
-
-  PATENT ROLLS, CALENDARS OF, 1216-66, 1271-1364, 1377-1485. 47 vols.
-    (in progress).
-
-  PETERBOROUGH, BENEDICT OF. Chronicle, ed. W. Stubbs.
-    2 vols. (Rolls Series, No. 49).
-
-  PIPE ROLLS. Pipe Roll Society Publications. 27 vols. (in progress).
-    London, 1884, etc.
-
-  RYMER, THOMAS. Foedera. 20 vols. London, 1704-35.
-
-  STUBBS, WILLIAM, D.D. Select Charters and other Illustrations of
-    English Constitutional History, 8th edit. Oxford, 1905.
-
-  SUGER. Gesta Ludovici Grossi, ed. A. Molinier. Paris, 1887.
-
-  VEGETIUS. Epitoma Rei Militaris, ed. C. Lang. Leipzig, 1885.
-
-  VETUSTA MONUMENTA, vol. vi. (Bayeux Tapestry). London, 1842.
-
-  VILLEHARDOUIN, GEOFFROI DE. De la Conqueste de Constantinople par
-    les Barons François associez aux Venitiens, ed. N. de Wailly. Paris,
-    1872-4 (trans. Sir Frank Marzials, London, 1908).
-
-  VITRUVIUS. De Architectura, ed. V. Rose. Leipzig, 1899.
-
-  WENDOVER, ROGER OF. Chronica sive Flores Historiarum, ed. H. G.
-    Hewlett, 3 vols. (Rolls Series, No. 84).
-
-
-2. General.
-
-  ALLCROFT, A. HADRIAN. Earthwork of England. London, 1908.
-
-  ARMITAGE, ELLA S. Anglo-Saxon burhs and early Norman castles (_Proc.
-    Soc. Antiq. Scotland_, xxxiv. 260-88).
-
-  —— The Early Norman Castles of England (_English Historical Review_,
-    xix. 209-45 and 417-55).
-
-  —— The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles. London, 1912.
-
-  BRUCE, J. C., LL.D., F.S.A. Hand-book to the Roman Wall, ed. Robert
-    Blair, F.S.A., 5th edition. London and Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1907.
-
-  CHRISTISON, DAVID, M.D. Early Fortification in Scotland: Motes,
-    camps, and forts. Edinburgh and London, 1898.
-
-  CLARK, G. T., F.S.A. Mediæval Military Architecture in England. 2
-    vols. London, 1884.
-
-  CLEPHAN, R. COLTMAN, F.S.A. An Outline of the History of Gunpowder
-    and that of the Hand-Gun, from the epoch of the earliest records to
-    the end of the fifteenth century (_Archaeol. Journal_, lxvi.
-    145-70).
-
-  —— The Military Handgun of the sixteenth century (_Archaeol.
-    Journal_, lxvii. 109-50).
-
-  —— The Ordnance of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (_Archaeol.
-    Journal_, lxviii. 49-138).
-
-  CODRINGTON, THOMAS. Roman Roads in Britain. London, 1903.
-
-  D’AUVERGNE, EDMUND B. The Castles of England. London, 1907.
-
-  —— The English Castles, London, 1908.
-
-  DIEULAFOY, M. Le Château-Gaillard et l’architecture militaire au
-    XIIIᵐᵉ siècle (_Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, tom.
-    xxxvi., part. 1). Paris, 1898.
-
-  ENLART, CAMILLE. Manuel d’Archéologie française, vol. ii. Paris, 1904.
-
-  HARVEY, ALFRED. The Castles and Walled Towns of England. London, 1911.
-
-  HAVERFIELD, Prof. F. J., LL.D., D.Litt., V.P.S.A. The Romanization of
-    Roman Britain. London, 1905.
-
-  —— Roman Britain (_Cambridge Medieval History_, i. 367-81: see
-    _ibid._ 666-7 for bibliography of various articles by the same
-    writer).
-
-  HOCHFELDEN, G. H. KRIEG VON. Geschichte der Militar-Architektur in
-    Deutschland. Stuttgart, 1859.
-
-  HOPE, W. H. ST JOHN. English fortresses and castles of the tenth and
-    eleventh centuries (_Archaeol. Journal_, lx. 72-90).
-
-  MACKENZIE, Sir J. D. The Castles of England, their Story and
-    Structure. 2 vols. London, 1897.
-
-  NEILSON, GEORGE. The motes in Norman Scotland (_Scottish Review_ xiv.
-    209-38).
-
-  OMAN, Prof. C. W. C., F.S.A. A History of the Art of War in the
-    Middle Ages. London, 1898.
-
-  ORPEN, G. H. Motes and Norman castles in Ireland (_Proc. Royal Soc.
-    Antiq. Ireland_, xxxvii. 123-52).
-
-  PARKER, J. H., and TURNER, T. HUDSON. Some account of domestic
-    architecture in England. 3 vols, in 4. Oxford, 1851-9.
-
-  ROUND, J. HORACE, LL.D. The Castles of the Conquest. (_Archaeologia_,
-    lviii. 313-40).
-
-  —— Feudal England, Historical Studies on the XIth and XIIth Centuries
-    (new edition). London, 1909.
-
-  SAINT-PAUL, ANTHYME. Histoire Monumentale de la France, 6th edition.
-    Paris, 1903.
-
-  TURNER, T. HUDSON; _see_ PARKER, J. H.
-
-  VAN MILLINGEN, A. Byzantine Constantinople. London, 1899.
-
-  VIOLLET-LE-DUC, E. Dictionnaire Raisonné de l’Architecture française
-    du XIᵉ au XVIᵉ Siècle. 10 vols. Paris, 1854, etc.
-
-  —— Essai sur l’architecture militaire au moyen âge. Paris, 1854
-    (translated by M. Macdermott, Oxford and London, 1860).
-
-  —— Histoire d’une forteresse. Paris, n.d.
-
-  WARD, W. H. French Châteaux and Gardens in the XVIth Century
-    (drawings reproduced from Androuet-du-Cerceau). London, 1909.
-
-  WESTROPP, T. J. Irish motes and alleged Norman castles (_Proc. Royal
-    Soc. Antiq. Ireland_, xiv. 313-45, and xv. 402-6).
-
-
-3. Special Monographs, etc.
-
-  ACTON BURNELL. Hartshorne, C. H., F.S.A. (_Archaeol. Journal_, ii.
-    325-38).
-
-  ALNWICK. Clark, _Mediæval Mil. Architecture_, i. 175-85.
-
-  —— Knowles, W. H., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A. The Gatehouse and Barbican of
-    Alnwick Castle (_Archaeologia Æliana_, 3rd ser., v. 286-303).
-
-  AMBERLEY. Clarkson, G. A. (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, xvii. 185-339).
-
-  ARUNDEL. Clark, i. 195-203.
-
-  AUCKLAND. Rev. J. F. Hodgson (_Archaeologia Æliana_, xix. 89-92).
-
-  AYDON. Knowles, W. H. (_Archaeologia_, lvi. 78-88). _See_ also Bates,
-    _Border Holds_.
-
-  BAMBURGH. Bates, _Border Holds_; Clark, G. T. (_Archaeol. Journal_,
-    xlvi. 93-113).
-
-  BARNARD CASTLE. Clark, i. 204-13.
-
-  BEAUMARIS. Clark, i. 213-17.
-
-  BELSAY. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  —— Middleton, Sir Arthur E., Bart. An account of Belsay castle
-    (privately printed). Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1910.
-
-  BERKELEY. Clark, i. 228-39.
-
-  BERKHAMPSTEAD. Clark, i. 223-38.
-
-  BERWICK-ON-TWEED. Norman, F. M. (Commander R.N.): Official Guide to
-    the Fortifications. Berwick, 1907.
-
-  BODIAM. Clark, i. 239-47.
-
-  —— Sands, Harold, F.S.A., in _Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xlvi.
-    114-33.
-
-  BOTHAL. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  BOWES. Clark, i. 259-64.
-
-  BRIDGNORTH. Clark, i. 273-81.
-
-  BRISTOL. Harvey, Alfred, M.B. Bristol, a historical and topographical
-    account of the city. London, 1906.
-
-  —— (castle). Pritchard, J. E., F.S.A. (_Proceedings of Clifton
-    Antiquarian Club_, iv. 17-19).
-
-  BRONLLYS. Clark, i. 283-6; _Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 3rd ser., viii.
-    81-92.
-
-  BROUGHTON. Lord Saye and Sele (_Berks, Bucks, and Oxon. Archaeol.
-    Journal_, new ser., vii. 23-5).
-
-  BUILTH. Clark, i. 304-8.
-
-  CAERPHILLY. Clark, i. 315-35.
-
-  CALDICOT. Bellows, J. (_Cotteswold Field Club_, vi. 263-7).
-
-  CALDICOT. Cobb, J. R. (_Clifton Antiq. Club_, iii. 35-40).
-
-  CAMBRIDGE. Hope, W. H. St John (_Camb. Antiq. Soc._, xi. 324-46).
-
-  —— Hughes, Prof. T. M‘Kenny, F.S.A. (_ibid._, ix. 348).
-
-  CARCASSONNE. Viollet-le-Duc, E. La Cité de Carcassonne. Paris, 1858.
-
-  CARDIFF. Clark, i. 336-50; Ward, J., F.S.A. Cardiff castle, its Roman
-    origin (_Archaeologia_, lvii. 335-52).
-
-  CAREW. Cobb, J. R. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 5th ser., iii. 27-41).
-
-  CARISBROOKE. Beattie, W. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, xi. 193-205).
-
-  —— Stone, P. G., F.S.A. (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd ser., xvi. 409-11).
-
-  CARLISLE. Clark, i. 350-8
-
-  CARNARVON. Clark, i. 309-15.
-
-  —— Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, vii. 237-65: _Archaeologia
-    Cambrensis_, 3rd ser., i. 242-6).
-
-  CHÂTEAU-GAILLARD. Clark, i. 378-85; Dieulafoy, M., _see_ General
-    Bibliography.
-
-  CHEPSTOW. Clark, G. T. (_Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc._, vi.
-    51-74).
-
-  —— Wood, J. G., F.S.A. The Lordship, Castle, and Town of Chepstow.
-    Newport, 1910.
-
-  CHESTER. Cox, E. W. (_Archit., etc., Soc. Chester and North Wales_,
-    v. 239-76).
-
-  CHILLINGHAM. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  CHIPCHASE. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  —— Knowles, W. H. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, 3rd ser., i. 32-4).
-
-  CHRISTCHURCH. Clark, i. 385-92.
-
-  CILURNUM. An Account of the Roman Antiquities preserved in the Museum
-    at Chesters, 1903.
-
-  CLUN. Clark, i. 402-9.
-
-  COLCHESTER. Clark, i. 418-31.
-
-  —— The History and Antiquities of Colchester castle. Colchester,
-    1882. _See also_ _Archaeol. Journal_, lxiv. 188-191.
-
-  CONISBROUGH. Clark, i. 431-53.
-
-  CONWAY. Clark, i. 453-60.
-
-  —— Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, new ser., v. 1-12).
-
-  CORFE. Blashill, T. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, xxviii. 258-71).
-
-  —— Bond, T. History and Description of Corfe Castle. London and
-    Bournemouth, 1883.
-
-  —— Clark, i. 461-75.
-
-  COUCY. Clark, i. 476-87.
-
-  —— Lefèvre-Pontalis, E. Le Château de Coucy (with special
-    bibliography). Paris, n.d.
-
-  —— Viollet-le-Duc, E. Description du Château de Coucy. Paris, n.d.
-
-  DENBIGH. Ayrton, W. (_Chester Archit., etc., Soc._, ii. 49-60).
-
-  DOLWYDDELAN. Barnwell, E. L. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 4th ser.,
-    xiv. 174-5).
-
-  DOMFRONT. Blanchetière, L. Le Donjon ou Château féodal de Domfront
-    (Orne). Domfront, 1893.
-
-  DOVER. Blashill, T. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, xl. 373-8).
-
-  —— Clark, ii. 4-24.
-
-  DUFFIELD. Cox, J. C., LL.D., F.S.A. (_Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc._, ix.
-    118-78).
-
-  DUNSTANBURGH. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  —— Compton, C. H. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, new ser., ix.
-    111-16).
-
-  DURHAM. Clark, ii. 32-5, and _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix. 1-22.
-
-  —— Gee, H., D.D., F.S.A. (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd ser., xx. 17-18,
-    and _Trans. Durham and Northumb. Archaeol. Soc._).
-
-  EXETER. Clark, ii. 44-7.
-
-  FALAISE. Ruprich-Robert, V. Paris, 1864.
-
-  GILLING. Bilson, J. (_Yorks Archæol. Journal_, xix. 105-92).
-
-  GUILDFORD. Clark, ii. 53-71.
-
-  —— Malden, H. E. (_Surrey Archaeol. Soc._, xvi. 28-34).
-
-  HADDON. Cheetham, F. H. Haddon Hall. London and Manchester, 1904.
-
-  HALLATON. Dibbin, H. A. (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd ser., vii. 316-21).
-
-  HARLECH. Chapman, F. G. W. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._ xxxiv.
-    159-67).
-
-  —— Clark, ii. 72-81.
-
-  HASTINGS. Clark, ii. 82-88.
-
-  —— Dawson, C., F.S.A. History of Hastings Castle. 2 vols. London,
-    1909.
-
-  HAWARDEN. Clark, ii. 88-99.
-
-  HELMSLEY. Clark, ii. 100-8.
-
-  KENILWORTH. Clark, ii. 130-53.
-
-  —— Knowles, E. H. The Castle of Kenilworth. Warwick, 1872.
-
-  KENTISH CASTLES. Sands, Harold. Some Kentish Castles (_Memorials of
-    Old Kent_, 1907).
-
-  KIDWELLY. Clark, ii. 153-62.
-
-  KNARESBOROUGH. Clark, ii. 168-76.
-
-  LANCASHIRE CASTLES. Fishwick, H. Lancashire castles (_Lancs. and
-    Chesh. Antiq. Soc._, xix. 45-76).
-
-  LANCASTER. Cox, E. W. (_Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire_, new ser.,
-    xii. 95-122).
-
-  LANGLEY. Bates, C. J. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, x. 38-56).
-
-  LEEDS. Clark, ii. 176-8.
-
-  —— James, F. V. (_Archaeologia Cantiana_, xxv. pp. xlix-liii).
-
-  LEICESTER. Clark, ii. 182-8.
-
-  —— Thompson, James. Leicester Castle. Leicester, 1859.
-
-  LEWES. Clark (_Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xxxiv. 57-70).
-
-  LINCOLN. Clark, ii. 189-201.
-
-  —— Sympson, E. Mansel, M.D. Lincoln, a historical and topographical
-    account of the city. London, 1906.
-
-  LLANSTEPHAN. Williams, Sir John (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 6th ser.,
-    vii. 108-18).
-
-  LONDON, TOWER OF. Clark, ii. 203-72.
-
-  —— Sands, H., F.S.A. (_Memorials of Old London_, London, 1908, vol.
-    i. 27-65).
-
-  LUDLOW. Clark, ii. 273-90.
-
-  —— Hope, W. H. St John (_Archæologia_, lxi. 258-328).
-
-  LUMLEY. Dodd, J. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, xxii. 45, 46).
-
-  MANORBIER. Duckett, Sir J. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 4th ser., xi.
-    134-145, 286-91, xiii. 166-73).
-
-  MIDDLEHAM. Clark, ii. 293-300.
-
-  MITFORD. Clark, ii. 300-3.
-
-  MONTGOMERY. Clark, ii. 303-12.
-
-  MONT-ST-MICHEL. Corroyer, E. Description de l’abbaye du
-    Mont-Saint-Michel et de ses abords. Paris, 1877.
-
-  —— Massé, H. J. L. J. A short history and description ... of Mont S.
-    Michel. London, 1902.
-
-  NEWARK-ON-TRENT. Blagg, T. M., F.S.A. A Guide to Newark, 2nd ed.,
-    1911.
-
-  NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE. Bates, C. J. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, ix. 120-9).
-
-  —— Heslop, R. O., F.S.A. (_ibid._, xxv. 91-105; _Journal of British
-    Archaeol. Assoc._, new ser., xii. 137-8, 214-5).
-
-  —— The Castle of Newcastle, a short descriptive guide. Newcastle,
-    1906 (4th ed.).
-
-  NORHAM. Bates, C. J. (_Archaeologia Æliana_, v. 52-5).
-
-  —— Clark, ii. 322-35.
-
-  —— Jerningham, Sir H. E. H. Norham Castle. Edinburgh, 1883.
-
-  NORTHAMPTON. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, iii. 309-32).
-
-  NORTHUMBRIAN CASTLES. Bates, Cadwallader J. The Border Holds of
-    Northumberland (_Archaeologia Æliana_ [Newcastle-on-Tyne], xv.
-    1-465).
-
-  —— Hartshorne, C. H. Feudal and military antiquities of
-    Northumberland and the Scottish Borders (_Memoirs of Brit. Archaeol.
-    Inst._, Newcastle, vol. 2, 1858).
-
-  NORWICH. Hartshorne, A., F.S.A. (_Archaeol. Journal_, xlvi. 260-8).
-
-  —— The Walls of Norwich (report of corporation). Norwich, 1910.
-
-  NOTTINGHAM. Green, Emanuel, F.S.A. (_Archaeol. Journal_, lviii.
-    365-97).
-
-  OAKHAM. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, v. 124-42).
-
-  —— Thompson, A. Hamilton, F.S.A. (_Rutland Magazine_, v. 80-88).
-
-  ODIHAM. Clark, ii. 336-45.
-
-  OLD SARUM. Clark, ii. 447-458.
-
-  —— Hope, W. H. St John, and Hawley, Lt.-Col. W., in _Proc. Soc.
-    Antiq._, 2nd ser., xxiii. 190-200 and 501-17.
-
-  ORFORD. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeologia_, xxix. 60-9).
-
-  —— Redstone, V. B. (_Trans. Suffolk Archaeol. Inst._, x. 205-30).
-
-  OXFORD. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, viii. 354-65).
-
-  —— Hope, W. H. St John (_ibid._, lxvii. 363-6).
-
-  —— Lynam, Charles. The Crypts of the Churches of St Peter in the
-    East, and of St George within the Castle, Oxford (_ibid._, lxviii.
-    203-17).
-
-  PEAK CASTLE. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journ._, v. 207-16).
-
-  —— Hope, W. H. St John (_Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc._, xi. 120-6).
-
-  —— Kirke, Henry (_Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xxviii.
-    134-46).
-
-  PEMBROKE. Clark (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 3rd series, v. 1-13,
-    etc.; vi. 1-11, etc.; vii. 185-204).
-
-  —— Cobb, J. R. (_ibid._, 4th series, xiv. 196-220, 264-73).
-
-  PEVENSEY. Clark, ii. 359-67.
-
-  —— Salzmann, L. F. (_Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xlix. 1-30, etc.).
-
-  PICKERING. Clark, ii. 368-75.
-
-  PONTEFRACT. Clark, ii. 375-88.
-
-  —— Hartshorne, C. H., _Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, xx. 136-55).
-
-  PORCHESTER. Clark, ii. 388-400.
-
-  PRUDHOE. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  RABY. Scott, O. S., Raby, its Castle and its Lords. Barnard Castle,
-    1908.
-
-  RAGLAN. Beattie, W. (_Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._, ix. 215-30).
-
-  —— Bradney, J. A. (_Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc._, xx. 76-87).
-
-  RICHMOND. Clark (_Yorkshire Archæol. Journal_, ix. 33-54).
-
-  —— Curwen, J. F., (_Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol.
-    Soc._, vi. 326-32).
-
-  —— _Yorks Archæol. Journal_, xx. 132-3.
-
-  RISING. Beloe, E. M., F.S.A. (_Norfolk Archaeology_, xii. 164-89).
-
-  —— Clark, i. 364-77.
-
-  ROCHESTER. Beattie, W. (_Journal Archaeol. Assoc._, ix. 215-30).
-
-  —— Clark, ii. 405-23.
-
-  ROCHESTER. Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, xx. 205-23).
-
-  —— Payne, G. (_Archaeologia Cantiana_, xxvii. 177-92).
-
-  ROCKINGHAM. Bigge, H. J. (_Assoc. Archit. Soc. Reports_, xi. 109-18).
-
-  —— Clark, ii. 423-46.
-
-  —— Hartshorne, C. H. (_Archaeol. Journal_, i. 356-78); and privately
-    printed, Oxford, 1852.
-
-  —— Wise, C. Rockingham Castle and the Watsons. London, 1891.
-
-  SANDAL. Walker, J. W., F.S.A. (_Yorks Archæol. Journal_, xiii.
-    154-88).
-
-  SCARBOROUGH. Clark, ii. 458-67.
-
-  —— Stevenson, W. H. (_East Riding Antiq. Soc._, xiv. 13-17).
-
-  SKENFRITH. Bagnall-Oakeley, E. (_Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc._,
-    xx. 93-6).
-
-  —— Clark, ii. 467-72.
-
-  SOUTHAMPTON (town walls). Clark, ii. 472-81.
-
-  —— Hope, W. H. St John (_Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd series, xvii. 221-4).
-
-  STOKESAY. De la Touche, G. (_Journal British Archaeol. Assoc._, xxiv.
-    238-40).
-
-  —— J. G. D. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, xvi. 299-304).
-
-  SUFFOLK CASTLES. Redstone, V. B. Suffolk Castles (_Suffolk Archaeol.
-    Inst._, xi. 301-19).
-
-  SUSSEX CASTLES. Blaauw, W. H. Royal licences to fortify towns and
-    houses in Sussex (_Sussex Archaeol. Collections_, xiii. 104-17).
-
-  SWANSEA. Capper, C. (_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 5th series, iii.
-    302-7).
-
-  TAMWORTH. Clark, ii. 481-8.
-
-  TATTERSHALL. Sympson, E. Mansel (_Memorials of Old Lincolnshire_,
-    1911, pp. 179-97).
-
-  TICKHILL. Clark, ii. 494-9.
-
-  TRETOWER. Clark, ii. 499-503.
-
-  TUTBURY. Clark, ii. 505-8.
-
-  WARK. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  WARKWORTH. Bates, _Border Holds_.
-
-  WELLS (bishop’s palace). Davis, C. E. (_Journal British Archaeol.
-    Assoc._, xiii. 177-86).
-
-  WINGFIELD. Cox, J. C. (_Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc._, viii. 65-78).
-
-  —— Edmunds, W. H. Guide to Wingfield Manor.
-
-  YORK. Clark, ii. 534-48 (The Defences of York).
-
-  —— Cooper, T. P. York, The Story of its Walls and Castles. London,
-    1904.
-
-  —— —— The Castle of York. London, 1912.
-
-  YORKSHIRE CASTLES. Thompson, A. Hamilton. The Castles of Yorkshire
-    (_Memorials of Old Yorkshire_, 1909, pp. 236-64).
-
-
-
-
-MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND DURING THE MIDDLE AGES
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER I
-
-EARLY EARTHWORKS AND ROMAN STATIONS
-
-
-The history of military fortification in England begins with those
-strongholds which, at vast expense of labour, the early inhabitants
-of Britain hewed out of the soil, surrounding defensible positions
-with ramparts of earth, divided by deep fosses. The approximate date
-of these earthworks can be determined only by excavation, and a vast
-amount of work remains to be done in this direction. The number,
-however, of those which can be proved to be earlier than the Roman
-occupation is very large; and, of this number, a considerable portion,
-including some of the most stupendous examples of fortified hill-camps,
-may have been the work of neolithic man some two thousand years before
-the Christian era. Relative dates in this connection concern us less
-than principles of fortification. The hill-camps of pre-Roman Britain
-may be divided roughly into two classes. In the first place, there
-are those which occupy the summit of a promontory of high land, which
-slopes so steeply on all sides but one that artificial defence is
-necessary on that side alone. The second class is that of the so-called
-“contour forts,” in which the summit of a hill is utilised for the
-camp, and encircled by trenches following the contour of the ground.
-
-[Illustration: Maiden Castle]
-
-In each case the defences provided by the inhabitants consist of
-earthen banks, the materials of which have been dug from the fosses or
-ditches which surround their outer face. An earthen bank and fosse,
-thrown across the neck of land between the promontory and the plateau
-beyond, convert the extremity of the promontory into a fortified
-enclosure. Well-known examples of such fortresses are the three camps,
-one on the east and two on the west side of the river, which guarded
-the valley of the Avon at Clifton. The labour necessary for the
-construction of these was naturally far less than that which went to
-the making of the great contour fortresses, of which so many splendid
-examples remain in Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset, and in the chalk
-districts generally. In these cases, the whole area, or at any rate the
-greater part of it, stood in need of entrenchment. There are points
-at which the slope is so precipitous that the bank and ditch were
-dispensed with, or, as in part of Cissbury camp near Worthing, only a
-single bank or ditch was necessary.[1] Also, the steeper the ground,
-the less was the labour required in constructing the entrenchments.
-But these positions often took the form of enclosures surrounded by
-double or triple lines of defence, often of stupendous size. For the
-greater part of its extent, the _vallum_ or bank of the oval camp of
-Cissbury is double, and along the outer edge of the encircling fosse
-is a formidable counterscarp or parapet. Poundbury, which lies on the
-high ground west of Dorchester, has a single bank and ditch on its east
-and south sides. On the west side the bank is doubled; but the north
-side, where the hill falls almost perpendicularly to the Frome, was
-left without artificial defence. The superb fortress of Maiden Castle
-(2), which crowns an isolated hill, 432 feet high, south of Dorchester,
-shows a bewildering complication of plan. The oval central space is
-ringed by a number of banks and ditches, which varies from three on the
-north side to as many as eight about the western entrance.
-
-[Illustration: Maiden Castle; plan]
-
-These early camps form merely the preface to our subject, and attention
-need be called only to some general features. Their character, like
-that of the medieval town or castle, was strictly defensive. They
-were the strongholds of races whose weapons were of a very primitive
-description, and could carry to no great range. What their inhabitants
-needed was an impregnable fortress, within which they and their herds
-could be well sheltered from attack. They belong to a day before siege
-operations were possible. To carry them, a determined onset and a
-hand-to-hand fight were necessary. Their strength therefore depended
-on the complexity of their defences. No enemy could hope to scale the
-flanking banks of Maiden Castle, one by one. The entrances to the camp,
-at its eastern and western ends (3), were so elaborately concealed
-by the overlapping ramparts, that even on a ground-plan they are far
-from obvious; and it was almost inevitable that an attacking force,
-without a guide acquainted with the ground, would be decoyed into a
-_cul-de-sac_ and overwhelmed by the missiles of the defenders on the
-ramparts.
-
-[Illustration: Old Sarum
-
-(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_ by kind permission
-of Messrs Macmillan & Co.)]
-
-The steepness of the bank itself constituted a formidable means of
-defence. At Maiden Castle the great northern banks rise to a height
-of 60 feet or more. The top of the outer bank of Old Sarum (4) is
-106 feet above the level of the ditch below.[2] In many cases, and
-probably in all, the inner bank was crowned by a stockade, consisting
-of a series of upright stakes, between and round which was twined an
-impenetrable hedge of thorns. The plateau or berm which was sometimes
-left behind the parapet of the bank, where there was more than a single
-bank and ditch, was a valuable asset to the defenders of prehistoric
-strongholds, forming an advance post from which they were able to wield
-their missiles freely; while sometimes the summit of one or more of the
-outer banks was made for the same purpose into a broad platform, which
-allowed greater freedom of movement. The parapet or counterscarp of
-the outer ditch was probably defended by a stockade, and it is known
-that in some cases sharpened stakes or stones were fixed firmly in the
-bottom of the ditches.
-
-[Illustration: Bury Ditches]
-
-The impregnable character of the _enceinte_ was thus ensured. But
-further skill was necessary to defend the entrances of the camp. Of
-these there was usually more than one, and these were necessarily
-formed by cuttings through the banks. As in the case of Maiden Castle,
-the path of entry could be converted into a labyrinth by multiplying
-the banks and ditches. Every inch of this circuitous path is guarded
-by tall ramparts: there are seven or eight points in its course at
-which fatal error was possible, and one at any rate where an attacking
-army could hardly fail to rush securely upon destruction. The eastern
-entrance is so guarded by transverse banks that the path is almost
-equally difficult to find. It was seldom, however, that entrances were
-so elaborately protected. At Old Sarum the western entrance is covered
-by a semicircular outwork, on the flanks of which are the two inlets to
-the passage through the outer _vallum_. On the east side the entrance
-is through a narrow passage which runs for some distance between the
-parapet of the outer ditch and an outwork, and is at right angles
-to the actual passage through the bank. The most common method of
-defending the entrance was to make a diagonal path, usually from right
-to left, through the banks. Each bank would thus overlap the next: the
-summits above the path would be broadened out into platforms, capable
-of occupation by bodies of defenders; and the right flank of the
-enemy, unprotected by shields, would be exposed to their missiles. The
-entrance, however, might be substantially protected by giving an inward
-curve to the inner bank on each side of the path; and this is a plan
-very frequently employed.[3] Where outworks were specially constructed,
-their form differs considerably: we have seen them employed in two ways
-at Old Sarum—as a kind of horn-work thrown out in front of a passage,
-and as a spur projecting at right angles in front of an entrance. In
-both cases an absolutely straight approach is precluded. Occasionally,
-where an approximately direct approach was permitted, it is guarded on
-one side by a spur thrown out at right angles to the bank. At Blackbury
-castle, an early earthwork in south Devon, the main entrance has a
-straight approach guarded on either side by a triangular outwork, which
-is formed by a most ingenious arrangement of banks and by prolongations
-of the main ditch (7). At the actual entrance the main bank is curved
-outwards, with broad platforms at the top. The hollow interiors of the
-outworks might serve as guard-houses, or the attacking force could
-be driven into them from the gateway of the fort, and penned in a
-position from which escape was impossible. Sometimes hollows were made
-in the bank or in a projecting outwork near the gateway to serve as
-guard-houses. On either side of the main entrance, the bank was often
-slightly raised. At least one instance is known in which the main gate
-was concealed by making a break in another part of the rampart, and
-raising the bank on either side. The enemy, making for this point,
-would miss the real entrance, and run the risk of losing his life in a
-_cul-de-sac_ purposely constructed within the rampart.
-
-[Illustration: Blackbury Castle
-
-(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_ by kind permission
-of Messrs Macmillan & Co.)]
-
-In these fortresses, the defences of which were due to instinctive
-skill in the face of constant danger, it is impossible not to recognise
-how many of the most scientific features of medieval fortification
-were anticipated. The concentric plan of Caerphilly castle (270), with
-its easy provisions of egress, and its difficulty of access; the spurs
-which guard the approaches to Beaumaris (277) and Conway castles; the
-barbicans which form so prominent a defence of Alnwick castle (243),
-and the gateways of York have prototypes, of which their engineers were
-probably unconscious, in the huge earthworks of prehistoric Britain.
-Through a long interval, in which military art pursued a very gradual
-evolution, the wheel came full circle. The devices of the earthwork
-builders were translated into stone with far greater economy of labour.
-
-Although the most conspicuous examples of early earthwork are found in
-hill fortresses, camps were not confined to hilly sites, nor were their
-defences always composed of earthwork. There are districts where the
-hard nature of the soil forbade the construction of earthen banks and
-fosses; and consequently there are many camps which are surrounded by
-walls of rough uncemented stone, originally kept in place by facings
-and bondings of larger and smoother stones.[4] These camps are usually
-not large. They occur very commonly in the north of England: a good
-example is that known as the Castles, in the valley of the Bedburn,
-seven or eight miles west of Bishop Auckland. The enclosure, situated
-on a boggy slope, is surrounded by shapeless masses of _débris_, the
-ruins of the dry-built ring wall, which has lost its facing and so
-has fallen to pieces. Stone was also used in the ramparts of some of
-the camps on the rocky hills of Somerset, as in the camps on either
-side of the Avon at Clifton. The great fortress of Worlebury, above
-Weston-super-Mare, was surrounded by an immense wall of uncemented
-stone, brought to great thickness by building several walls, each with
-its own set of facing stones, up against each other. On its eastern
-front, separated from the main rampart by a deep ditch, cut in the
-solid rock, was another wall of stone; and this again was protected by
-a series of outer earthworks (9). Dolebury, at the western extremity
-of the Mendips, is surrounded by a double wall of loose limestone.[5]
-In these cases, as in the Welsh strongholds of Penmaenmawr and Tre’r
-Ceiri, geological conditions made the earthen bank an impossibility,
-and the stone of the neighbourhood took its place.
-
-[Illustration: Worlebury
-
-(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s _Earthwork of England_, by kind permission
-of Messrs Macmillan & Co.)]
-
-It has often been argued that these prehistoric fortresses were merely
-places of refuge, to which, in time of war, the dwellers in the levels
-below betook themselves and their flocks. But it is much more probable
-that they were the permanent habitations of communities, not merely
-camps, but fixed settlements, chosen for habitation on account of their
-strong position, and gradually fortified by labour which may have been
-the work, in the more elaborate examples, of many generations. The
-need of permanent protection for themselves and their flocks and herds
-seems to have been felt by the early inhabitants of Britain to such an
-extent that their regular settlements naturally took the semblance
-of fortified camps. This is very evident in the case of those camps
-which are found in positions where the natural advantages are very
-small—positions which might be chosen by people in search of an abode,
-but would hardly be chosen merely as a refuge. Camps in these positions
-are never so imposing as those which crown hill-tops: the labour of
-excavating the ditches and heaping up the banks was not aided by the
-natural slope of a hill, and the earthworks, being slighter and nearer
-the more recent haunts of men, are more liable to destruction. But the
-defensive nature of such settlements is unmistakable.
-
-The Roman invaders brought to England new methods of military
-construction and the tradition of an architecture of dressed and
-cemented stone. Their whole system of warfare was far in advance of
-that pursued by the British tribes. They had developed the art of
-siege to a high pitch. Their operations in open field were orderly and
-scientific. Their walled strongholds were constructed with a view which
-took into account, not only the mere strength of the ramparts, but
-also the capacity of the defenders to man them. Men, not fortresses,
-were the main asset of Roman warfare; and consequently their earthwork
-was far less imposing than that of the Britons of the prehistoric age.
-Their camps and permanent stations were usually surrounded by a single
-fosse of no great depth: the rare cases in which traces remain of more
-than a single fosse are camps upon the exposed northern frontier of
-Roman Britain, where the onrush of the barbarian enemy was stayed by
-a series of trenches, either covered with brushwood or filled with
-sharp stones or stakes. Camps were hastily constructed of earthwork;
-bank, ditch, and parapet playing their part. But where a camp became
-a permanent station a stone wall took the place of the earthen bank.
-The most important relic of the Roman occupation in Britain, the great
-frontier wall from the Tyne to the Solway, was preceded by a _vallum_
-of turf, a temporary defence which was superseded by permanent masonry.
-
-No system of connected operations can be traced between prehistoric
-forts. Each of these was probably an isolated stronghold. Roman
-stations, on the other hand, were military posts manned by detachments
-of one army, and connected by strategic roads. This is seen very
-clearly in the case of the great wall already mentioned. The wall can
-be traced for about 73 miles, from Wallsend (Segedunum) on the Tyne
-to Bowness on the Solway. It is built in the usual Roman method, with
-a core of cemented rubble between ashlar facings. Its breadth varies
-between 7 and 9½ feet: the height appears to have been originally
-from 16 to 18 feet.[6] Its northern face is defended by a ditch, marked
-_a_ in the section below; but, as it follows the highest ground in its
-course, and runs for some distance along the edge of basaltic cliffs
-which dip northward, the ditch at these points becomes unnecessary and
-is dispensed with. There were twenty-three stations in its length,
-each garrisoned by a cohort of infantry or squadron of cavalry, chosen
-from the Roman auxiliary troops of Gauls, Spaniards, Moors, &c.[7]
-These were connected by a paved military road (_c_) along the south
-side of the wall. At distances of a Roman mile from one another were
-placed rectangular forts, now known as mile-castles, built against
-the wall upon its south side; and the interval between each of these
-was strengthened further by turrets, apparently two in number, which
-also projected southward, but encroached slightly upon the thickness
-of the wall. The south side of the military road was defended by an
-earthen _vallum_, marked _d_,[8] the course of which is not directly
-parallel to the wall, but is in places as much as half a mile distant,
-keeping to lower ground where the wall prefers the summit of the basalt
-ridge. This bank has a ditch (_e_) on its southern side, divided from
-it by a level space or berm: the ditch has a southern parapet (_f_),
-and another bank beyond (_g_). In certain places the ditch has also a
-northern parapet; but the general arrangement of the earthen ramparts
-is as described. Of the controversy as to the relative date of the wall
-and its flanking earthworks nothing need be said here. Its military
-purpose is abundantly clear. It provided not only a strong means of
-defence against the attacks of the northern tribes, but a base of
-operations for offensive warfare. Each of the stations and mile-castles
-has a northern gateway in addition to its other entrances; and two of
-the Roman roads which met the wall at intervals from the south passed
-through it on their way to the Scottish border.
-
-[Illustration: Section of Roman Wall and _Vallum_.]
-
-The object of the great system of Roman roads was purely military.[9]
-Along these broad paved “streets” the troops from the various stations
-could be mobilised with great quickness. They kept as a rule to high
-ground, choosing a convenient ridge, like that which runs from end to
-end of Lincolnshire, and preserving as straight a line as possible.
-The most important stations were placed at the crossing of rivers or
-at the junction of roads. In the early days of the Roman occupation,
-the operations of the army were directed entirely against the native
-tribes. No system of coast defence was adopted. The necessity for
-this came later, when Britain, under Roman dominion, was attacked by
-bodies of Saxon pirates. A chain of fortresses was then constructed
-along what was known as the Saxon shore, from Branodunum (Brancaster)
-in north Norfolk to Portus Adurni in Sussex or Hampshire. The remains
-of the walls of Gariannonum (Burgh Castle in Suffolk), Rutupiae
-(Richborough in Kent), Anderida (Pevensey in Sussex), and Portus Magnus
-(Porchester in Hampshire), are, next to the great wall, perhaps the
-most interesting relics of the Roman epoch which we possess. The forts
-of the Saxon shore were placed, for the most part, at the mouths of
-estuaries, for which the foreign pirates would naturally make.
-
-[Illustration: Cilurnum]
-
-In several cases a Roman station was founded on the site of a British
-settlement. It was, however, more compact in plan, and occupied only
-a portion of the site. The earthworks defending the west side of the
-settlement which preceded Camulodunum (Colchester) are two to three
-miles beyond the Roman wall of the city, which occupied merely the
-north-east angle of a very large and straggling enclosure. The original
-Roman station at Lincoln may be taken as a typical example of a walled
-town of this epoch.[10] It was a rectangular enclosure, with its longer
-axis from east to west, occupying the south-west angle of the high
-ridge above the valley of the Witham. In each of the four walls was a
-gateway. The inner arch and the postern, with part of the side walls,
-of the northern gateway still remain, and of the southern gateway there
-are still substantial fragments; the line of the street which led from
-one to the other is still fairly, though not accurately, preserved.
-The positions of the east and west gateways are known: the line of the
-street from the east gate to the centre of the city was deflected in
-the middle ages, but its continuation to the west gate is represented
-by the course of a street, much widened in modern times. Close to the
-meeting of the four streets was the market-place or _forum_. This, in
-the early days of Roman Lincoln, was the _praetorium_, or military
-headquarters of the camp. But the legion quartered at Lincoln was
-removed to York, as it seems, in the time of Vespasian, and the city
-settled down to a civil and commercial existence. Round the _forum_
-were clustered the chief public buildings of the city, and the
-foundations of a large colonnaded building are still to be seen below
-the present ground level. At Gloucester, Chichester, and Chester, the
-course of the four main streets has been little, if at all, disturbed,
-and their present meeting-place nearly represents the centre of the
-Roman city. The arrangements of the _forum_ of a Romano-British town
-have been made out very clearly by the excavations at Calleva Atrebatum
-(Silchester) in Hampshire.[11] It was a closed rectangle, entered by
-a gateway and surrounded by public buildings, in front of which were
-colonnades; one side at Silchester was occupied by a great basilica,
-which served the purposes of a hall of justice and mercantile exchange.
-
-[Illustration: Borcovicus]
-
-The stations on the Roman wall were of a more purely military character
-than the towns which have been mentioned. They have the general
-characteristic of a rectangular plan, with the angles rounded off, and
-with a gateway, flanked by guard-houses, in each of the four sides. In
-the two largest stations, however, Amboglanna (Birdoswald) and Cilurnum
-(Chesters), there were, in addition to the main gateways, two smaller
-gateways in the east and west walls respectively.[12] The walls of
-the stations are generally 5 feet thick, and are built, like the wall
-itself, of a core of cemented rubble, with facings of dressed stone.
-The main gateways have a double passage, divided by a longitudinal
-wall, which is pierced by a narrow passage in the centre. Their inner
-and outer openings were spanned by arches, and closed by gates which
-were hung on iron pivots fixed in the jamb of each opening next the
-wall. At Borcovicus (Housesteads) there was no dividing wall through
-the passage between the outer and inner openings of the gateway; but
-each of these openings is composed of two arches, divided by a square
-pier (15).[13] Each gateway had a stone sill, raised above the level
-of the stone pavement. The interior passage was flanked by rectangular
-guard-houses. The gateways of Borcovicus show interesting signs of
-reconstruction, which point to the fact that, not long after its
-construction, the station was seized by an enemy. At a subsequent time,
-its Roman occupants reduced the width of the gateways by walling up
-one half of the double openings. This was done apparently at different
-times, the east gateway bearing signs of being treated in this way
-at an earlier period than the others. The west gateway was walled up
-with great ingenuity. Of its outer entrances, the northern, and of its
-inner entrances, the southern, were blocked; so that a foe, choosing
-this face of the station for attack, had to press his way through an
-elbow-shaped, instead of a straight passage.
-
-[Illustration: Borcovicus; West Gateway]
-
-[Illustration: Pevensey]
-
-The wall of a Roman station, between the gateways, was often flanked
-by a series of towers, each projecting from the wall in the form of
-a semicircle or rather more than a semicircle. This was the case
-in some of the large Gallo-Roman cities, like Autun.[14] While the
-rounded form of these towers made them difficult to undermine or
-batter down, their summits served as standing-ground for the large
-_ballistae_ or catapults, from which javelins or stones could be
-hurled upon the attacking force. Their projection at regular intervals
-made it possible for the defenders to command the whole line of wall
-between each pair of towers; so that the besiegers’ attack would
-necessarily be concentrated upon the towers themselves. At Pevensey
-(16), where the enclosure of the station is almost oval, and not, as
-usual, rectangular, in shape, there are remains of twelve solid round
-towers, including those which flank the south-western gateway. At
-Burgh Castle there are four towers in the east wall, two of which are
-angle-towers.[15] Owing to the scarcity of good building stone in the
-district, the walls at Burgh Castle are unfaced, and are built of flint
-with bonding courses of tiles; only the upper portions of the towers
-were bonded into the walls. A bed of concrete, with a platform of oak
-planks above, formed the foundation of the towers.[16] The angles of
-the wall of Roman York were strengthened by large polygonal towers. A
-large portion of one of these, a magnificent example of Roman masonry,
-remains; it formed the north-western angle of the city, and was hollow,
-with an internal as well as an external projection (17). No outward
-projections appear to occur upon the Roman wall or in the walls of
-its stations. The “mile-castles,” as already noted, are built against
-the inner side of the wall. At Cilurnum (13) and Borcovicus there
-are foundations of square towers against and inside the containing
-walls, while the angles of the stations are simply rounded off. The
-western part of the north wall of Borcovicus has also been doubled in
-thickness, apparently to give a safe foundation for a large catapult
-planted on the top of the wall. The thickening was accomplished, at
-a date later than the original building, by constructing an inner
-wall, and filling up the space between this and the outer rampart with
-clay. At Cilurnum, which appears to have been in existence before the
-great frontier wall was made, the original east and west gateways were
-left on the north side of the wall, which intersects the station.
-As they were thus insufficiently protected, they were filled up
-solid with masses of rubble, and were probably used as platforms for
-catapults,[17] smaller gateways being made on the south side of the
-wall.
-
-[Illustration: York; Multangular Tower]
-
-[Illustration: Borcovicus; Praetorium]
-
-In the interior of the station, as at Lincoln, York, and Borcovicus,
-the main street, or _via principalis_, led directly from the north
-to the south gate.[18] The centre of the station, west of the _via
-principalis_, was occupied by the _praetorium_, the headquarters
-of the commander of the legion, answering to the space where, in a
-temporary camp, the tents of the general and his staff were pitched.
-As we have seen, the place of the _praetorium_ was taken in commercial
-towns by the _forum_. The _praetorium_ at Borcovicus consisted of two
-rectangular courts, open to the sky in the centre. The outer court,
-with its main entrance facing the eastern street or _via praetoria_,
-was surrounded on three sides by a colonnade. A doorway, immediately
-opposite the main entrance, opened into the eastern colonnade of the
-inner court. This had no northern or southern colonnades, but had
-doorways to north and south: its western side was occupied by a line
-of five rectangular chambers, the central one of which was the chapel
-where the standards, with the other sacred treasures belonging to the
-cohort,[19] were kept. The _praetorium_ faced the eastern street of
-the station, which led to the east gate or _porta praetoria_. The gate
-at the end of the western street was called _porta decumana_.[20]
-The remaining buildings of the station consisted of straight blocks,
-intersected by lanes: the majority of these buildings would be used as
-barracks. It should be noted that, in the planning of a Roman station
-or walled town, the _praetorium_ or _forum_ was taken as the central
-point: the _via principalis_, in order to run clear from gate to gate,
-was thus on one side of an axis of the rectangle, and the north and
-south gates[21] were not in the centre of their respective walls.
-
-It is clear that, as time went on and the power of Rome in Britain
-grew weaker, the defensive character of the great wall and that of the
-stations which it connected were emphasised at the expense of their
-character as bases of active warfare. But it must be repeated that
-Roman stations in Britain were not planned to form impregnable shelters
-for communities mainly pastoral. They were centres for bodies of
-fighting men, linked to each other by a splendid system of roads. The
-Roman station at Dorchester, the lines of which are so well preserved
-to-day, was founded, not within the ramparts of Maiden Castle or
-Poundbury, but on the lower slopes near the passage of the Frome. The
-single rampart and single ditch of a Roman town were almost invariable.
-Free egress as well as entrance, provisions for attack as well as
-defence, were necessary; and, with these objects in view, immense
-earthen defences, such as those of Maiden Castle, would be cumbersome.
-Bodies of Roman troops, as at Lincoln or Colchester, occasionally
-occupied part of the _enceinte_ of a British settlement; but it is very
-rarely that, as in the case of Old Sarum, we find a British hill fort
-which also probably served as a Roman station. In this instance, the
-occupation of the fort was due, doubtless, to its neighbourhood to the
-military road: the road would not have been brought out of its way to
-include the fort in its course. Roman stations, although they differed
-in size, were small and compact, when contrasted with the large and
-straggling areas occupied by the British settlers. Suburbs naturally
-grew up outside their walls, and sometimes, although not very often,
-the walled enclosure was extended to include a growing outer district.
-This is supposed by many antiquaries to have happened at Lincoln, where
-the original Roman station occupied the summit of the hill north of
-the great bend of the Witham, which here turns from its northerly
-course due eastward. After the city of Lincoln had settled down to
-civil life, practically the whole slope of the hill south of the first
-_enceinte_ was included within the city and encircled by a wall.
-Part of the east wall of this later enclosure is still visible: the
-Stonebow, the medieval south gate of the city, about a hundred yards
-from the river and the bridge, appears to be on the site of the later
-south gateway of Roman Lincoln.[22]
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER II
-
-THE SAXON AND DANISH PERIOD
-
-
-The Saxon invasions were a rude disturbance to the progress of English
-civilisation. The Romanised Britons lay more and more at the mercy of
-the invaders, as the soldiery were called away to take part in the last
-struggles of the western Empire in Italy. Barbarians from the country
-north of the wall, Saxon and Jutish pirates from across the sea, saw
-in the monuments of the Roman occupation fair ground for pillage.
-It is difficult to estimate the destruction caused by the invaders.
-But, apart from the havoc wrought by the Teutonic immigrants and the
-northern tribes, it is certain that the walled city of Roman times
-did not commend itself as a habitation to the new settlers. The fact
-that their settlements flank Roman roads, like Ermine street or the
-Fosseway, at distances of a mile or so from the main thoroughfare,
-proves little in itself; for the villas of the Roman period, which
-probably included, like the _latifundia_ of Italy, a considerable
-population of labourers on each estate, lay at some distance from
-the main roads. The frequent villages—hams, tuns, and worths—were,
-however, a new feature; and the life of each village, for which a
-clearing was made in the wooded country-side, was pastoral, not
-military. This fact is of importance with regard to the scanty traces
-of defensive fortifications constructed during the Saxon occupation.
-Here and there natural opportunities prompted the Saxon invaders to
-found settlements on sites of Roman cities. The geographical position
-of London or Exeter, at the head of a broad estuary, made such places
-natural centres of traffic, of high importance to trade routes. On the
-other hand, while some of the larger provincial capitals preserved
-their life in part, other _urbes_ and the smaller _oppida_, or walled
-towns, were left desolate. Pons Aelii, near the east end of the Roman
-wall, was abandoned until in the tenth century a small monastery was
-founded on the site, and the cluster of houses which gathered round it
-received the name of Muncanceaster (Monkchester). The place, however,
-did not recover its importance or become a permanent settlement
-until the Conqueror founded there his New Castle on the Tyne, which
-became the nucleus of the city of the middle ages and modern times.
-The military stations of the Saxon shore were ruined and abandoned.
-We know of the sack of Anderida in 492 A.D.: the walls of the station
-were left standing, but the later settlement of Pevensey grew up in
-the open country outside the walls. Richborough, Othona at the mouth
-of the Blackwater, Burgh Castle, sheltered no new settlements: the new
-villages or towns, Sandwich, Bradwell, Burgh, were all at a distance
-from the Roman walls or outside their area. Othona (Ythanceaster) was
-deserted when Cedd made it a missionary centre in the seventh century;
-and the little church, which exists to-day and may have been Cedd’s own
-church, was built across the site of the east gate of the station. In
-Leicester, which became an important Danish centre, the topography of
-the Roman station was much disturbed, and the church of St Nicholas,
-the nave of which is probably a little earlier than the Norman
-conquest, was built within the walls directly in front of the blocked
-west gate of the city. Towns like Chester, Gloucester, or Chichester,
-which have preserved the line of their Roman streets with little
-alteration, are rare; and the continuity of plan does not necessarily
-prove that there was a similar continuity in the life of the places.
-On the contrary, the present lay-out of either town shows four streets
-meeting at an open space or Carfax in the centre of the city: no trace
-remains above ground of the closed _forum_, which at Silchester and
-Corstopitum formed the centre of the plan and directed the course of
-the streets. Silchester, laid waste by Saxon invaders, has shared the
-fate of Anderida, Othona, and many other once prosperous Romano-British
-towns.
-
-In French history there was no such interruption as the Saxon invasion
-caused in our own. The consequence is that the chief provincial
-capitals of to-day, the centres of local government and religion, are
-and always have been cities of Roman origin, which, although their
-Latin name has not always been kept, preserve the names of the Gallic
-tribes amid which they were founded. Reims, Paris, Amiens, Beauvais,
-Bourges, Le Mans, Tours, Rouen, Sens, Troyes, Chartres, cities which
-have taken a most prominent place in French history, and contain
-the most noble monuments of French religious architecture, have an
-unbroken history from Roman times and even earlier. The cathedrals
-of Christianised Gaul rose in the centre of the cities: outside the
-walls, as time went on, rose abbeys like those of Saint-Ouen at
-Rouen, Saint-Taurin at Evreux, La Couture and Le Pré at Le Mans. The
-fortresses of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, like the older
-castle of Rouen, were founded in a corner of the city, possibly on
-the site of the Roman _arx_ or citadel, of which we have substantial
-remains in the abandoned Roman station of Jublains (Naeodunum
-Diablintum). In time the city grew, extending into suburbs far
-outside the original walls: a suburb sprang up round the neighbouring
-monastery. The circuit of the walls was extended beyond their old
-limit. The eastern Roman wall might be broken down, as at Le Mans,
-where the cathedral was in a corner of the city, to make way for the
-thirteenth-century quire of the principal church:[23] the defences of
-the city were here transferred to a new outer ring of wall, the line of
-which can be seen on the bank of the Sarthe. Within the present extent
-of such cities the plan of the Roman station can frequently be traced:
-whatever the vicissitudes of the place may have been, no year has
-passed in which the chatter of the Vieux-Marché has been silent, or the
-Grande-Rue has been untrodden daily by busy footsteps. But in English
-towns of corresponding importance the case is different. If the cities
-were preserved from pillage, traces of Christianity and civilisation
-were obliterated. If York kept its position as an inhabited town,
-its population must have been small and poor: the Anglian sovereigns
-of Northumbria dwelt, not in the old Roman capital, but at country
-settlements like Goodmanham. The history of York begins again with the
-mission of Paulinus and the foundation of the first Saxon cathedral
-there. We also hear of Lincoln in connection with Paulinus, who
-consecrated a church there; and this city, like York, was large and
-important at the time of the Conquest. But, in both these cases, the
-Anglian invasion first, and the Danish invasion later, caused a serious
-disturbance to civic and religious life. Although there is evidence
-that the Saxon bishops who ruled at Dorchester (Oxon.) in the tenth
-and eleventh centuries looked upon Lincoln as the real seat of their
-authority, it did not recover its position as an ecclesiastical capital
-until a Norman bishop raised his cathedral in the south-eastern corner
-of the hill city. Even then the cathedral stood, not with its front to
-the _via principalis_, as at Le Mans, nor with its face to the _forum_,
-as at Coutances, but in an enclosure of its own, apart from the main
-life of the city. When we think of the great ecclesiastical centres of
-England, there are some names which recall the Roman occupation; but
-of these Chichester, Exeter, Lincoln, did not become sees of bishops
-until the time of the Norman conquest; Chester, although regarded
-as one seat of their authority by the medieval bishops of Lichfield,
-was never the real capital of their diocese. Bath and Old Sarum were
-given episcopal rank by Norman prelates. The true Saxon cathedral
-towns were villages of post-Roman origin—Lichfield, Wells, Sherborne,
-Durham, Ripon, Elmham, Thetford. The fact is significant; for, upon the
-continent of Europe, the ecclesiastical importance of a city was the
-result of its prominent position as the civil metropolis of a district.
-The choice of these obscure villages for the sees of Saxon prelates
-is a testimony to the practical abandonment of Roman cities by the
-invaders.
-
-As a matter of fact, the Saxons trusted little to walls: their
-strength, after they had settled in the country, lay neither in
-earthwork, nor in stonework, but in the boundary of wood or marsh
-that extended round their settlements. Consequently, during the six
-centuries and a half between the final departure of the Roman legions
-and the Norman conquest, the history of military construction in
-England is very obscure. Work in stone, which can be distinguished as
-Saxon, is practically confined to churches. Such fortifications of this
-long period as can be identified are entirely in earthwork. In only a
-few cases we hear of a stone wall of _enceinte_ being built, or an old
-Roman town wall being repaired. Further, it may safely be said that
-these fortifications, at any rate until the end of the period, whether
-their builders were Saxons or Danes, were intended to protect, not
-private individuals, but a community. Of the private citadel or castle
-we hear nothing until the period immediately before the Conquest, and
-then it is heard of only as a foreign importation.
-
-The most formidable earthworks of the Saxon period are the great dykes
-known as Wansdyke and Offa’s dyke, with the subsidiary works of the
-Bokerley dyke and Wat’s dyke. Offa’s dyke, which ran from the Dee in
-the north to the Wye in the south, with a ditch along its western side,
-and the parallel line of Wat’s dyke,[24] are generally acknowledged
-to have formed the boundary line between the Mercian kingdom of Offa
-(757-96) and the territory of the conquered Britons. The object and
-date of Wansdyke and the Bokerley dyke is not so clear. The Wansdyke
-ran from the Bristol Channel near Portishead, across north Somerset and
-along the downs south and south-west of Bath, passed through Wiltshire,
-north of Devizes and south of Marlborough, and, leaving Wiltshire east
-of Savernake park, turned southwards in the direction of Andover. The
-Bokerley dyke, in its present state, is only some four miles long, and
-forms the boundary between Wilts and Dorset, on the road from Salisbury
-to Cranborne. In both cases the ditch is upon the north or north-east
-side of the bank or dyke, which is clear proof that the defence was
-provided against attack from that quarter. The Wansdyke is obviously
-a late Roman or post-Roman work, for it encroaches in places upon the
-adjacent Roman road. The system on which it is planned resembles that
-of the Roman wall, in that its course includes a series of forts,
-presumably of earlier date. The conclusion which seems irresistible
-is that propounded by the late General Pitt-Rivers, that the Wansdyke
-was raised by the Roman Britons, to defend their last refuge in the
-south-west against the invading Saxons. If this is really the case,
-one can only wonder at the energy of despair which constructed this
-huge rampart, and at the uselessness of its builders’ attempt to ward
-off an invasion from the inland country alone. Ceawlin’s victory at
-Dyrham in 577 brought Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath into the hands
-of the Saxons, and cut off the communication between the Britons of
-the south-west and those of Wales. Whatever part the Wansdyke, on the
-hills north of which the battle was fought, may have played during the
-century before the fight at Dyrham, its history must have closed with
-Ceawlin’s conquest.
-
-The first work of fortification by the Teutonic invaders, of which
-we have any account, is the royal city of Bebbanburh or Bamburgh in
-Northumberland, which Ida (547-59), king of Northumbria, called after
-his wife Bebba. This, says the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,[25] was first
-girt by a hedge, and afterwards—probably long after the days of Ida—by
-a wall. One of the most noble of English castles stands upon the
-basaltic rock of Bamburgh, and its walls embrace the site of Ida’s
-capital. But the later stronghold must not be confounded with the
-earlier. The _burh_ of Ida, which Penda sought to burn in 651,[26]
-was not the private castle which William Rufus afterwards besieged.
-The name of Bebbanburh is significant. _Burh_ or _burg_ was a term
-applied by Saxons to fortified places. Cissbury in Sussex, Badbury and
-Poundbury in Dorset, Battlesbury and Scratchbury in Wilts, Cadbury,
-Dolebury, and Worlebury in Somerset, are early camps to which Saxons
-gave the name of _burh_. Searobyrig, the later Salisbury, was the
-name given by them to the great fortress of Old Sarum. Peterborough
-and Bury St Edmunds bear names derived from _burh_ and its dative
-_byrig_, and were towns enclosed by a rampart.[27] And, although, by
-a not very satisfactory method of argument, the Saxon _burh_ has been
-taken very generally as the prototype of the castle, the very cases on
-which this argument chiefly rests show that the _burh_ was a fortified
-town, and not the fortress of an individual lord. It is true that, at
-any rate until the time of Alfred the Great, the word _burh_ implies
-a fortified house as well as a fortified collection of dwellings; but
-the _burhs_ of which we read in connection with the Danish wars were
-towns and villages. The term is equivalent to the Roman _oppidum_, the
-French _bourg_, or the German _burg_. The first of the Saxon emperors,
-Henry the Fowler, made the founding of _burhs_ a leading part of his
-policy:[28] Merseburg, Brandenburg, Würzburg, all bear the familiar
-suffix. And, had not a later age chosen perversely to call the greatest
-of our prehistoric camps Maiden Castle, we should have had a Maidenbury
-of our own to show, far more ancient than the German Magdeburg.[29]
-
-Some uncertainty attaches to the rare remains of fortifications
-of _burhs_ “wrought” by Saxons and Danes. It would seem that they
-cannot have been very strong. The defences consisted of the usual
-earthen bank with a stockade on the top and an outer ditch; but one
-may safely assume that the strength of the defence lay mainly in the
-actual stockade, and that the bank and ditch never reached formidable
-proportions. Thelwall, near Warrington, takes its name from the wooden
-stockade, the wall of thills or upright palisades with which Edward the
-Elder surrounded the village in 923.[30] There are exceptional cases
-in which we hear of a stone wall; but in these instances the _burh_
-was a Roman city or station, and the wall was a Roman wall. This may
-be fairly assumed with regard to the wall of Edward the Elder’s _burh_
-at Towcester (921). It was certainly the case at Colchester, where the
-Danish defenders were worsted in the same year by the _fyrd_ of Kent
-and Essex. When Alfred the Great “repaired Lundenburh” in 886,[31] he
-undoubtedly made good the weak places in the stone wall which the
-Romans had made round their city of London.
-
-The _burh_, the fortified stronghold of a Saxon community, comes into
-prominence as the result of the Danish invasions of the ninth century.
-The method of the invaders was in almost every case the same. Seamen
-before everything else, they sought in their long ships the estuaries
-of rivers, and proceeded to penetrate inland as far as the stream
-would take them. From a base of operations, preferably an island in
-the river, where they could harbour their boats safely, they rode into
-the surrounding country, burning and pillaging. In 835, allied with
-the Britons of Cornwall, they came up the Tamar, and fought a battle
-with Egbert at Hingston down, west of Tavistock, in which they suffered
-defeat.[32] In 843, they effected their first permanent settlement
-in France, on the island of Noirmoutier, south of the estuary of the
-Loire: they invaded the banks of the river, sacking Nantes and killing
-the bishop, and, after their summer campaign was over, settled down
-to build houses for winter quarters on their island.[33] Each of the
-great French rivers was infested during the next few years by bands of
-northern pirates. Northmen in 845 sailed up the Garonne to Toulouse,
-and up the Seine to Paris, where destruction was avoided only by
-buying them off. Towns which lay near the rivers or sea coast were
-invariably sacked. Sometimes the pirates, growing bolder, left their
-ships and rode for some distance inland. In 851, starting from Rouen,
-they pillaged Beauvais. In 855, after burning Angers, they took to
-the land and sacked Poitiers. In both cases, however, their return
-journey was successfully cut off by a French army. In 856 the Danes of
-the Seine made their winter quarters at Jeufosse, on the bend of the
-river between Vernon and Mantes, and within no great distance of Paris.
-Within the next few years, they established themselves in strong posts
-at Oissel, above Rouen, and at Melun, above Paris. The greater part of
-the last sixteen years of Charles the Bald (_d._ 877) was occupied in
-defending Paris against their annual forays, repairing the bridges they
-had destroyed, and so cutting off their return from expeditions up the
-Marne and Oise. But, although they were constantly checked, they always
-returned. They abandoned the siege of Paris in 885-6, but only after
-Charles the Fat had paid them off. The last great invasion of France by
-the Northmen was in 911, when, by the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte,
-Charles the Simple ceded the duchy of Normandy to Rollo.
-
-The actual settlement of the Northmen in England began in 851, eight
-years after the occupation of Noirmoutier. They wintered in Thanet, and
-sailed thence up the Stour and Thames, taking Canterbury and London.
-As in France, their landward excursions from their boats were less
-successful, and they were seriously beaten by Æthelwulf at Ockley in
-Surrey. But failure did not hinder them from returning. As in France,
-the system of buying off their attacks was adopted—a ready inducement
-to repeated plunder. In 887 they were in the Humber, and dealt a final
-blow to the decaying power of Northumbria at York. Next year they
-invaded Mercia up the Trent, and established themselves at Nottingham.
-The years 870 and 871 were remarkable for their land operations. The
-defeat of the East Anglian king Edmund in Suffolk laid Mercia and
-Lindsey open to their ravages, and so established their power in what
-was to become the Danelaw; while in 871, within reach of the Danish
-camp on the Thames at Reading, occurred the great series of battles
-in Berkshire and Wiltshire, in which Alfred’s bravery was proved. The
-details of Alfred’s defence of Wessex against the Northmen are well
-known: the compromise effected at Wedmore in 878 preserved the south of
-England to Englishmen, but established the Danes north of a line which
-may roughly be represented by the course of the Welland, Soar, upper
-Trent, and Mersey.
-
-England, however, had to endure a long intestine warfare for years
-after the death of Alfred. The strenuous efforts of his children,
-Edward the Elder and Æthelflæd, prevented the men of the Danelaw from
-extending their power southwards. But the Northmen used persevering
-tactics, and not merely the enemy within, but fresh invasions from
-without, disturbed the peace of the monarchs of Wessex during the later
-part of the tenth century. After the disastrous reign of Ethelred the
-Redeless came a period of Danish rule over the whole of England; while
-the reigns of the last Saxon kings formed the prelude to the final
-invasion of the Northmen, the Norman conquest.
-
-The most interesting feature, from a military point of view, of the
-contest between Wessex and the Danelaw, is the systematic defence of
-the Midland rivers by _burhs_ during the reign of Edward the Elder,
-either by himself or his sister Æthelflæd. Æthelflæd, who fixed
-her chief residence at Tamworth, on the edge of Staffordshire and
-Warwickshire, ruled over Mercia, and fortified her frontier between
-909 and her death in 921. Her brother died in 925: his activity in
-constructing _burhs_ began about 913. Of the construction of these
-fortresses two phrases are used: their builders either “wrought” or
-“timbered” them. Both words probably mean the same thing: the town
-or village to be fortified was enclosed within the usual wooden
-stockade.[34] The identity of a few of the _burhs_ is uncertain; but
-the remainder may be classified as follows: (1) _Burhs_ wrought by
-Æthelflæd on the river banks of her frontier: these include Runcorn and
-possibly Warburton on the Mersey, Bridgnorth and possibly Shrewsbury
-on the Severn, Tamworth and Stafford on tributaries of the Trent, and
-Warwick on the Avon. (2) Frontier _burhs_ taken by Æthelflæd from the
-Danes were Derby and Leicester, both on tributaries of the Trent.
-(3) Eddisbury in Cheshire, an early hill fortress, was the site of
-one of Æthelflæd’s _burhs_: here the inference is that the existing
-hill fort was palisaded by her orders, and garrisoned as a camp of
-refuge. Of Edward’s _burhs_, Witham and Maldon on the Essex Blackwater,
-of which some probable traces remain, belong to class (1), as also
-does Thelwall, his fortified post on the Mersey. To class (2) belong
-Colchester, Huntingdon, and Tempsford, the first on the Colne, the
-two latter on the Great Ouse. None of Edward’s works bear any analogy
-to class (3), unless his last _burh_, Bakewell in Derbyshire, may be
-taken into account. But (4) Bakewell represents a push northward along
-a hostile border, and may be claimed, with Towcester, as belonging
-to a fourth class of _burh_, unconnected with a navigable river, but
-providing a constant menace to the enemy. (5) Towcester may, however,
-also be classed with Colchester as a Roman _burh_ with stone walls.
-A sixth class of _burh_ was riverine, like class (1), but with this
-difference, that it was double. There was one _burh_ on one side, the
-other on the opposite side of the river. The cases are Hertford on
-the Lea, Buckingham and Bedford on the Ouse, Stamford on the Welland,
-and Nottingham on the Trent. At Hertford and Buckingham both _burhs_
-were the work of Edward. At Bedford, Stamford, and Nottingham, the
-northern _burh_ was in the hands of the enemy, and Edward took it by
-converting the southern suburb into a fortified and garrisoned post.
-His proceedings were exactly analogous to those of Charles the Bald in
-862. He gained control of the navigable rivers by placing garrisons on
-both their banks; the natural places which he chose were the existing
-towns on the river, and the garrison, as at Nottingham, was formed out
-of the inhabitants.
-
-Some of these _burhs_, as we have seen, were in the occupation of the
-Northmen; and at a later date, when the frontier of the west Saxon
-kingdom had been pushed back, and English kings were again placed on
-the defensive, Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford, and Leicester
-became known as the five _burhs_, the centre of Danish power in the
-Midlands. There is no reason to suppose that there was any essential
-difference between the _burhs_ of Danes and Saxons—that the _burh_
-which Æthelflæd took at Derby was in any way different from her own
-_burh_ at Tamworth. When the Danes first landed on a river bank or
-island and beached their ships, they constructed what is called in the
-Chronicle a _geweorc_, _i.e._, a thing wrought. This probably consisted
-of a slight bank and ditch enclosing the landward side of their
-position. Where they raised permanent dwellings within the _enceinte_,
-the _burh_ grew out of the _geweorc_, just as a Roman station developed
-out of a mere camp. However, it is unsafe to push the phraseology
-of the Chronicle too far, or to fasten a too technical meaning upon
-its words; and the fact remains that the term _geweorc_ may be very
-well applied to a wrought _burh_. The Danish _burhs_ at Huntingdon
-and Tempsford, the landmarks of their progress up the Ouse to recover
-Bedford in 921, are called indiscriminately _burh_ and _geweorc_.
-
-[Illustration: Map of Saxon and Danish Burhs
-
-[The line from the Mersey to the Wash roughly indicates the Danish
-frontier.]]
-
-Many of the _burhs_ wrought or taken during the Danish war became,
-after the Norman conquest, sites of castles; and the presence of a
-Norman castle at such places has led to the still popular inference
-that the castle simply usurped the earthworks of the earlier
-stronghold, and that therefore the _burh_ was equivalent to the later
-castle.[35] It is not surprising that all the five places where we hear
-of a _burh_ on either side of the river should have been chosen for
-the foundation of later castles. But the castle earthworks of Hertford
-and Bedford, the castles of which there is record at Buckingham and
-Stamford, were private strongholds which formed part of the defences of
-one of the _burhs_, but were not identical with either. The Conqueror’s
-castle of Nottingham, greatly transformed in its present state, looked
-down from its sandstone cliff upon the northern _burh_ where Edward
-welded together Englishman and Dane in one common work of defence and
-bond of citizenship.[36] But even were it not self-evident that the
-_burh_ is identical with the _burgus_ or _burgum_ of Domesday and the
-“borough” whose organisation plays so large a part in English history,
-there is one fact which makes its identification with the castle
-impossible. At Hertford, Buckingham, Bedford, Stamford, Nottingham,
-there were two _burhs_, but there never has been more than one castle.
-When the Conqueror wrought a castle on either side of the river at
-York, he did not repeat Edward the Elder’s tactics literally: he
-applied them to a form of fortification of which Edward knew nothing.
-If the test by which the Norman castle is identified with the Saxon
-_burh_ fails in these instances, we are obviously forbidden to make the
-identification in the cases of single _burhs_ like Warwick or Tamworth.
-The great earthen mount and curtain wall which stand in the south-west
-corner of Tamworth, beside the Tame, are not the remains of Æthelflæd’s
-_burh_, although it is not improbable that they were raised on the site
-of her dwelling-house. Her _burh_ is the town of Tamworth itself; and
-although her wall of palisades is gone, there are still traces of the
-ditch with which, in the eighth century, Offa had ringed the _burh_
-about.
-
-[Illustration: Earthwork at Tempsford.]
-
-There is no trace of any _arx_ or citadel within these enclosures.
-Their defenders were the citizens. In France, for reasons sufficiently
-indicated, the art of fortification was more advanced. Roman traditions
-survived there without that abrupt break which the historical
-continuity of England had suffered. No fortress of stone and wood, such
-as that which Charles the Bald, in 869, built within the _enceinte_
-of the abbey of St Denis, is heard of in Saxon England. The state of
-society in which, as early as 864, Charles found it necessary, by the
-edict of Pistes, to forbid his vassals to raise private fortresses
-without royal authority, did not exist in England, and was only
-beginning to exist there two centuries later. In both centuries we
-have to deal with the same invaders, but with defenders whose state of
-social development was quite different. Although the private fortress
-or castle was introduced into England by the Normans, and although
-the type of earthwork associated with it was developed to its highest
-extent by Northmen, not only in Normandy and England, but also in
-Denmark, it is nevertheless probable that the earliest development
-of that form of earthwork took place on Frankish soil. The Danish
-_geweorc_ or _burh_, where it can be traced with any certainty—and this
-is in very few cases—supplied accommodation for the force, and probably
-a harbour for its vessels, but no private stronghold belonging to a
-prominent leader. The earthwork called Gannock’s castle (32), close
-to the Ouse near Tempsford, is sometimes supposed to be the _geweorc_
-wrought by the Danes in 921. In plan, it very closely resembles a
-rather small mount-and-bailey castle of the usual early Norman type,
-and could have accommodated only a very small body of defenders. But
-the point in which it differs from the ordinary mount-and-bailey
-plan—the smallness of the mount, which is a mere thickening of the
-earthen bank, and the absence of a moat round its base—may show that
-here the Danes anticipated their Norman successors with a plan with
-which some of them may have gained acquaintance during marauding
-expeditions in France. This, however, is mere conjecture, and the
-utility of such a fortress for the immediate purposes of the Danes may
-well be questioned.[37] Of the private dwellings of the Danish leaders,
-and how far they may have approximated to the later type of the castle,
-we know nothing. St Mary’s abbey at York is on the site of Galmanho,
-the residence of the Danish earls outside the western wall of the
-Roman city, but nothing of its earthworks remain. If they were at all
-considerable, like those of a mount-and-bailey castle of Norman times,
-it seems strange that no trace of them should be left.
-
-The details of the doings of the Danish army, during the reign of
-Ethelred the Redeless (979-1016), are recorded at great length in
-the Chronicle. They show the old tactics, familiar for two hundred
-years: the long ships are brought to the nearest point convenient
-for a campaign of pillage; there the “army is a-horsed,” and they
-ride at their will inland, lighting their “war-beacons,” the blazing
-villages of the country-side, as they go. Year after year records
-its tale of disaster, until the partition of England in 1016 between
-Cnut and Edmund Ironside. The whole story of river and land warfare,
-of plundering and burning, of the paying of Danegeld as a temporary
-sop to the army, is in no way different from the record of the
-Danish operations in France during the ninth century. In France the
-Danish conquest was quicker, because the invaders had to deal from
-the beginning with a worn-out civilisation: the partition of France,
-owing to the superiority of the Danes to their opponents, was effected
-within seventy years of their first settlement. The power of Normandy,
-however, was checked by the rise of the Capetian dynasty in the later
-part of the tenth century: the Northmen were kept strictly to their
-Danelaw, and their subsequent expansion took place, not in France, but
-in England. On the other hand, in England, the Danish invaders of the
-ninth century had to contend with the rising power of Wessex and a race
-younger and more vigorous than the contemporary Gauls of Neustria.
-Their inroads were therefore checked and their conquest was delayed
-until the house of Wessex had run its natural course, and Englishmen
-and Danes had had time to be practically amalgamated into one nation.
-The glory of Wessex ceases with Edmund Ironside, the glory of the Danes
-with Cnut. Before Cnut died, the child William already had succeeded to
-his father’s duchy of Normandy, and thirty-one years after the death of
-Cnut, William was king of England, and, for all practical purposes, the
-inroads of the Northmen from Scandinavia were over.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER III
-
-THE ENGLISH CASTLE AFTER THE CONQUEST
-
-
-A castle is a private fortress, built by an individual lord as a
-military stronghold, and also as an occasional residence. In England
-at the time of the Norman conquest, this type of military work was
-known as _castel_, a word which is obviously the same as the Latin
-_castellum_. _Castrum_, _munitio_, and _municipium_ are names which
-are frequently given to it by chroniclers of the eleventh and twelfth
-centuries. Its existence was the direct result of the consolidation of
-the feudal system. The lord separated his dwelling from those of his
-vassals: he defended it against the attacks of other individual lords
-who naturally would seek to aggrandise themselves at his expense: he
-also needed a stronghold which might be impregnable on occasion against
-those vassals themselves, and might be a perpetual reminder to them of
-their subject position. The castle rose within or as an addition to
-the _burh_, the independent stronghold of one person within the walled
-or stockaded town of the many. Thus, at one and the same time, it
-protected and overawed the _burh_. Or it rose by itself, like the Peak
-castle in Derbyshire, on a spot where no _burh_ existed, and so in many
-cases drew a small community to seek its protection.
-
-An unlimited number of castles implies an unlimited number of
-independent magnates, uncontrolled by a supreme authority, and each
-ready to fly at the other’s throat. The feudal lord, however, was the
-king’s man, and his castle was therefore theoretically the king’s.
-We have already noticed the edict of Pistes (864), which ordered the
-destruction of all castles built without royal licence; and, save in
-periods of total anarchy, legislation of this type, safeguarding feudal
-order, was in operation during the middle ages wherever the feudal
-system was at the base of the constitution. The king was _de jure_, if
-not _de facto_, the owner of the castles of his realm.
-
-The castle or private fortress was a feature in French social life
-and warfare from at any rate the middle of the ninth century. But in
-England it was certainly an unfamiliar and almost as certainly an
-unknown feature, until the middle of the eleventh century. Danish
-pirates who up to this time had visited England, had come from the
-north and east, and passed on to France. There, in contact with the
-feudal system as it existed under the later Carolingian monarchs, they
-may have learned the use of the private fortress. At any rate when the
-Northmen came back upon England from their continental duchy, they
-brought with them the fully organised social system of the Continent,
-and its most powerful symbol, the castle.
-
-[Illustration: Harold’s _aula_, from Bayeux Tapestry]
-
-We have seen that, throughout the Saxon and Danish period, the
-_burh_, the home of the community, formed the unit, if the expression
-may be used, of military defence by fortification. The English or
-Danish nobleman lived, it may safely be assumed, in houses like
-the two-storied house in the Bayeux tapestry, where Harold and his
-friends are feasting on the upper floor, while the ground floor
-apparently forms a cellar or store-room (36).[38] It is possible that
-such a house, the prototype of the larger medieval dwelling-house,
-may sometimes have been protected by its encircling thorn hedge
-or palisade; but it was not a castle. In the eleventh and twelfth
-centuries, a castle meant to an Englishman a special type of fortress,
-of a construction and plan of a character more or less fixed. The
-loose phraseology which, in later times, applied the title of castle
-indiscriminately to prehistoric camps and medieval manor-houses, was
-not yet customary.
-
-The first castles on English soil appear to have been raised by Norman
-favourites of Edward the Confessor before the Conquest, and to have
-excited alarm among the English population. In 1048 some foreigners or
-“Welshmen,” as the English called them, encroached on the territory of
-Sweyn Godwinsson in Herefordshire, constructed a _castel_—the first
-mention of such a thing in the Chronicle—and wrought harm to all the
-country round. That they were Frenchmen appears from the events of
-1052: one of Godwin’s demands to the king at Gloucester was that “the
-Frenchmen of the castle” should be given up, and in the same year
-“the Frenchmen of the castle” helped to defend the borders against a
-Welsh inroad. The very fact that the Frenchmen’s stronghold was known
-as “_the_ castle” proves that it was at any rate an unfamiliar type
-of fortress. But, if it was the first, others were soon constructed.
-When Godwin returned from his outlawry in 1052, and forced himself
-back into Edward’s good graces, the Frenchmen in London left the city.
-The archbishop of Canterbury, Robert of Jumièges, made his way to
-the east coast: some fled westward to Pentecost’s castle, which is
-probably identical with the Herefordshire fortress, others northward
-to Robert’s castle, which is now identified with Clavering in Essex.
-The Herefordshire castle is supposed to have been at Ewias Harold, some
-twelve miles south of Hereford, where there is still the great mount of
-a Norman stronghold on the north-west side of the village.[39]
-
-[Illustration: Hastings Castle: from Bayeux Tapestry]
-
-These two may not have been the only castles in England before the
-Conquest. The reference to Arundel in Domesday Book, for example, seems
-to imply an origin almost as early for the castle there.[40] Ordericus
-Vitalis speaks of Dover as though there were already a castle there,
-when William the Conqueror stormed the town after Hastings.[41] But
-Ordericus is our authority for the important and explicit statement
-that, in 1068, “the fortresses, which the Gauls call _castella_, had
-been very few in the provinces of England; and on this account the
-English, although warlike and daring, had nevertheless shown themselves
-too feeble to withstand their enemies.”[42] A statement of this kind
-at once disposes of the theory that the _burhs_ of the Danish wars
-were castles; it could hardly be argued that such _burhs_ were very
-few, or that the English had not taken advantage of them. As a matter
-of fact, when William came to England, his military policy consisted
-in the founding of castles, and many of these in places which had
-been and were _burhs_, where, if the _burh_ and castle were one and
-the same thing, the foundation of a castle was quite unnecessary.
-_Arcem condidit_, _castellum construxit_, _munitionem firmavit_, are
-terms used over and over again to describe the making of these new
-strongholds. To William, the strength of a monarch lay in the castles
-which he controlled; in warfare the castle formed his natural base
-of operations. His first work on landing at Hastings was to throw up
-a castle (38). Harold, on the other hand, although, as the Bayeux
-tapestry shows us, he had seen something of castles and siege warfare
-in William’s company, trusted for his defence to the shield-wall of his
-men, and the protection of the banks and ditches of an old earthwork
-in advance of his position. In 1067, after his coronation, William
-stayed at Barking, close to the walls of London, while the city, the
-Lundenburh whose walls Alfred had restored, was being overawed by
-the construction of certain _firmamenta_—one of them, no doubt, the
-White Tower, the other probably Baynard’s castle, near the present
-Blackfriars.[43] Again, we find him at Winchester, building a strong
-fortress within the walls of the city—a castle within a _burh_.
-
-William’s operations in 1068 and 1069 were of great military
-importance. In 1068 he quelled the resistance of Exeter. The city
-was still surrounded by its Roman walls, to which the inhabitants
-now added new battlements and towers. They manned the rampart walks
-and the projections of the wall,[44] which for eighteen days William
-endeavoured to undermine. When at last the keys of the city were
-surrendered to him, his first work was to choose within the walls a
-place where a castle might be raised; and, on departing, he left,
-as at Winchester, a constable in charge of the castle, the king’s
-lieutenant charged with the task of keeping the _burh_ under. From
-Exeter a rebellion in the north called William to York. The insurgents,
-an irregular band of freebooters, had thrown up defences in remote
-places in woods and by the mouths of rivers; some were harboured in the
-larger towns, which they kept in a state of fortification. As William
-travelled northwards, he founded castles at Warwick and Nottingham.
-He constructed a fortress in the city of York, and on his way home
-founded castles at Lincoln, Huntingdon, and Cambridge. No sooner had
-he left York than the rebels again began to stir; a movement was made
-on behalf of the ætheling Edgar, and Danish aid was called in. William
-Malet, the governor of York castle, was hard pressed by the enemy. The
-Conqueror came to his relief, and, as a result of this visit, founded
-a second castle in York. Both castles, however, were of little use
-when the Danes came. The garrison of one or both rashly advanced to
-fight the invaders within the city itself, and were massacred. It is a
-significant fact that the castles were left open and deserted; neither
-the men of York nor the Danes had any use for them. When William came
-north again on his campaign of vengeance he repaired both the castles.
-Shortly after, on his expedition to Wales, he founded castles at
-Chester and Shrewsbury.[45]
-
-[Illustration: Lincoln; Plan]
-
-What do we find to-day at these places where William founded his first
-English castles? At Hastings, on the cliff which divides the old town
-from the modern watering-place, there are important remains of a later
-stone castle within lines of earthwork which are, no doubt, William’s.
-The mount remains at the north-east corner of the enclosure: the later
-curtain wall has been carried up its side and over it. The present
-remains of the castle of Winchester are later than William’s day. At
-Exeter the gatehouse and much of the adjacent masonry of the castle are
-unquestionably of a very early “Norman” date. In London we have the
-White tower, probably much extended from William’s early plan, and not
-completed till his son’s reign. But the stone fortresses of London and
-Exeter were exceptional. When we come to his northern castles, we find
-that at Warwick, York, Lincoln, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and Shrewsbury,
-the plan of the castle consists of a bailey or enclosed space,[46] with
-a tall mount on the line of its outer defences, and on a side or at an
-angle of the _enceinte_ remote from the main entrance. At Nottingham
-the plan of the early castle is not so easy to make out. But, in
-the other cases, although, at various dates during the middle ages,
-additions were made in stone, the nucleus of the plan is a collection
-of earthworks, which takes this form—a _motte_ or mount with a bailey
-attached. At Lincoln there are two mounts. At York there are two
-castles, one on either side of the river, but each with its mount. On
-the mount of the castle north-east of the river is a later stone keep;
-the mount of the south-western castle has never carried stonework, and
-its bailey is now almost filled up with modern houses.
-
-The presence of the double castle at York has been a great temptation
-to those who would identify the castle with the _burh_. The
-fortification of both banks of the river is, on the face of it, so like
-the system adopted by Edward the Elder, that the York castles have been
-often quoted as _burhs_ of Edward the Elder’s date, and it has been
-concluded that similar earthworks must have existed at Nottingham,
-Stamford, and so on. This idea is quite untenable. Had William followed
-the example of Edward and Æthelflæd, he would simply have repaired or
-renewed the defences of the two divisions of the _burh_ at York.[47]
-But what he had to provide against was the spirit of rebellion in the
-_burh_ itself, as well as the possible use of the water-way by Danish
-pirates. Which castle he first founded at York we do not know. On the
-tongue of land which runs out between the Ouse and Foss, outside the
-_burh_, and between it and the river approach to the city, one castle
-rose. The other, a fortress known in later times as the Old Baile, was
-possibly from the beginning partly within the ramparts of the southern
-_burh_. Later, at any rate, the city wall was built across the foot
-of the outer side of its mount, and enclosed the bailey on two sides.
-Elsewhere, the distinction between William’s castles and the _burhs_
-within which they rose is very noticeable. At Lincoln the castle filled
-up an angle of the Roman city. At Cambridge, the mount rises on the
-highest point of a large enclosure—the original _burh_—surrounded by
-earthworks of early date. Further, if any documentary proof is needed
-of anything so self-evident as the distinct nature of the castle and
-the _burh_, Domesday is clear upon the point. Apart from the evidence
-which it gives us with respect to the borough or _burh_, it speaks in
-one place of the _burgum circa castellum_—the _burh_ about the castle.
-The case in point is the castle of Tutbury in Staffordshire, a fine
-example of the mount-and-bailey stronghold.[48] One important feature
-here is that the castle, very large in area, and with a ditch of great
-depth on two sides, was apparently raised on the site of an early
-hill-fort or _burh_, and that the actual _burh_ about the castle, the
-modern village of Tutbury, has grown up under its protection on the
-slope towards the Dove.
-
-[Illustration: Berkhampstead]
-
-The castle, then, was a Norman importation into England. It was a
-stronghold with a definite plan, so that the word _castel_ had no
-vague meaning to English ears. It is found in many cases in close
-proximity to a _burh_, or fortified dwelling of a community; but it
-was a royal stronghold, in charge of an individual, and its intention
-was at once to protect and to keep the _burh_ in subjection. Or,
-again, it may occupy, as at Tutbury or Conisbrough, the whole site
-of an early _burh_; but in such cases the character of the _burh_ is
-entirely changed by the presence of the castle, and the dwelling-place
-of the community is shifted to the outskirts of the enclosure. At
-York, Lincoln, and other places where a castle was constructed within
-part of a _burh_, Domesday tells us that the site was _vastata in
-castellis_—_i.e._, that houses were taken down to make room for the new
-earthworks.
-
-A figure of eight, with the lower portion elongated and widened to form
-the bailey, may be taken as the normal form of the castle plan. Often,
-as at Berkhampstead (42), where the mount and bailey were surrounded by
-a broad wet ditch and outer earthworks, the bailey is much the larger
-portion of the figure on plan; and it was only in small and unimportant
-strongholds that the bailey formed, as at Mexborough, a mere forecourt
-to the mount. At Alnwick (115) the mount stood as part of the outer
-defences of the enclosure, on the slope to the river; but it was so
-placed that it divided a western or outer from an eastern or inner ward
-or bailey, and almost filled up the space between them. The arrangement
-at Berkeley (186) is somewhat similar. If the larger mount at Lincoln
-(40) were removed to the centre of the present enclosure, and the lines
-of the curtain-wall returned inwards to meet it, the plan of Alnwick
-would be obtained. Possibly, however, both at Alnwick and Berkeley, the
-outer ward may form an extension of the earlier plan, or may have been
-merely a covering platform, like the outer earthworks at Hastings. The
-later stone defences have obscured the original designs in both cases.
-
-[Illustration: Clun; Plan]
-
-Although the plan followed fixed and familiar lines, there were no
-fixed dimensions to the castle. The mount was intended to bear the
-strong tower or donjon: within the bailey were the ordinary lodgings
-of the garrison, and such domestic buildings as might be needed.
-The bailey, which inclined, on the whole, to be oval in form, was
-surrounded by a low earthen bank, outside which was a dry ditch of
-more or less depth, with a parapet or counterscarp on the further
-side. The mount was surrounded by its own ditch, which was joined at
-two points by the main ditch on the side next the bailey. The entrance
-to the castle was at the end of the bailey, opposite the mount. These
-dispositions might vary: the mount might be within the enclosure, even,
-as at Pickering, in its centre, and the position of the entrance might
-be different, if the site required it. There might be more than one
-bailey, and these might be set side by side, divided by an intermediate
-ditch, as on the fairly level site at Clun (43), or end on end, as on
-the ridge at Montgomery, or a small bailey might project as a kind of
-outwork common to mount and bailey alike.[49] The usual arrangement,
-however, was as described. The mount might be of any height, of
-enormous proportions, as at Thetford, or of more modest size, as at
-Brecon or Trecastle. It was usually entirely artificial; but positions
-were sometimes chosen in which the ground afforded natural help. The
-mount, for example, at Hedingham in Essex, on the levelled top of
-which the later square donjon was built, appears to be partly natural;
-while the great mount at Mount Bures, not many miles away, is wholly
-artificial. The bailey, again, might vary much in size. It might have
-a very large area, as at Lincoln and Tutbury, a moderate area, as at
-Warkworth (49) or Durham (199); or it might be small and compact, as
-at Trecastle (44). There are many cases, as at Clifford’s hill, near
-Northampton, where the mount is found by itself: in such instances, the
-bailey may have disappeared as the result of local cultivation, and
-only the more important part of the earthworks may have been left. But
-it is also probable that here and there the fortified mount with the
-tower on its summit would be all that was needed, and that the absence
-of a large garrison would render a bailey unnecessary. The size of the
-bailey, in any case, would depend upon the importance of the position
-and the size of the garrison required.
-
-[Illustration: Trecastle; Plan]
-
-[Illustration: Castle of Rennes: from Bayeux Tapestry]
-
-The mount, at any rate, was the essential feature of this type of
-fortress. The Bayeux tapestry gives us pictures of some of these
-mounts, the fidelity of which is demonstrated by the remains which
-we possess of such castles, and by some pieces of documentary
-evidence (38). Two points are noticeable: (1) The mounts portrayed
-are all either in Normandy and Brittany, or, like the _castellum_ at
-“Hestengaceaster,” are the work of Norman hands. (2) The fortifications
-shown in connection with these mounts are of timber, not stone. The
-accuracy of the tapestry is not absolutely photographic, but the
-workers knew well the type of structure which they wanted to represent.
-Their work, in fact, whether the castle represented be Dol or Dinan
-or Bayeux or Hastings, gives us a repeated picture of the recognised
-type of castle mount. And the two points just noted lead us to the
-conclusions, (1) that the castle was foreign to England and Englishmen,
-and (2) that the time-honoured notion that the Englishman raised the
-earthworks,[50] and the Norman built stone castles upon them is open
-to objection, the fact being that the stone castle was an exception in
-Normandy itself. The picture of the Breton castle of Dinan (46) shows,
-as in a section, a large pudding-shaped mount surrounded by a ditch,
-with a low bank of earth on the side towards the bailey. On the top of
-the mount is a tower, clearly of timber. Round the edge of the mount,
-encircling the tower, is a stockade formed of uprights with stout
-hurdles between—a work to which Cæsar’s description of his breastworks
-at Alesia might well be applied.[51] Access to the mount is gained by
-a steep ladder, probably formed of planks with projecting pieces of
-wood nailed to them for foot-holds, which spans the ditch, and has its
-foot within the bailey. The mount itself—and this may be proved by many
-surviving examples—is too steep to be scaled with any ease; and the
-ladder, although affording the defenders an excellent communication
-with the bailey, is hardly to be climbed with impunity by the opposing
-force. The ladder ends in a wooden platform at the edge of the mount,
-which serves as a _propugnaculum_ for the garrison, in front of the
-stockade. In the picture of the construction of the castle at Hastings,
-a timber tower and stockade are in course of erection. The pioneers are
-busy digging earth from the fosse for their nearly completed mount, and
-compacting the surface with blows from the flat of their spades (38).
-
-[Illustration: Castle of Dinan: from Bayeux Tapestry]
-
-In France the mount was usually known as the _motte_ from the turf of
-which it was composed, and the occurrence of the word Lamotte as part
-of a place-name is as tell-tale as a name like Mount Bures in England.
-But a common name for the _motte_, employed by medieval writers, was
-the Latin _dunio_ or _domgio_, a debased form of the word _dominio_.
-This became in French _donjon_, and in English _dungeon_. The _motte_
-at Canterbury is still known by the corrupted name of the Dane John.
-The mount, the symbol of the dominion of the feudal lord, and the
-centre of his _dominium_ or demesne, bore his strong tower; and to this
-tower the name of the mount was transferred. When the tower on the
-mount was superseded by the heavy and lofty rectangular or cylindrical
-tower of later times, the new tower kept the old name. By a strange
-transference of meaning, our English _dungeon_, frequently applied
-to the chief tower of a castle until the seventeenth century, became
-connected with the vaults or store-rooms in the basement of such a
-tower, and now reminds us less of the dominion of the castle builders
-than of the cruelty with which they are supposed to have exercised that
-dominion.
-
-[Illustration: Colchester Castle: great tower or keep.]
-
-It may safely be assumed that the very large majority of castles of
-the eleventh and early twelfth century were constructed on this plan.
-There were exceptions, and certainly several English castles have
-stonework of the period of the Conquest. London and Colchester (47)
-had rectangular donjons from the first. At Richmond (93) the stonework
-of part of the curtain and of the lower part of the rectangular
-tower-keep is unquestionably of the eleventh century, when the castle
-was constructed by Alan of Brittany. In several other places, in the
-curtain at Tamworth (48) and in part of the curtain at Lincoln, there
-is eleventh century stonework. But more will be said of these cases
-later. It is enough to say here that, in most cases, stonework forms
-a late Norman or Plantagenet addition to early Norman earthwork. At
-Newcastle part of the early mount remained, side by side with the
-late twelfth century tower-keep, until within the last hundred years.
-Warkworth, most instructive of English castles, preserves the base of
-its mount and the area of its original bailey: the mount bears a strong
-tower-house of the early fifteenth century; on the line of the bank of
-the bailey is a stone curtain of about the year 1200; within the area
-is a series of elaborate and beautiful buildings of two or three dates
-(49). Warkworth is the epitome of the history of the castle, from its
-Norman origin to its practical identification, in the later middle
-ages, with the large manor house; and to Warkworth we shall return more
-than once.
-
-[Illustration: Tamworth; Eleventh Century Stonework]
-
-[Illustration: Warkworth; Plan]
-
-There are exceptional cases in which two mounts occur. At Lincoln (40),
-the smaller mount is at the south-east corner of the enclosure, and
-probably may have carried the original donjon. The larger mount, of
-formidable height and steepness, is west of the centre of the south
-side. Both mounts, as is usual, are half within and half without the
-line of the rampart. The stone curtain-wall has been brought up their
-sides, and the larger mount is crowned by a stone “shell” keep of the
-late twelfth century. The provision of this second mount was possibly
-due to the exposed position of the castle, which formed the outer
-defence of the city on the west and south-west, and needed its greatest
-strength on that side. At Pontefract and Lewes, again, there were two
-mounts, one at each end of the enclosure. At both places, the later
-stone keep was built in connection with the western mount, at the end
-nearest the town and the slope of the ridge on which it was built.
-The sites are rather similar, and, in either case, the eastern mount
-overlooked the river-valley defended by the castle. It is not certain
-that two mounts ever formed part of an original plan. The natural
-tendency would be to throw up the mount at first on the side nearer
-the valley, where the slope was steeper, and the labour required in
-construction would be less. An attack, however, on the town and castle
-would come most naturally from the higher ground to the west, which
-commanded the castle and its defences. A new mount would, in process
-of time, be constructed on this side, and the old mount would become
-of secondary importance. At Lewes (50), where the slope of the hill is
-abrupt, the western mount rises from a higher level, and commands a
-much wider stretch of country than the mount at the north-east angle of
-the enclosure. At Lincoln, where an enemy’s force had no advantage of
-higher ground, the larger mount simply occupies the most advantageous
-position, protecting the most exposed side of the enclosure, and
-commanding one of the most extensive views in England. The foot of one
-mount is little more than two hundred feet distant from the foot of the
-other; while, at Lewes and Pontefract, the length of the whole bailey
-lay between the mounts. Thus, while it is possible that, at Lewes and
-Pontefract, both mounts may be original, with the idea of strengthening
-the enclosure at either end with a donjon, two original mounts at
-Lincoln would not have this excuse; and we may infer that, at some
-date later than the foundation of Lincoln castle, the Norman lords
-of the fortress threw up a new mount at a point from which the slope
-of the hill and the approaches from the valley of the Trent could be
-commanded more thoroughly.
-
-[Illustration: Lewes; Plan]
-
-[Illustration: Builth; Plan]
-
-The provision of more than one bailey, as at Clun (43), where two small
-baileys, separated by ditches, cover the south and west sides of the
-mount, was due, partly to the irregular nature of the site, and partly
-to the need for the multiplication of defences. Such an arrangement,
-inconvenient in time of peace, would be a considerable advantage in
-case of siege, when each bailey would provide a separate difficulty
-to the assailants, and a separate rallying point to the defenders. At
-Builth (50), where the whole area of the castle earthworks is small,
-and the ditches of mount and bailey are of considerable strength, the
-main bailey is a narrow segmental platform covering the south side of
-the mount. On the west side of the mount is a smaller and narrower
-platform, between which and the main bailey is a broad ditch, forming
-a cross-cut or traverse between the ditches of the mount and bailey.
-As the enclosure is very nearly circular, with the mount north-west
-of the centre, this second platform is somewhat squeezed into the
-space, and the ditch between it and the counterscarp which runs
-continuously round both mount and bailey is very narrow. In the more
-usual instances, where the mount and its ditch form a regular circle,
-which intersects with the bailey and its ditch, a secondary platform,
-as has been noted, occurs outside the line of both ditches, and is
-surrounded by a ditch of its own, communicating with both. This is the
-case with the very symmetrical example of a mount-and-bailey castle
-at Mexborough, at Lilbourne in Northants, Hallaton in Leicestershire
-(51), and other cases. Here the secondary platform is an excrescence on
-one side of the meeting of the two circles. Such platforms were mere
-outworks where additional defence was necessary; it is possible that
-on them stone-throwing engines might be planted by the defenders, as
-the narrowness of the ditch would at these points bring the assailants
-more nearly within range than at any other point within the enclosure.
-Such engines would encumber the larger bailey, which would necessarily
-be kept as clear as possible for the operations of the main body of the
-garrison.
-
-[Illustration: Hallaton; Plan]
-
-The mount-and-bailey castle has been derived by some from a Teutonic
-origin,[52] but it is difficult to trace it with any certainty at
-an early period outside France and Normandy. There are many remains
-of these castles in Normandy itself. The famous castle of Domfront
-(Orne), founded originally by Guillaume Talvas (_d._ 1030), ancestor
-of the house of Bellême, possibly took this form: as at Newcastle, a
-rectangular tower of stone took the place, in the twelfth century, of
-the tower on the mount.[53] The writer of a monograph on the castle of
-Domfront enumerates five such mounts which exist or are known to have
-existed within the local _arrondissement_.[54] Two, at Sept-Forges and
-Lucé, remain intact, covered by plantations of trees. At Sept-Forges
-the church and castle were side by side, as may still be seen at Earls
-Barton in Northamptonshire.[55] At Lucé there are traces of a bailey.
-On the other hand, at La Baroche, a large mount seems to have borne the
-whole castle: one may compare with this the great mount of Restormel
-in Cornwall, which is the natural summit of a hill, artificially
-scarped and surrounded by a fosse, like a contour fort of early times.
-It is important to notice that on these artificial mounts of southern
-Normandy, there appears “no ruin, no trace of construction in masonry.”
-The inference is obvious. The buildings which they carried were of
-wood, and have yielded to the action of fire or the weather. On no
-other hypothesis can the speed with which castles were constructed in
-England after the Conquest, or the ease with which they were destroyed,
-be explained. William’s subjects in Normandy threw up fortifications
-against him with a speed which positively forbids us to imagine that
-they procured masons to work in stone. In 1061, Robert, son of Giroie,
-one of the powerful nobles of the Alençonnais, joined forces with the
-Angevins against William, and fortified his castles of La-Roche-sur-Igé
-and Saint-Cénéri. His cousin, Arnold, son of Robert, driven from
-the castle of Échauffour, returned secretly and burned it.[56] The
-quickness with which the two castles at York were constructed,
-destroyed, and repaired, allowed no time for dressing stone.
-
-The points which our evidence leads us to accept may be recapitulated
-as follows:—(1) The castle was a foreign importation into England, of
-the period of the Norman conquest. (2) It consisted, in its simplest
-form, of a moated mount or _motte_, with a bailey or base-court
-attached. (3) Its earliest fortifications were entirely of timber, save
-in rare instances.
-
-We may now examine the evidence which, in default of actual remains,
-survives with regard to the timber constructions of these castles
-and their use. The tower on the mount first demands our attention.
-Apart from the pictures of the Bayeux tapestry, certain early twelfth
-century chronicles of northern France have preserved for us accounts
-of the main features of this structure and its _enceinte_.[57] Jean
-de Colmieu describes the castle of Merchem, close by the church, as
-_munitio quedam quam castrum vel municipium dicere possumus_. “It is
-the custom,” he says, “with the rich men and nobles of this district,
-because they spend their time in enmity and slaughter, and in order
-that they may thereby be safer from their enemies, and by their
-superior power either conquer their equals or oppress their inferiors,
-to heap up a mount of earth as high as they can, and to dig round
-it a ditch of some breadth and great depth, and, instead of a wall,
-to fortify the topmost edge of the mount round about with a rampart
-(_vallo_) very strongly compacted of planks of timber, and having
-towers, as far as possible, arranged along its circuit. Within the
-rampart they build in the midst a house or a citadel (_arx_) commanding
-the whole site. The gate of entry to the place”—the word used is
-_villa_, implying a place of habitation rather than a stronghold—“can
-be approached only by a bridge, which, rising at first from the outer
-lip of the ditch, is gradually raised higher. Supported by uprights in
-pairs, or in sets of three, which are fixed beneath it at convenient
-intervals, it rises by a graduated slope across the breadth of the
-ditch, so that it reaches the mount on a level with its summit and at
-its outer edge, and touches the threshold of the enclosure.” It will
-be noticed that the moated mount described here had no bailey. It was
-also obviously not merely a fortified stronghold, a place of refuge in
-time of war, but a definite residence of the local lord. The turrets
-round the timber rampart of the mount are mentioned as occasional, not
-invariable features of the design. The habitation within the rampart
-may be a strong tower or a mere house. The sense of the passage shows
-clearly that there was a doorway in the rampart, by which the house was
-approached from the bridge. Finally, the description is not applicable
-merely to a single castle, but is a generic description of strongholds
-in a particular neighbourhood.
-
-The domestic, apart from the military, character of the building,
-is emphasised in the story which follows the description. John of
-Warneton, the sainted bishop of Thérouanne (_d._ 1130), was entertained
-here, when he came to hold a confirmation in Merchem church. After
-the confirmation was over, he went back to the castle to change his
-vestments before proceeding to bless the churchyard. As he returned
-across the sloping bridge, which at its middle point was about 35
-feet above the ditch, the press of the people who crowded to see the
-holy man was so great, and the old enemy, says the chronicler, so
-alive to the opportunity, that the bridge broke, and the bishop and
-his admirers, amid a terrible noise of falling joists, boards, and
-spars, were thrown to the bottom of the ditch. The castle was, in
-fact, the private residence of a man who, if he could indulge in the
-peaceful pleasure of entertaining his bishop, could not afford to live
-in an unfortified house. Private warfare with his neighbours was the
-business of his life, and he had to make himself as comfortable as he
-could within his palisade. Jean de Colmieu does not tell us whether
-the castle stronghold at Merchem took the shape of a tower or not; but
-Lambert of Ardres has left a description of the great wooden tower of
-three stories which the carpenter Louis de Bourbourg constructed about
-1099 for Arnould, lord of Ardres. The elaborateness of its design and
-plan is remarkable, and the _motte_ which bore it must have been of
-considerable size. The ground-floor contained cellars, store-rooms,
-and granaries. The first floor contained the chief living-rooms—the
-common hall, the pantry and buttery, the great chamber where Arnould
-and his wife slept, with two other rooms, one the sleeping-place of the
-body-servants. Out of the great chamber opened a room or recess with a
-fire-place, where the folk of the castle were bled, the servants warmed
-themselves, or the children were taken in cold weather to be warmed.
-One may assume that the great chamber was at the end of the hall
-opposite to the pantry and buttery. The kitchen was probably reached,
-as in the larger dwelling-houses of later days, by a passage between
-these offices: it was on the same floor as the hall, but occupied a
-two-storied extension of the donjon on one side.[58] Below the kitchen
-were the pig-sty, fowl-house, and other like offices. The third stage
-of the donjon contained the bed-chambers of the daughters of the house:
-the sons also could sleep on this floor, if they chose, and here slept
-the guard of the castle, who relieved one another at intervals in the
-work of keeping watch. On the eastern side of the first floor was a
-projecting building, called the _logium_ or parlour, and above this
-on the top floor was the chapel of the house, “made like in carving
-and painting to the tabernacle (_sic_) of Solomon.” Lambert speaks of
-the stairways and passages of the donjon, but his description of the
-projecting parlour and chapel is not sufficiently explicit, and his
-admiration may have magnified the proportions of the building. His
-description, however, is of great service when applied to the tower
-donjon of stone, the arrangements of which it serves to explain.
-Here, again, the fortress was clearly designed as a dwelling house:
-the supply of rooms, if it is not exaggerated, was quite remarkable
-for the age. The _motte_ or donjon—Lambert gives it these alternative
-names—rose in the middle of a marsh, which Arnould converted into a
-lake or moat by forming sluices: his mill was near the first sluice.
-
-No definite description is left of the defences of the bailey in a
-castle of this date. There is no doubt, however, that the scarp,
-or encircling bank of earth, was protected, like the summit of the
-mount, by a hedge or palisade of the traditional type. Such hedges
-were the normal defence of any kind of stronghold: the edict of Pistes
-ordered the destruction of all unlicensed _castella, firmitates, et
-haias_—castles, strong dwellings, and hedges. In 1225 Henry III.
-ordered the forester of Galtres to supply the sheriff of Yorkshire
-with timber for repairing and making good the breaches of the palisade
-(_palicii_) of York castle. The “houses” and “bridge” of the same
-castle—that is, the buildings within the bailey, and the drawbridge by
-which the bailey was entered across the ditch, were also of timber. As
-late as 1324 the stockade on the mount was still of wood, surrounding
-the stone donjon of the thirteenth century.[59] This is an interesting
-example of the survival, until a late date, of primitive fortification
-in a strong and important castle. There is abundant evidence, in fact,
-that the Norman engineer put his trust, not in stone, but in his
-earthen rampart and its palisades. When, about 1090, the freebooter
-Ascelin Goël got possession of the castle of Ivry, he enclosed it “with
-ditches and thick hedges.”[60] In 1093, Philip I. of France and Robert
-of Normandy took the part of William of Breteuil, the dispossessed lord
-of Ivry, and laid siege to the fortified town and castle of Bréval
-(Seine-et-Oise). With the aid of a siege engine, constructed by Robert
-of Bellême, they were able to destroy the rampart and encircling
-hedges.[61] Bréval was in a wooded and remote district, where stone
-would have been hard to obtain in any case. The grand necessity, in
-places which were in danger of constant attack, was to provide them
-with adequate defences which could be constructed in the shortest time
-possible.
-
-Of the nature of the houses within the bailey, little can be said. They
-doubtless included shelters for the garrison of the castle, stables for
-their horses, and various sheds or store-houses. The hall, or building,
-which was the centre of the domestic life of the castle, was, from the
-earliest times, the chief building within the circumference of the
-bailey. We read of the destruction of the _principalis aula_ of the
-castle of Brionne in 1090, by the red-hot darts which were hurled upon
-its shingled roof;[62] and stone halls, as at Chepstow and Richmond,
-were built before the beginning of the twelfth century. But it is
-certain, on the other hand, that the donjon was, now and later, adapted
-to domestic as well as purely military uses; and it seems likely
-that the owner of the castle, in certain cases, was content with his
-dwelling upon the mount, until, at a later date, the strengthening of
-the whole enclosure with a stone curtain made it possible for him to
-raise a more convenient dwelling house within the more ample space of
-the bailey. In the larger castles, however, where there was a strong
-permanent garrison, a hall was a necessity for their entertainment.
-
-Where mount-and-bailey castles are found without a trace of stonework,
-it does not follow that they are necessarily of a date immediately
-subsequent to the Conquest. Many of these castles, founded by the
-Conqueror and his followers, became permanent strongholds, and in due
-course of time were fortified with stone walls and towers. Others were
-probably founded as an immediate consequence of the Conquest, and were
-abandoned in favour of other sites. Thus it has been thought that the
-earthworks at Barwick-in-Elmet, near Leeds, were abandoned by Ilbert
-de Lacy, when he fixed upon Pontefract as the head of his honour.[63]
-Trecastle may have been deserted by Bernard of Newmarch for Brecon, or
-it may have been held by a small garrison as the western outpost of his
-barony. But it is well known that, for a long time after the Conquest,
-in the period of constant strife between the Norman kings and their
-barons, a large number of castles came into existence in defiance of
-royal edicts. We know that, during the reign of Stephen, when every
-man did what was right in his own eyes, an almost incredible number of
-unlicensed or “adulterine”[64] castles were constructed. As a result
-of the agreement between Stephen and Henry II., many of these were
-destroyed, and the number of English castles was materially lessened.
-Later on, when the revolt of the Mowbrays against Henry II. took place,
-the victory of the king’s party was followed by the destruction of the
-Mowbray castles at Thirsk, Kirkby Malzeard, and Kinnard’s Ferry in
-the isle of Axholme, and of Bishop Pudsey’s castle at Northallerton.
-Of these four castles earthworks or traces of earthworks, but no
-stonework, remain. It is reasonable to suppose that the material of
-their fortifications was timber. Haste in the construction of castles,
-speed in their destruction, during the century following the Conquest,
-are easily explained if their works were merely of earth and wood.
-And it is thus possible that, when we meet with a mount-and-bailey
-fortress, unnamed in history and untouched by medieval stonemasons, it
-may be neither on a site chosen and then abandoned by an early Norman
-lord, nor a mere outpost of some greater castle, but a stronghold
-hastily entrenched and heaped up in time of rebellion, by some noble
-of the time of Stephen or Henry II., and dismantled when peace was
-restored, and the authority of the sovereign recognised.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER IV
-
-THE PROGRESS OF ATTACK AND DEFENCE
-
-
-The earthwork fortifications, the progress of which we have traced up
-to the Norman conquest, were of a very simple kind. It is obvious that,
-in the history of military architecture, any improvement in defence
-is the consequence of improved methods of attack. The stone-walled
-town of the middle ages, the castle or private citadel, with its
-curtain wall and the subdivision of its enclosure into more than one
-bailey, succeeded the palisaded earthwork as a natural result of the
-development of the art of siege. Against an enemy whose artillery was
-comparatively feeble the stockaded enclosure was effective enough:
-slingers and bowmen, working at close quarters, might do damage to the
-defenders, but the palisade on the bank, divided from the besiegers by
-a formidable ditch, was proof against missiles launched against it by
-individuals, and could be carried only by a determined rush, or if it
-were not sufficiently protected against fire. Modern warfare against
-uncivilised tribes has shown that a stronghold defended by a thick
-hedge is a serious problem to a besieging force. If, under modern
-conditions, the stockade is a barrier to troops equipped with powerful
-firearms, the difficulty which it afforded to the early medieval
-warrior is obvious.
-
-The age of firearms, however, which brought the death-blow to medieval
-siegecraft, was long in coming; and meanwhile the progress of the
-science of attack depended upon the improvement in methods which could
-be employed only in close proximity to the besieged stronghold, or
-within a very limited range. Engines for hurling stones or javelins
-increased in size and strength. Devices were brought into play for
-scaling or undermining the defences of the town or castle. The attack
-was directed against the defences rather than against the defenders.
-A casual stone might do injury to the medieval soldier, or an arrow
-might pierce between the joints of his harness; but his armour, which
-became more heavy and more carefully protected as the chance of risk
-from such missiles increased, made loss of life in the course of a
-siege a misfortune rather than an inevitable contingency. His first
-anxiety, therefore, was to make the defensive works which sheltered
-him impregnable. As the enemy multiplied his designs against the
-palisaded enclosure, the palisade gave place to the stone wall; as
-the enemy’s means for prosecuting his attempts increased in power,
-the wall increased in height and strength; and at last, during the
-transitional epoch in which firearms gradually superseded the older and
-more primitive weapons of attack, the wall presented to the besieger
-a thoroughly guarded front which rendered his medieval siege tactics
-obsolete, and called for new developments in his craft.
-
-The progress of fortification under these conditions will be the
-subject of the remaining chapters of this book, with special reference
-to the castle, in the defences of which the military engineers of the
-middle ages displayed the epitome of their science. Before we proceed,
-however, to the growth of the stone-walled castle, some description is
-necessary of the improvement in siege-engines and methods of attack by
-which its development was governed. It must be kept in mind that the
-siegecraft of the middle ages advanced upon lines that were by no means
-new. Its engines, its devices for breaking down or scaling walls and
-towers, were not new inventions, but relics of Roman military science.
-With the decay of the Roman power in western Europe, these materials of
-warfare, unknown to the Teutonic conquerors of Britain, had fallen into
-disuse. Preserved in the east by the Byzantine empire, the inheritor of
-Roman civilisation, they became familiar to the barbarians who overran
-Europe in the dark ages; and their revival in the parts of Europe most
-remote from the historic centres of Roman influence was due in no small
-measure to the adoption of traditional siegecraft by the invading
-tribes which had come into conflict with Byzantine strategy. So far as
-England is concerned, the first advance in the art of attack was the
-direct result of the Norman conquest; while subsequent improvement in
-western Europe generally was primarily due to the knowledge of eastern
-warfare gained during the Crusades. A slight retrospect, under these
-conditions, is desirable, which will give us some insight into the
-methods of siegecraft during the period of whose strongholds and art of
-fortification we already have seen something.
-
-Many classical texts, from the time of Cæsar to the latest days of the
-western Empire, supply us with authority for Roman military methods.
-No passage throws fuller light on their siege practice than Cæsar’s
-description of his siege of Alesia in Burgundy, the hill fortress
-occupied by Vercingetorix.[65] The lines which were first drawn round
-the stronghold by Cæsar were eleven miles in circuit, and communicated
-with three camps, on hills of a height equal to that of the hill of
-Alesia. Along the lines there were twenty-three _castella_, small
-forts to hold pickets, and temporary examples of the type of which
-the “mile-castles” of the Roman wall were permanent instances. The
-stubborn resistance of Vercingetorix and the prospect of the arrival of
-a relieving army, however, gave Cæsar occasion to elaborate his lines,
-the character of which is very minutely described. They consisted of
-an earthen bank with a ditch 20 feet broad, 400 feet in front of it
-on the side towards the besieged stronghold. The ditch was dug with
-perpendicular sides: its distance from the bank was a precaution
-against sudden attacks of the enemy, and placed the bank out of the
-range of casual missiles. The space between the bank and ditch was not
-a level “berm,” but was furrowed by two ditches, 15 feet in breadth
-and depth, of which the inner was wet, the water of the neighbouring
-streams being diverted into it. Behind the inner ditch rose the earthen
-_agger_ or bank, to the height of 12 feet. The _vallum_, the rampart
-on the top of the _agger_, was of a type common in early warfare and
-for many centuries later, consisting of a breastwork of interlaced
-twigs stiffened by a row of palisades. The hurdles of the breastwork
-were finished off with battlement-like projections: at intervals
-there were tall uprights with forked tops, which were called _cervi_
-or “stags,” and acted as _chevaux-de-frise_ along the whole rampart.
-There were also towers, obviously temporary constructions of timber,
-at distances of 80 feet from one another. This, however, was not
-enough. Cæsar aimed at holding his lines with as few men as possible,
-so as to allow the rest to do the necessary foraging at a distance. He
-therefore proceeded to sow the approach to the lines with pitfalls.
-Five ditches, 5 feet deep, were dug out and filled with upright stakes
-sharpened to a point and fastened together at the bottom by continuous
-cross pieces. In front of these were three rows of pits, 3 feet deep,
-arranged in a series of _quincunces_ or saltires: in these were placed
-smooth sharpened stakes, so that little more than their points stuck
-out of the ground, and the pits were then covered over with twigs and
-brushwood. The eight rows formed by these obstructions were each 3
-feet apart. The whole arrangement, producing the effect of a row of
-fleurs-de-lys, was called _lilium_: to the stakes the soldiers gave
-the name of _cippi_ or “grave-stones.” On the opposite side of the
-_vallum_, where an attack from a relieving army was expected, a similar
-arrangement was made. Also, in front of the _lilium_, wooden cubes
-with hooks fastened into them were hidden in the ground, bearing the
-appropriate name of _stimuli_.
-
-Cæsar’s method of besieging Alesia was dictated by the probability
-that, with an enemy on both sides, he would have to stand a siege
-himself. After a doubtful battle, the Gallic army of relief made a
-night attack on the lines, in which they found to their cost the
-effectiveness of Cæsar’s death-traps. They brought with them hurdles,
-with which to help themselves across the ditches, and scaling ladders
-and grappling hooks, with the help of which they might climb or pull
-down the rampart. Their weapons were slings, arrows, and stones, to
-which the Romans replied with extemporised slings and spears. They
-suffered two repulses, and then turned their attention to the weakest
-of Cæsar’s camps, while Vercingetorix left Alesia to attack the
-rampart. His force brought hurdles with long balks of timber to form a
-footway across them, mantlets, or coverings under which an attacking
-party, sheltered from Roman missiles, could undermine or make a breach
-in Cæsar’s earthwork by the use of a bore, and hooks with which to cut
-down the rampart on the top of the earthen bank. The attack was long
-and determined. The Gallic pioneers filled up Cæsar’s fosses, so far
-as they could, with earth, and themselves raised a mound from which
-his devices of defence were easily seen. Where his lines were on level
-ground, they were too formidable to attack: on the steep slopes of the
-hills, on the tops of which his camps were pitched, there was more
-chance for an enemy. Here the fiercest fighting took place: the towers
-of the _vallum_ were assailed with javelins, the ditch was filled, and
-an attempt was made to tear down the palisade and breastwork. Labienus,
-unable to hold the lines, sent a message to Cæsar, whose intervention
-with his cavalry turned the day and brought about the total defeat of
-the Gallic army and the surrender of Vercingetorix.
-
-The account of the siege of Marseilles by Gaius Trebonius in B.C. 49
-gives us many of the methods employed by the Romans, and by Byzantine
-and medieval engineers after them, in the siege of a walled town.[66]
-Marseilles was no mere hill stronghold like Alesia: it was a strongly
-fortified seaport town, well equipped for war with engines which hurled
-pointed stakes 12 feet long against the besiegers, as they threw up
-their earthen bank round the landward side of the city. Trebonius had
-to make the line of penthouses (_vineæ_), by which his pioneers were
-protected, of more than ordinary thickness to withstand these missiles.
-In advance of the bank, a body of men, sheltered by a large penthouse
-(_testudo_) levelled the soil. While this leaguer was established on
-the landward side, Brutus gained a naval victory over the Massiliotes,
-who nevertheless continued to hold out against the besiegers. The
-right wing of the Roman army was especially open to attack from the
-city; and on this side the besiegers built a tower of brick, to serve
-as a base of operations and a refuge from attack. This tower, which
-was raised to a height of six stories, was built by workmen who were
-sheltered by hanging mantlets of rope. A roof was made of timber,
-covered with a layer of bricks and puddled clay, to protect it against
-fire, and with raw hides, to make it proof against darts and stones.
-As the tower grew, this roof, from which the rope mantlets depended,
-was raised by levers and screwed down as a covering to each story in
-succession. When it was nearly completed, a wooden penthouse known as
-the mouse (_musculus_) was constructed, consisting of a gallery 60 feet
-long, with a gabled roof, which was covered, like that of the tower,
-with bricks, clay, and hide. This was moved forward on rollers to the
-nearest point in the city-wall. It withstood the huge stones which were
-cast upon it; lighted barrels of pitch and resin, hurled from the wall,
-rolled off its sloping roof and were pushed to a safe distance by the
-men inside, armed with poles and pitchforks. Covered by their friends’
-fire from the brick tower, the soldiers in the mouse were able to sap
-with their levers and wedges the foundations of the tower on the wall,
-and managed to effect a breach. The defenders submitted, and asked for
-a truce until Cæsar arrived; but, taking advantage of the interval,
-they made a treacherous sally from the city, and, aided by a favourable
-wind, burned down the besiegers’ constructions, including the mouse
-and the brick tower, and destroyed their machines. Trebonius, however,
-lost no time in constructing, instead of his earthen bank, a strong
-wall of countervallation, composed of two parallel walls of brick,
-each 6 feet thick, with a timber floor above. This quickly brought the
-defenders to their senses, and they reverted to their old conditions of
-peace. In this account the devices which play the chief part are met
-again in numberless medieval sieges. The lines of countervallation,
-the successful sapping operation, appear, for example, in the tactics
-of Philip Augustus: the besiegers’ brick tower is met again in William
-Rufus’ timber castle at Bamburgh: the engines of war and the protected
-penthouses are commonplaces of medieval warfare.
-
-The bare record of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle throws little light to
-speak of upon the strategy or military skill of the Danes. Nor does the
-lyric form of the songs which celebrate the fight at Brunanburh and
-the battle of Maldon allow of that definiteness of detail which the
-student requires. More definite, although not unencumbered by rhetoric,
-is the account which Abbo, the monk of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, gives
-of the siege of Paris by the Northmen in 885-6.[67] The city of those
-days was confined to the isle still known as La Cité, and was united
-to its suburbs on the mainland by two bridges, where now are the
-Pont-au-Change and the Petit-Pont. The approach to each bridge was
-guarded, on the mainland, by a tower or _tête-du-pont_. The attack of
-the Normans was directed against the northern tower, the construction
-of which had not been finished. It is curious to notice how they
-concentrated themselves on single points in the defence, neglecting
-the prime necessity of closing all lines of communication to the
-defenders. They came up to the tower with their ships, which were seven
-hundred in number, not counting sailless boats, battered it with their
-engines, and hurled darts at its defenders. The tower was shaken, but
-its foundations stood firm: where the walls threatened to give, they
-were repaired with planks of timber, and the tower was raised by these
-wooden additions during a night to one and a half times its former
-height. At daybreak the Northmen again began the attack. The air,
-says Abbo, was full of arrows and stones flung from slings and from
-the _ballistae_ or hurling machines. During the day the heightened
-tower showed signs of succumbing to the enemy’s fire and their mining
-efforts. Eudes, the brave defender of the town, poured down a mixture
-of burning oil, wax, and pitch, which quenched the enthusiasm of the
-besiegers, and cost them three hundred men. On the third day, the
-Northmen established their land camp on the northern bank of the river,
-near the church of Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois. The camp was probably a
-_geweorc_ such as they wrought by the Thames or the Ouse, but it was
-girt, not with an earthen rampart, but with walls of clay mingled with
-stone. From this centre they cruelly ravaged the surrounding country
-during the remainder of the siege. Having thus established their
-base of operations, they returned to the attack of the tower. Their
-devices were the common devices of Roman warfare, which naturally would
-recommend themselves to the assailants of the dying Roman civilisation.
-We hear of the three great battering rams which they prepared, and
-moved up against the walls under the shelter of wooden penthouses
-on wheels, of the bores brought up to undermine the tower by men
-moving under wicker mantlets covered with raw hides, of the _mangana_
-or stone-throwing machines used by the defenders, and of the forked
-beams let down from the tower to catch the heads of the battering-rams
-and render them powerless. Some of the Northmen worked at filling up
-the ditches with whatever came to hand, earth, leaves, straw, meadow
-grass, cattle, even the bodies of captives. Still the city held out,
-and Eudes managed to slip through the enemy’s lines and reach Charles
-the Fat with a request for relief. On his return the Northmen tried to
-intercept him: he got back safely into Paris, while a relieving force
-attacked the enemy and drove them back on their ships. When Charles
-the Fat arrived he established his camp on the southern slopes of
-Montmartre; but he was content, after a general attack upon the city
-had failed, to let the Northmen go, taking with them an indemnity of
-seven hundred pounds, and promising to leave the kingdom in March.
-They, however, made an attempt to reach the upper Seine in boats, as
-the larger vessels could not clear the bridges, and so proceed to
-pillage Burgundy. Their purpose was discovered: the defenders of Paris
-launched arrows at them from the walls, and a chance dart killed their
-pilot. For a time their onward course was checked, but a series of such
-assaults could not be sustained by the French. Eudes, elected king,
-neglected the conflict, and gave words for deeds. “Their barks,” says
-Abbo, “were in crowds on all the rivers of Gaul.” He ends his poem with
-a call to France to give proof once more of those forces which she had
-used in the past to conquer kingdoms more powerful than herself. “Three
-vices,” he cries, “are causes of thy ruin: pride, the shameful love of
-pleasures, the vain lust of gorgeous apparel.” The same words might
-have been said to the English a hundred and twenty-five years later,
-when Swegen and Thurkill were gripping London between their two armies.
-
-A short passage in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle affords some help to the
-question of Danish strategy. London bridge, like the two bridges of
-Paris, was an obstacle to the long Danish ships with their sails. In
-1016, however, the Danes managed to drag their ships round the south
-side of the bridge, apparently by making a ditch on that side of the
-river. They then proceeded to make entrenchments about the city, their
-headquarters being thus removed above bridge. There is no reason to
-doubt that the London which they thus beset was a stone-walled city,
-the Roman Londinium which Alfred had repaired. So was Paris, and so
-were a large number of the towns of France, whose walls had been set
-in repair by their bishops or lay lords. We read of Saint Didier,
-bishop of Cahors 630-55, that he “enlarged, built, and made strong
-Cahors with abundant labour, and a notable work of defence, fortifying
-gates and towers with a girdle of walls compacted of squared stones.”
-In the next century the Saracen invaders of southern France restored
-the Roman walls of Narbonne, and checked the advance of Charles Martel
-into Spain.[68] But for the many instances in which the fortifications
-of Roman cities in France played a part in the warfare of this troubled
-epoch, there are few in England. The _burhs_ of the Danish wars were,
-with the exception of London, Towcester, Colchester, and a few more,
-not stone-walled cities of Roman foundation, such as those which in
-France were the natural prey of the Norman marauders, but villages or
-small towns which had grown into existence for the most part since
-the Saxon conquest, and owed their strength to walls of timber. In
-France military art, as regards both fortification and siege-craft, was
-altogether on a higher plane. The break of continuity caused by the
-extinction of Roman civilisation in England produced a stage in the
-development of attack and defence to which contemporary French history
-affords no parallel. It is not till a later period that the finished
-methods employed by both sides in the siege of Paris were used in
-English warfare.
-
-The cases hitherto quoted refer to sieges of towns; and, as we have
-seen, the castle or private fortress which plays so prominent a part
-in medieval strategy was the result of the growth of the feudal
-system, and takes its place in history at a comparatively late period.
-A fortified town of Roman origin possessed its _arx_ or citadel:
-this was, as it were, the keep of the walled enclosure, to which the
-defenders could retire if the outer defences of the town were taken. A
-castle, however, was a distinct enclosure, which frequently occupied
-a portion of the area of a walled town, but had its own outer lines
-of defence before the keep could be reached. The Norman conquerors of
-England, regarding the castle as the main seat of defence and object
-of attack, directed their attention to its fortification; and thus the
-defence of the town or village in or near which the castle stood became
-of secondary interest. We usually find that, where a castle forms
-part of the defences of an English walled town, the castle has been
-surrounded with a wall and provided with its necessary defences before
-a wall has been built round the town in place of the earlier palisade.
-In spite, however, of this change in the nature of the besieged
-stronghold, the object of attack was still a fortified enclosure.
-The methods of siege developed along the old lines; and the defences
-applied to the castle were those which, on a more extended scale, were
-applicable to the town.
-
-The warfare of the eleventh and twelfth centuries was to a great extent
-a succession of sieges of castles, by direct attack or by blockade. In
-1083 William the Conqueror, besieging Hubert of Maine in the castle
-of Ste-Suzanne, did not venture to attack the wooded precipice on
-which the castle stood, but entrenched his army within earthworks in a
-neighbouring valley. The blockade lasted three years, and the advantage
-lay much on the side of Hubert, so that eventually the Norman army,
-after a desperate attack had failed, withdrew.[69] The chief feature of
-the blockade was the construction of an opposition castle,[70] a method
-employed upon more than one occasion by William II., who, in 1088,
-compelled Odo to surrender Rochester castle by making two _castella_
-upon his lines of communication.[71] In 1095 William II. besieged
-Robert Mowbray in Bamburgh castle. The great rock, with its girdle
-of sea and marsh, did not lend itself to direct attack, and William
-compelled its surrender by building a “new fortress,” which took the
-form of a timber castle, probably of the ordinary mount-and-bailey
-type, and was nicknamed Malvoisin, the “ill neighbour.”[72] From
-this particular instance, the name of _malvoisin_ has been applied
-generally, without sufficient reason, to the wooden towers which were
-sometimes constructed to shelter a besieging force. As a matter of
-fact, Malvoisin was merely one of many nicknames which were given, in
-individual cases, to such besiegers’ castles,[73] and was no more a
-generic term than is Château-Gaillard.
-
-Until the end of the eleventh century, when the first Crusade
-taught western warriors the use of more advanced siege-engines, the
-methods of attack upon a castle seem to have been of a very simple
-description. Earthworks defended by timber could be gained by a
-rush and hand-to-hand fighting; while fire would always be fatal to
-a wooden stronghold ill provided against it. The Bayeux tapestry
-shows us none of those siege-machines which were employed more and
-more frequently against stone castles during the next century; and,
-although the Conqueror’s army seem to have employed an elementary
-form of stone-throwing machine, handled, like the later cross-bow,
-by individual soldiers, and other devices more familiar in later
-times,[74] such machines can hardly have been common. It was, no doubt,
-their growing frequency at the beginning of the twelfth century which
-made stone walls imperative for the protection of a castle. We have
-seen _ballistae_ and other siege-engines of Roman origin used by the
-Northmen at the great siege of Paris in 885; but such engines were
-certainly not in common use in western Europe before the period of
-direct contact with Byzantine civilisation. Ordericus Vitalis mentions
-the construction of such machines, a “belfry” on wheels and devices
-for hurling large stones, by Robert of Bellême’s engineer at Bréval in
-1093, as though they were a novelty, and says of the engineer himself
-that his sagacious ingenuity had been of profit to the Christians at
-the siege of Jerusalem.[75]
-
-Suger’s detailed account of the attack made by Louis VI. upon the
-castle of Le Puiset in 1111 may be taken as a fair description of the
-methods employed by the besiegers and defenders of an ordinary castle
-of earthwork and timber. The king brought numerous _ballistae_ to the
-attack, but we have no indication as to their precise nature: the main
-weapons employed were the bow, sword, and shield. The besieged came out
-of the castle to meet the king; but, amid a hail of arrows from both
-sides, were driven back through the main gateway, which was possibly,
-as at Tickhill,[76] the only stone defence of the enclosure. From the
-rampart of their stronghold, they hurled down wooden planks and stakes
-upon the king’s knights. The besiegers, throwing away their broken
-shields, made use of the missiles to protect themselves and force the
-gateway. Carts laden with dry wood smeared with fat were brought up
-to the doors, and a struggle took place, the royalists trying to set
-the wood on fire, the defenders trying to put the fire out. Meanwhile
-Theobald of Chartres made an attack on the castle from another quarter,
-attempting to climb the steep scarp of the bailey. His followers,
-however, were too hasty: many fell back into the ditch, while others
-were surprised and killed by horsemen of the enemy, who galloped round
-the defences of the castle to keep out intruders. The royalists had
-almost given up hope, when a priest, bare-headed and holding before
-him a piece of wood as an extemporised mantlet, reached the palisade,
-and began to tear away the planks which covered the spaces between the
-uprights. He was soon joined by others, who cut away the palisade with
-axes and iron tools. The royal army poured into the castle, and the
-defenders, taken between the entering force and Theobald’s men, retired
-into the timber tower on the mount, but surrendered in fear. The king
-burned the castle, but spared the donjon.[77]
-
-The assault upon a stone castle or walled town was conducted by direct
-attempts upon the walls themselves, for which movable machines were
-necessary, and by throwing stones or inflammable materials into the
-besieged enclosure from stationary machines. The chief engine used
-directly against the walls was the battering-ram, an enormous pole,
-furnished with an iron head. Hung by chains within a wooden framework
-placed on wheels, it was brought up to the wall, and driven against
-it again and again. The men who worked the ram were protected by
-a pent-house with a rounded or gabled top, called the “tortoise”
-(_testudo_), which covered the machine and its framework. The roof of
-the “tortoise” was made very solidly, to resist missiles thrown from
-the ramparts, and the whole was covered with raw hides or some other
-incombustible material, as a precaution against fire thrown by the
-defenders (69).[78]
-
-[Illustration: Battering-ram protected by pent-house and mantlets]
-
-While the ram delivered its blows upon the face of the wall, sappers
-and miners, sheltered by a smaller pent-house, known as the “mouse,”
-“cat,” or “sow,” made their attack upon the foundations with the bore
-(_terebra_), a heavy pole with a sharp iron head, which slowly broke
-up the stonework and hollowed out a cavity at the foundation of the
-walls (70). This work was assisted by sappers, who, advancing to the
-wall beneath the shelter of inclined frames of timber or wicker-work,
-known as mantlets, which they wheeled in front of them, hacked away
-the stone-work with picks. When a sufficient hollow had been made, the
-miners underpinned the wall with logs, set fire to them, and retired.
-This device was constantly used throughout the middle ages to effect a
-breach, and was successful at Château-Gaillard in 1204,[79] and on
-other occasions; but it obviously must have taken much time, and must
-often have failed of its purpose.
-
-Before, however, the movable engines could be brought to play upon the
-stonework, it was necessary to fill up the ditch in front of the walls.
-This work was done by soldiers, who, under the protection of mantlets,
-flung into the ditch all the loose material on which they could lay
-hands. When the Danes used their battering-rams against the northern
-_tête-du-pont_ at Paris, the first thing which they attempted to do
-was to fill the ditch, using even the dead bodies of their captives
-when other material failed.[80] At Jerusalem in 1099, before Raymond
-of Toulouse could bring up his “timber castle”[81] to the walls, a
-deep natural hollow had to be filled. The work took three days and
-nights: every man who put three stones into the hollow was promised a
-penny.[82] Philip Augustus in February 1203-4 began his operations upon
-Château-Gaillard by filling the ditch between the outer ward and his
-lines, while his catapults played upon the masonry from a distance and
-protected the workers between them and the wall.[83]
-
-[Illustration: Bore protected by mantlets]
-
-While the battering-ram, the bore, and the mine threatened the
-stability of the walls, parties of the besiegers attempted to force
-an entry into the stronghold. The simple method of bringing up fuel
-to the main gateway, and burning down the door, was frustrated, in
-process of time, by greater attention to the defences of the gateway,
-and the reinforcement of its doors by herses or portcullises.[84]
-Scaling-ladders were moved up against the walls: the daring spirits
-who climbed these drew up with them other ladders, by which they could
-descend into the enclosure. Another method of scaling walls was by the
-movable “belfry,” a tower of several stories, in each of which a number
-of men could be sheltered. The floor of the uppermost stage of the
-tower was approximately on a level with the top of the ramparts, and a
-drawbridge thrown out from it, when it was wheeled close to the wall,
-formed a passage for the besiegers. The occupants of the lower stages
-could mount by stairs to the top floor, and thus a considerable body
-of men could come to close quarters with the defenders (72).[85] These
-movable towers could be quickly constructed, where wood of sufficient
-scantling was procurable. Philip’s belfries at Château-Gaillard
-were composed of tree-trunks, untouched by the plane: all that the
-carpenters had done to smooth them was to cut off the branches with
-an axe.[86] In early instances of the employment of such towers, they
-seem to have been chiefly used for bringing the small artillery of
-the besiegers close to the walls. At Marrah in 1098, the Crusader
-Raymond of Toulouse had a very lofty wooden “belfry,” of a height equal
-to that of the towers on the town wall, made upon four wheels. Huge
-stones were hurled and arrows shot from it upon the defenders of the
-walls, and grappling-irons were thrust out to catch unwary persons with
-their hooks. The walls were eventually climbed by scaling ladders of
-the ordinary kind: if there was a drawbridge in connection with the
-machine, it does not seem to have been used.[87] Antioch, earlier in
-the same year, was entered by scaling ladders.[88] The belfry used
-by Henry I. at Pontaudemer in 1123 was a movable tower, but was not
-used for purposes of scaling. It was actually 24 feet higher than the
-rampart: bow-men and arbalasters directed their arrows and bolts from
-it upon the defenders, while others threw stones down from it.[89] Not
-even at Château-Gaillard is there much reason to suppose that Philip
-used his belfries to scale the walls. The miners and catapults did
-the chief work, by opening breaches in the masonry of the outer and
-inner wards: the middle ward alone was gained by an escalade, and this
-was effected by a small body of men, who climbed through unguarded
-openings in the substructure of the chapel, and so were able to unbar
-the gates of the ward to the main body of the army.
-
-[Illustration: Besiegers scaling walls from movable belfry]
-
-The great siege-engines, capable of shooting stones or bolts,
-which were often heated red-hot in an oven before delivery, from a
-considerable distance, did their work from the background. The men who
-looked after them were protected by a palisade, placed in front of the
-engines; this was the case with Philip’s engineers at Château-Gaillard.
-These machines are often indiscriminately called “stone-throwers”
-(_petrariae_, _pierrières_) or catapults; and accounts of them differ
-very considerably. It is clear that, in Roman and Byzantine warfare,
-the two main types of engine were the stone-throwing machine, known
-later as the mangon or mangonel, and the machine for shooting javelins,
-known as _ballista_.[90] The first consisted of an upright flexible
-beam between two solid upright posts. Cords were stretched from post
-to post and wound round the beam. The beam was then drawn back with
-the aid of winches and a stone placed in a hollow in its head; it was
-then suddenly let go, so that the twisted cords slackened, and the
-stone flew towards its mark, describing a high ellipse in its flight.
-The force by which the _ballista_ was worked, depended, not on twisted
-cords, but on the tension of the cord which joined the two extremities
-of a great bow, and was attached to the movable grooved piece in
-which the javelin was placed. The tension released, the javelin was
-discharged. While the _ballista_ could be discharged with a definite
-aim, the aim of the stone-throwing machine could be only general, and
-its chief use was to cast stones which, by their elliptic flight,
-dropped inside the walls of the besieged place.[91]
-
-[Illustration: Engine for shooting javelins]
-
-[Illustration: Stone-throwing engine]
-
-The _ballista_, which was simply a huge bow, capable of shooting
-enormous bolts by the tension of a horizontal cord, was developed
-upon a small scale into the cross-bow or arbalast, which could be
-carried and managed by one man. The cross-bow was invented, or at
-any rate re-invented, in northern Europe towards the end of the
-eleventh century, it was employed in the first Crusade, and struck
-the Byzantines as a novelty.[92] The development of the larger
-engines seems to have proceeded with a view to stone-throwing, and
-combinations of the machines mentioned above may have been employed
-for this purpose.[93] Viollet-le-Duc, in his elaborate reconstructions
-of siege-machines, shows, for example, a mangon with a central upright
-post, working on a pivot, in a slot near the top of which is fixed a
-javelin. This post is strengthened by two diagonal beams fixed to the
-back of the framework, which moves on the same pivot, at the foot of
-the machine. Between these the flexible beam which propels the javelin
-is fastened by a cord working through a pulley to a winch turned by
-a man, and a bundle of cords is tightly twisted round the central
-post and the beam (74). He also shows a large stone-throwing engine
-on a wheeled carriage, which, in addition to an apparatus of twisted
-cords held in place by a system of ratchet wheels, and bound round the
-movable beam, has a cord stretched round the back of the beam, and
-connected with two huge springs forming a bow. The centre of the bow
-is a massive upright framework of wood, which acts as a buffer to the
-beam, when it is allowed to fly forward and discharge the stone (74).
-Minute as these reconstructions are, they seem to improve upon the data
-supplied by medieval writers and the pictures in MSS. Guillaume le
-Breton, the panegyrist of Philip Augustus, describes the stone-throwing
-machine used at the siege of Boves in 1185, as a great sling worked by
-several men, which threw immense rocks of great weight. The beam to
-which the projectile was attached worked on an axis, and was dragged
-backwards to the ground with ropes, and then set free.
-
-[Illustration: Trébuchet or Slinging machine]
-
-[Illustration: Trébuchet with ropes attached to counterpoise]
-
-This description suggests that the beam, balanced on an axis, and
-needing several people to attend to the discharge at one end, was
-worked by a counterpoise at the other. This was the case with the
-developed slinging machine, known as _trébuchet_. A pole, working on
-a pivot between two upright stands, was weighted at one end with a
-heavy wooden chest, filled with earth, which kept the pole, when not
-in use, in a vertical position. To the other end was attached a long
-sling, capable of containing large stones. When the tension of the
-ropes which dragged the pole backwards and lifted the counterpoise was
-released, the counterpoise fell heavily, bringing the pole abruptly
-back into position, and the sling, describing a circle in the air, let
-fly the stone when it reached the summit of the arc (75). Variations
-of this form of catapult, which became general in the thirteenth
-century, are found (76); the machine known as _cabulus_ which Philip
-Augustus used with excellent effect against the strong inner wall
-of Château-Gaillard, was possibly worked upon the principle of
-counterpoise.
-
-Against these modes and machines of attack the defenders of a castle
-had to contend. The obvious means of defence was to oppose to the enemy
-a thickness of wall which would be proof against the blows of the ram
-or the slow labour of the pick. But even the very strong inner wall
-at Château-Gaillard, which was constructed with the special object of
-resisting these engines, yielded to the miners, reinforced by the
-great slinging machine. In this instance the castle had undergone
-a long blockade; its communications had been cut off some months
-beforehand; and the garrison was greatly reduced in numbers. The lesson
-of the siege was that against a persistent and well-conducted blockade
-mere passive strength was of little avail. Here, too, the defenders,
-driven back from one bailey to another, seem to have renounced the
-opportunity of final shelter afforded them by the keep, and to have
-made an attempt to evacuate the castle by a postern before they fell
-into the hands of the enemy.
-
-[Illustration: Aigues-Mortes]
-
-[Illustration: Carcassonne]
-
-Château-Gaillard, however, and the castles of its period will be
-discussed in detail in the sequel. At present, we are concerned with
-the direct methods employed to meet the attack of siege-engines
-and attempts at escalade. Against the great catapults the besieged
-were practically powerless. The use of such machines upon the walls
-themselves was as dangerous to the stability of the masonry as their
-use by the enemy, and hastened the chance of a breach: they could not
-be employed from the interior of the enclosure, without endangering
-the defenders on the rampart.[94] The summit of the rectangular
-keep of the twelfth century was never constructed as a platform for
-artillery: here, again, engineers probably feared the effect of the
-constant vibration upon a flat wooden roof, and were content to conceal
-their ridged roofs within high ramparts. The main arm of defence which
-could be employed by the defenders was the cross-bow. Their superior
-position upon the ramparts enabled them to throw down stones and
-burning material upon the assailants engaged at the foot of the wall,
-and the wheeled belfries formed a direct target for their arrows. The
-ram could also be paralysed by letting down grappling-irons or beams
-with forked heads, which gripped and disabled it; or sacks of wool or
-earth could be lowered to meet its strokes. The assailants, however,
-worked under their defences of pent-houses and mantlets, the solid tops
-and sloping surfaces of which were specially devised against the shock
-of stones and arrows; while, as we have seen, their coverings were so
-protected that it was difficult for them to catch fire.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  Parapet defended by hoarding, showing elevation, section through
-  _hourd_ and _coursière_, and method of construction]
-
-[Illustration: Laval]
-
-The first improvements in defence, designed to meet an improved attack,
-consisted in the protection of the ramparts. Behind the outer parapet
-of the wall was the rampart-walk, a level path along the top of the
-wall, which was sometimes protected by a parapet in the rear. From an
-early date in stone fortification, it was customary to break the upper
-portion of the parapet at intervals by openings called crenellations,
-through which it was possible for an archer to command a limited part
-of the field at right angles to the wall.[95] The crenellations,
-however, were narrow compared with the unbroken parapets between them,
-and, even in advanced examples of fortification like the ramparts
-of Aigues-Mortes (77) and Carcassonne (78), these unbroken pieces
-are still very broad, although they are pierced by arrow-slits. Even
-allowing for an arrow-slit between each crenellation, the foot of the
-wall could not be commanded from behind the parapet. In time of siege,
-then, it became customary to supply the walls with projecting wooden
-galleries, known as hoardings or brattices (_hourds_, _bretèches_),
-which could be entered through the crenellations. The joists of the
-flooring passed through holes at the foot of the parapet, and were
-often common to the outer gallery and an inner gallery (_coursière_)
-covering the rampart-walk. Both galleries had a common roof.[96] In the
-floor of the outer gallery, between the joists, were holes, through
-which missiles could be directed upon the besiegers at the foot of the
-wall; while slits in the outer face were still available for straight
-firing. The defenders of the ramparts were thus able to work under
-shelter, with some command both of the field and the foot of the wall.
-The defensive advantages of this scheme are obvious; but the galleries
-were also liable, although the usual precautions for their covering
-were taken, to destruction by fire, whether from arrows tipped with
-burning tow, or the more formidable red-hot stones flung by catapults.
-In any case, the catapults were a serious menace to their solidity.
-
-[Illustration: Coucy; parapet of donjon]
-
-The donjon and the towers of the _enceinte_ were also bratticed
-at the rampart-level.[97] Indications of this practice are common
-in military architecture abroad. The cylindrical donjon of Laval
-(80), a work of the twelfth century, is covered with hoarding which
-is supposed to be contemporary with the tower. The stone corbels
-which carried the hoarding of the great thirteenth-century tower of
-Coucy remain; and a row of plain arches pierced in the tall parapet
-show how the gallery was entered from the roof (81). The somewhat
-earlier round tower at Rouen was restored by Viollet-le-Duc on the
-lines of Coucy, with a conical roof and hoarding. The inner wall at
-Carcassonne and the curtain of Loches, among other examples, keep the
-holes in which the joists of the hoarding were fixed; and the walls
-of Nuremberg are still covered with inner galleries or _coursières_.
-The practice of supplementing stone walls with timber defences lasted
-till a late period; but, even before the end of the twelfth century,
-corbelled-out parapets with machicolations appeared in isolated
-instances. In subsequent chapters we shall see how military masons and
-engineers applied their architectural skill to meet the problems which
-siege-engines of greater strength and tactics more finished than those
-of the past forced upon them. We have now to deal with earlier efforts,
-which we have to some degree anticipated.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER V
-
-THE BEGINNING OF THE STONE CASTLE
-
-
-[Illustration: Map of principal castles in north-east England]
-
-In Domesday Book some fifty castles are mentioned by name or
-implication; and the number was largely increased during the next
-hundred years. In view, however, of the large number of temporary
-private strongholds which came into being during the twelfth century,
-it is difficult to estimate the number of permanent castles until, in
-the later part of the century, Henry II. regulated and restrained the
-efforts of private owners to guard their property with fortresses. The
-castles included in Domesday do not represent the whole number which
-existed at that period; and of such important castles as Colchester and
-Exeter, which we know to have been founded before 1086, there is no
-mention. To estimate the strategic plan which governed the foundation
-of castles at its full value, we must therefore turn for a moment
-to the later period at which the defence of England by a connected
-system of these strongholds had been more thoroughly achieved. Here
-also, it is not altogether easy, in view of the destruction of older
-castles by Henry II., and the foundation of new ones at a later
-epoch, to estimate the exact state of the castles of England at the
-end of the twelfth century.[98] But, taking one special district, we
-may at least gain an approximate notion of its lines of defence as
-they existed about the year 1200. This is the north-eastern district
-of England, containing the main strategic approach to Scotland, and
-crossed by the rivers which descend eastwards to the sea. This was the
-scene of the rebellion of the Mowbrays and the invasion of William
-the Lion in 1174, in consequence of which four important castles
-at least, those of Kinnard’s Ferry on the lower Trent, Thirsk and
-Northallerton in the vale of Mowbray, and Kirkby Malzeard, on the
-highlands above the right bank of the Ure, were demolished.[99] The
-chief castles of this district will be found to guard the line of
-the rivers. On the Trent were Nottingham, on the north bank, and the
-bishop of Lincoln’s castle of Newark,[100] on the south; while the
-greater part of the lower valley of the river was commanded at some
-distance by the strongly-placed castles of Belvoir and Lincoln. On
-the borders of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, Tickhill[101] stood in
-advance of the Don, while the narrow passage of the Don, five miles
-west of Doncaster, was guarded by Conisbrough. These castles defended
-the approach from the high land on the west; the marshy country north
-and east of Doncaster, towards the Humber, although it often proved
-a refuge for freebooters, needed no permanent garrison. South of the
-Calder, opposite Wakefield, stood Sandal. To the east, below the
-junction of the Calder and the Aire, was Pontefract, in a position of
-great strength and importance.[102] There was no great castle on the
-Wharfe, although Harewood guarded the south bank of the river between
-Otley and Tadcaster, and at Tadcaster itself there was a castle, of
-which little is known; Cawood castle was simply a manor-house of the
-archbishops of York.[103] On the Ouse, almost in the centre of the
-shire, were the two castles of York, at the head of the tideway.
-Knaresborough was west of York, on the north bank of the Nidd. Each of
-the dales of the North Riding had its strong castle. In Wensleydale was
-Middleham, south of the Ure. Richmond, from its cliff at the mouth of
-Swaledale, commanded a vast tract of country, reaching to the Hambleton
-hills and the forest of Galtres, north of York. Barnard Castle stood
-in a strong position on the Durham bank of the Tees. The castles of
-the eastern part of the North Riding were Skelton and Castleton, both
-in Cleveland, and belonging to the house of Bruce. Helmsley stood at
-the entrance of Ryedale; Pickering and Malton were on the Derwent,
-and Scarborough guarded the coast. South of Scarborough, in the East
-Riding, the one castle of importance at this date was Skipsea, on the
-low coast-line of Holderness, between Flamborough and Spurn heads.
-Returning to the border of Durham, and crossing the Tees, we find
-Brancepeth and Durham on the Wear. On the south bank of the Tyne was
-Prudhoe in Northumberland: north of the Tyne was the great fortress of
-Newcastle. Most of the castles and small strongholds of Northumberland
-were the growth of a later age. The principal castles at this period
-were Mitford on the Wansbeck, Warkworth on the Coquet, Alnwick on the
-Alne, Wark and Norham on the Tweed, and Bamburgh and Holy Island,
-castles on the seaboard. This list might be extended, but the most
-important fortresses east of the Pennine chain are included in it,
-and from it the strategic geography of this important district can
-be readily recognised. Of the thirty-four castles in this list, ten,
-including the gateway-tower at Newark, had rectangular tower-keeps, of
-which nine remain; Conisbrough and Barnard Castle (87) had cylindrical
-tower-keeps. Of the rest, in most cases, as at Sandal (86), the mounts
-remain, and in a few instances, as at Skipsea, there are remains of
-a shell-keep. The shell-keeps of Lincoln and Pickering are still
-excellent examples of their type. The masonry at York, Pontefract, and
-Knaresborough belongs to a later period; and in almost all instances,
-where masonry remains, it bears trace of substantial later additions.
-
-[Illustration: Sandal Castle; Plan]
-
-[Illustration: Barnard Castle; Plan]
-
-It will be noticed that castles which guarded passes through hilly
-districts were generally placed, like Middleham and Richmond, in
-comparatively open country at the foot of the pass. This was the
-case with Welsh castles like Brecon and Llandovery, or the tower of
-Dolbadarn, below the pass of Llanberis. The isolated position at the
-head of a pass was not easily victualled, nor was it so useful as the
-situation on more open ground, from which, as at Brecon or Middleham, a
-larger extent of mountain country could be commanded. Trecastle (44),
-at the top of the pass between Brecon and Llandovery, has already been
-mentioned as a site which was probably abandoned early: the tract which
-it commanded is limited compared with that within reach of Brecon, the
-point towards which all the valleys of the neighbourhood converge.
-
-In places where a castle formed part of the defences of a walled town,
-it was usually placed upon the line of the wall, so that the wall
-formed for some distance part of its curtain. This can be well seen
-at Lincoln, where the castle occupied the south-west angle of the
-older Roman city. The castle of Ludlow is in the north-west angle of
-the town, the wall of which joined it on its north face and at its
-south-west corner. At Carlisle the castle filled up an angle of the
-town, the town walls meeting its south curtain at either end. In such
-cases, the castle, while defending the town, was also protected from
-it by a ditch, across which a passage was furnished by a drawbridge.
-The castle of Bristol stood upon the isthmus, east of the town, between
-the streams of the Avon and Frome, and, in this strong position, was
-joined by the city wall at either extremity of its west side. In 1313,
-when the citizens were in rebellion, they cut off the castle from
-the city by building a new wall on that side.[104] In the case of
-Bristol, the building of the castle made some alterations in the town
-wall necessary, as time went on, but, from the beginning, the castle
-occupied its place in the regular _enceinte_. If, at York, the castles
-were at first built, as seems to be the case, outside the defences
-of the town, the circuit was soon extended to include the castle, at
-any rate, upon the right bank of the river. Although the castle of
-Southampton is almost entirely gone, the points of junction of its
-curtains with the west wall of the town are quite clear. Similarly,
-the position of castles such as Shrewsbury, Leicester, and Nottingham,
-or close to the _enceinte_ of the town, can be traced, although little
-is left of the walls. In foreign walled towns like Angers or Laval,
-the castle formed, as in England, a portion of the outer defences. In
-later castles like Carnarvon and Conway, the same relation to the plan
-of the town was preserved. There are exceptions, of which the chief is
-the Tower of London, within the Roman, but outside the medieval city
-wall. Chepstow is also outside the town, between which and the castle
-is a deep ravine: but in this case the town was of a growth subsequent
-to the foundation of the castle. A distinction must be drawn between
-castles founded in connection with fortified towns, in which the castle
-formed part of a general scheme of defence, as at Bristol and Oxford,
-and castles under the protection of which towns, like Chepstow, grew
-up, and were subsequently fortified. A good example of this latter
-class is Newcastle, in which the relations of town and castle are
-exactly opposite to those at Chepstow. When the castle was founded by
-the Conqueror, the place, once garrisoned by the Romans, and for a time
-inhabited by a colony of English monks, was probably an inconsiderable
-village. The town which grew up on the site took its name from the
-castle, and was walled in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The
-walls, however, were brought down to the banks of the Tyne at some
-distance east and west of the castle, which was thus contained entirely
-within their circuit. At Norwich, a place of no great importance before
-the Conquest, the castle is also entirely within the line of the old
-city wall. One of the best examples of the connection between a walled
-town and a castle is at Launceston, where the borough of Dunheved grew
-up within a narrow area which was virtually the outer ward of the
-strong hill-fortress.
-
-The establishment of a castle upon a permanent site was followed,
-sooner or later, by the building of stone fortifications. This work
-was often very gradual. We have seen that even a castle so important
-as that of York retained part of its timber stockade as late as 1324.
-This, however, was an exceptional case. The walls and towers of
-medieval castles show, as might be expected, a considerable variety of
-masonry; but the epoch at which their fortification in stone became
-general may be said to be the third quarter of the twelfth century. In
-1155 Henry II. resumed castles and other royal property into his own
-hands, and ordered the destruction of the unlicensed castles which had
-risen during the civil wars of the previous reign.[105] This step was
-followed unquestionably by much activity in strengthening the defences
-of the castles which were left.
-
-At the same time, there are many substantial remains of stone
-buildings in castles earlier than this era. Stone donjons or keeps
-were certainly exceptional in England before the reign of Henry II.,
-although there are a few important examples of an earlier date. It
-cannot be disputed, however, that a certain number of castles were
-provided with a stone curtain-wall[106] and other stone buildings not
-long after the Conquest. Curtain-walls thus built would follow the line
-of the earthen bank surrounding the bailey, and take the place of the
-timber stockade. They were at first of the simplest form. An edict of
-the council of Lillebonne in 1080 laid down the rule, so far as the
-Norman duchy was concerned, for constructing the defences of private
-castles; and, although the details refer primarily to the ordinary
-timber structure, they also have a bearing on the construction of early
-curtains of stone. No ditch was to be deeper than the level from which
-earth could be thrown by the digger, without other help, to the soil
-above. The stockade was to follow a course of straight lines, and to
-be without _propugnacula_ and _alatoria_—_i.e._, projecting towers and
-battlements, and rampart-walks or galleries.[107]
-
-The earliest type of curtain-wall would be strictly in accordance with
-these rules—a strong wall of stone surrounding the bailey, and climbing
-the sides of the mount to join the defences of the donjon. We read
-of the destruction by Louis VI. of France of the stone fortification
-with which the house of the lord of Maule was surrounded;[108] and the
-edict already quoted applies to fortifications on level ground, and
-includes, not merely castles, but strong private houses, which might
-not necessarily follow the castle plan. The edict, however, proceeds
-to forbid altogether the construction by private persons of castles
-on rocks or islands. The reason of this is obvious. Such isolated
-strongholds might become, in the hands of private owners, a centre
-of rebellion against the suzerain. In 1083, Hubert of Maine held out
-successfully against the Conqueror in his rock castle of Ste-Suzanne
-(Mayenne) on the Erve, “inaccessible by reason of the rocks and the
-thickness of the surrounding vineyards.”[109] William II. in 1095
-besieged Robert Mowbray in his castle on the well-nigh impregnable
-rock of Bamburgh, with considerably better fortune.[110] Such rocks
-formed, as it were, natural mounts which made the construction of the
-ordinary mount-and-bailey castle upon them unnecessary. The hardness
-of the soil, moreover, made the construction of earthworks difficult
-or impossible. The natural method of defence would be to raise a stone
-wall which enclosed the stronghold.
-
-[Illustration: BAMBURGH CASTLE: great tower]
-
-[Illustration: BAMBURGH CASTLE]
-
-[Illustration: Richmond; great tower]
-
-Neither at Ste-Suzanne nor at Bamburgh (91) is there existing
-stonework earlier than the twelfth century. Of the castle of
-Saint-Céneri-le-Gérei (Orne), which we know to have been fortified
-with stone walls before the end of the eleventh century,[111] only
-indistinguishable masses of masonry remain to-day. On the other hand,
-there are a certain number of castles on rocky and isolated sites, the
-walls of which may be fairly attributed, in whole or part, to the later
-half of the eleventh century. The most important example is Richmond
-castle in Yorkshire (91), on a high promontory of rock above the Swale.
-The shape of the enclosure is triangular. The most conspicuous feature
-of the castle is the splendid square tower or donjon, which was
-completed between 1170 and 1180, and stands on the north side of the
-_enceinte_, at the head of the approach from the town. The curtain,
-however, west of the donjon, contains “herring-bone” masonry,[112] and
-is of a rough construction which affords the greatest contrast to the
-regularly dressed and closely jointed masonry of the great tower. The
-tower, on three sides, forms an outward projection from the curtain,
-of great size and strength, and is a structure of one period from the
-ground upwards. But, on entering the castle, it is at once obvious
-that the lower part of the south wall of the tower is formed by part
-of the earlier curtain. In the middle of this section of the work is a
-wide doorway, with a round-headed arch of two unmoulded orders, which
-now forms an entrance into the basement of the tower. The capitals
-of the jamb-shafts of this archway are of an unmistakably eleventh
-century character, with volutes at the upper angles, and a row of
-acanthus leaves round the bell. This type of capital is seen in such
-buildings as the two abbey churches at Caen, the nave of Christchurch
-priory, the west front of Lincoln minster, and other fabrics completed
-before 1100, and is a sure guide to the date of the work in which it
-occurs. It would appear, then, that the masonry of this archway and
-much of the curtain is the work of Alan of Brittany, earl of Richmond,
-who certainly founded the castle, and died in 1088.[113] The castle
-contains more work of his date, of which something will be said in the
-sequel.
-
-[Illustration: Ludlow; Entrance to inner ward]
-
-When the great tower of Richmond was built, an entrance was made on
-the first floor, from the rampart-walk of the curtain. It is quite
-clear that, up to this time, the archway just described had been the
-main entrance of the castle, and had probably been covered on the
-side next the town by a rectangular building, which formed the lower
-stage of a gateway-tower or gatehouse, lower than the present donjon.
-This is borne out by a comparison with the keep at Ludlow, where it
-is quite clear that an eleventh century gatehouse was converted at a
-later period into a keep, by walling up the outer entrance (94). A
-new entrance to the castle, as at Richmond, was made in the adjacent
-curtain, where it could be easily commanded by the tower. The date of
-the lowest stage of the donjon is revealed, as at Richmond, by the
-details of capitals and shafts, which in this case belong to an arcade
-in the east wall of the inner portion (95).[114]
-
-[Illustration: Ludlow; Wall arcade in basement of great tower]
-
-[Illustration: Ludlow; Plan]
-
-The site of Ludlow (96), like that of Richmond, is a rocky peninsula,
-where a stone curtain, for which material existed on the spot, formed
-the obvious means of defence. There was no mount and no keep. Exeter,
-again, is an early example of a stone-walled castle upon a rocky site,
-where a gateway with a tower above formed the principal entrance.
-Such sites were protected naturally by the fall of the ground on the
-steeper sides; the side on which approach was possible was covered by
-a ditch cut in the rock. The ditch would be crossed by a drawbridge,
-let down from the inner edge, next the gateway. The gatehouse itself
-would be a building of two or more stages; at Ludlow the upper stage,
-as completed, was considerably loftier than the lower.[115] At Exeter
-there were probably three stages. A single upper stage remains at
-Tickhill. At Lewes and Porchester there is clear evidence of an upper
-chamber. The gatehouse at Porchester, as at Ludlow, was the entrance
-to an inner ward, divided by a ditch from the large outer ward,[116]
-which, at Porchester, represented the greater part of the _enceinte_ of
-the Roman station, and contained the priory church and buildings. In
-these early gatehouses, the lower stage was closed at either end by a
-heavy wooden door, and was covered by a flat ceiling of timber. There
-was no arrangement for a portcullis. At Ludlow the lower stage appears
-to have been divided into an outer porch and inner hall by a cross
-wall, in which there must have been a door; but communication between
-these parts was also obtained by a narrow barrel-vaulted passage in the
-thickness of the east wall, which, opening from the outer division,
-turned at right angles to itself in the direction of the length of the
-wall, and, with another right-angled turn, opened into the inner hall
-(95). This passage was guarded by doors, which opened inwards at either
-end.[117] When the outer doorway of the gatehouse was blocked, the
-lower stage was covered in with a pointed barrel-vault.[118]
-
-[Illustration: Porchester; Plan]
-
-As already indicated, the details of these gatehouses are very simple,
-and it is only where an attempt is made at ornament that their date
-can be fairly judged. Thus at Porchester, the entrance archway, masked
-by defensive work of a more advanced period, consists of an unmoulded
-ring of _voussoirs_, divided from the jambs by plain impost-blocks. The
-outer bailey or base-court of the castle, which is still surrounded by
-the Roman walls with their semicircular bastions, has two gatehouses.
-These occupy the sites of the west and east gates of the Roman
-_enceinte_, and the east or water-gate is in part Roman. The western
-gatehouse was rebuilt at a date contemporary with the enclosure of the
-castle proper within the north-west quarter of the Roman station, and
-was much altered at a later period. The archways of the Norman building
-remain, and show no attempt at ornament, the inner one alone having
-impost-blocks below the arches. The work at Porchester is usually
-attributed to the early part of the twelfth century, and the ashlar
-facing of the side walls of the inner gateway appears to be of that
-date. A similar severity of detail is seen in the parallel case of
-Lewes, where the original gatehouse was also covered in the fourteenth
-century by a barbican (98). The great gatehouse of three stages, at
-Newark castle (99), was the work of Alexander, bishop of Lincoln from
-1123 to 1148, whose uncle, Roger, bishop of Salisbury (1107-39),
-appears to have built the gatehouse at Sherborne. The archways of the
-lower stage at Newark are of great width, and are as simple in detail
-as those at Porchester. The outer or northern wall of the tower is
-faced with finely-jointed ashlar, and the archway on this side has a
-hood-moulding, with billet ornament.[119]
-
-[Illustration: Lewes; Barbican]
-
-The position of the gatehouse in relation to the curtain varies. At
-Richmond, Porchester, and Exeter the inner face of the gatehouse was
-flush with the curtain. At Ludlow, Newark, and Tickhill it was partly
-outside, but mostly inside the curtain. At Lewes the projection was
-wholly internal. Its measurements also vary. Porchester was 23 feet
-in length by 28 feet in breadth: Exeter and Lewes were about 30 feet,
-Tickhill about 36 feet square: Ludlow was 31 feet broad, but was some
-feet longer. The area of the gatehouse at Newark is larger than any,
-and the general proportions and elevation were those of a rectangular
-donjon rather than a mere gateway-tower.[120]
-
-[Illustration: Newark; Gatehouse]
-
-Stress has been laid on the occurrence of early stone fortifications
-on rocky and precipitous sites, where the ordinary earthworks were at
-once impracticable and unnecessary. It will be noted, however, that
-the gatehouses which have been described are not found wholly in such
-positions. Tickhill and Lewes were mount-and-bailey castles with strong
-earthworks. Porchester is on level ground, open to Portsmouth harbour
-on two sides, and defended by a ditch on the sides towards the land:
-the site was already walled, but the rectangular keep appears to stand
-upon the base of an earlier mount, which may have been thrown up so
-as to enclose the Roman tower at the north-west angle of the station.
-Newark (157) stands on a moderate height above the meeting of the Devon
-and an arm of the Trent, with a deep ditch on the north and east sides
-towards the town. There was no castle here before Alexander began to
-build in or about 1130; and his work from the beginning consisted of
-a rectangular enclosure without a mount, in which the gatehouse had
-something of the importance of a keep. The necessity of defending the
-entrance of the castle, whatever the nature of the site might be, led
-to the construction of stone gatehouses at an early date; and, at
-Tickhill or Lewes, the gate-towers were probably constructed at a time
-when the mounts and embankments of the bailey were still defended by
-timber.
-
-Stone curtains which display “herring-bone” masonry may generally
-be assumed to be early in date. It has been customary to look upon
-“herring-bone” masonry as indicative of pre-Conquest work, and many
-buildings have been described as “Saxon” on the strength of this detail
-alone. On the other hand, it never occurs in direct association with
-details which may be regarded as definite criteria of pre-Conquest
-masonry; and the dimensions, apart from other features, of churches
-in which it is found in any quantity, usually afford suspicion of its
-post-Conquest origin.[121] Its use in castles, which, as has been
-shown, were a Norman importation into England, demolishes its claim to
-be regarded as a distinctive sign of Saxon work; and its employment
-in Normandy, especially in the donjon of Falaise, where almost the
-whole of the inner face of the walls shows “herring-bone” coursing,
-may be set against any theory which would attribute it to English
-masons after the Conquest.[122] It was used by Roman builders, and
-much of it may be seen in the towers of the _enceinte_ at Porchester.
-Saxon builders, however, did not copy Roman methods of walling, and
-the surest criterion of Saxon work is the thin wall, wholly composed
-of dressed stone, or of rag-work without facings. Norman builders,
-coming from a country where the continuity of Roman influence was never
-broken, used the ordinary Roman method of a compound wall, in which
-a solid rubble core was faced with ashlar on one or both sides. It
-is only natural that in early stone castles, which were constructed
-as quickly as possible, the facing should be of a rough description,
-of coursed rubble or of “herring-bone” courses laid in thick beds
-of mortar. At a subsequent date, when masonry was added to already
-fortified sites, the work could be pursued in a more leisurely manner.
-The most striking example of “herring-bone” work in an English castle
-is in the cross-wall of the great tower at Colchester (101), which is
-unquestionably a building of the eleventh century. Here the work was
-evidently hurried on, with the object of securing the greatest amount
-of strength in the least possible time, and Roman tiles were re-used in
-large quantities as bonding courses for the rubble walls, and for the
-“herring-bone” coursing of the dividing wall. At Richmond, as has been
-noted, there is a certain amount of “herring-bone” work in the curtain.
-The castle was founded on an entirely new site by Alan of Brittany:
-earthworks were out of the question, and the date of the older masonry
-of the stone wall is beyond dispute.
-
-[Illustration: Colchester; Cross-wall]
-
-A very remarkable example of “herring-bone” walling is the curtain-wall
-at Tamworth (48). The castle was founded by Robert Marmion after the
-Conquest on the low ground at the meeting of the Tame and Anker, the
-town, the fortified _burh_ of Æthelflæd, being on higher ground to the
-north. Marmion’s fortress took the mount-and-bailey form. The bailey
-was a triangular platform of earth, raised artificially above the level
-of the river bank, with its apex towards the confluence of the streams.
-The mount was on its west side, and was divided from it by a ditch. The
-defences on the side next the town were of stone. Here the curtain-wall
-remains in very perfect condition, crossing the ditch and climbing
-the mount, with a sloping rampart-walk along the top. The inner face
-is composed entirely of “herring-bone” courses, alternating with one,
-two, and sometimes three, layers of thin horizontal stones. This
-appearance of more than one horizontal course is very unusual.[123]
-It is obvious that the site, being commanded by the town, would be
-materially strengthened by a stone wall on that side: on the south
-side, scarping and ditching would have been sufficient, and there is
-no trace of stone-work of an early period here. The original entrance
-was at the north-eastern angle of the enclosure, and probably took the
-form of a stone gatehouse.[124] Other instances of “herring-bone” work
-in curtain-walls that may be mentioned here are at Corfe, Hastings,
-and Lincoln. Corfe was built on an isolated hill, which was scarped
-and ditched, something after the manner of a “contour” fort of early
-days: the portion of the curtain in which “herring-bone” coursing is
-found follows the natural line of the edge of the hill. Hastings is
-a fortress on a steep promontory: the mount, on the east side of the
-enclosure, was defended by a deep ditch, and covered by a large outer
-bailey with formidable earthworks. The curtain, on the east and north
-sides of the inner ward, is chiefly of the thirteenth century; but part
-of the north curtain, forming the north wall of the castle chapel, is
-of “herring-bone” construction. Lincoln, as we have seen, was a large
-mount-and-bailey fortress, surrounded by earthworks, which, on the west
-side, enclosed portions of the wall of the Roman city. “Herring-bone”
-masonry is seen here and there in the west and north curtains, which
-have been raised on the top of the earthen banks.[125]
-
-[Illustration: Chepstow; Hall]
-
-The battlemented parapet with which the curtain-wall of a castle is
-usually crowned, generally may be assigned, in its present state,
-to a later repair and heightening of the curtain. This is the case
-at Lincoln, where the parapet and upper part of the wall are of the
-thirteenth century. It has been seen that the edict of Lillebonne
-in 1080 forbade the defence of the curtain by flanking towers,[126]
-rampart-walks, and other aids to defensive warfare; and, as a matter
-of fact, the full development of the fortification of the _enceinte_
-belongs to a later period. At the same time, towers projecting beyond
-the line of the curtain are found in some of our early Norman castles
-of stone. The line of the early curtain at Richmond is unbroken by
-contemporary towers, and closely follows the edge of the rock on which
-it is built. But at Ludlow (96) where the inner ward is the original
-castle, founded probably by Roger de Lacy after 1085, the curtain is
-flanked by four original towers in addition to the gatehouse, which has
-been described. The shape of the ward is that of a triangle with convex
-sides, the base of which, on the side of the outer ward and the town,
-faces south and west. Some thirty feet to the east of the gatehouse, a
-tower, in the basement of which an oven was inserted at a later date,
-capped the south-west angle of the enclosure, projecting southwards as
-far as the edge of the ditch. The west curtain continued in a line with
-the west wall of this tower for some sixty feet, until it was broken
-by a small postern tower. At the apex of the triangle, projecting to
-the north-west, was another tower, the remaining tower being at the
-north-east angle, with its north wall in a line with the north curtain.
-All these towers are, roughly speaking, rectangular in shape, but the
-outer angles of the north-east and north-west towers are chamfered.
-The original openings were round-headed loops with wide inward splays.
-Although the curtain was thus supplied with several projections, more
-towers would be needed to flank it perfectly, and large portions of the
-wall, particularly on the north and east sides, were left without more
-protection than could be given by their own strength. Oxford castle is
-another instance of early walling, where the tall rampart tower which
-commanded the river and the castle mill still remains.[127]
-
-[Illustration: Chepstow; Plan]
-
-Of the stone buildings which existed within the enclosures of early
-Norman castles, the traces which remain are comparatively few, and in
-most cases work of an altogether later period has taken their place.
-The great hall for the common life of the garrison, such as Robert
-d’Oily built in Oxford castle in 1074, would be indispensable. At
-Ludlow there can be little doubt that the original hall stood on the
-site occupied by the present hall, much of the east wall of which is
-apparently of the same date as the curtain. The two lower stages of
-the oblong keep at Chepstow are the hall (103), with the cellar below,
-founded by William, son of Osbern, before 1071. Although the upper
-stage was transformed in the thirteenth century by the insertion of
-traceried windows in the north wall, and of an arch between the daïs
-and the body of the hall, the walls are of eleventh century masonry,
-and the plain arcade which went round them is clearly visible on the
-north and west sides. In the south wall of the cellar are the loops
-which lighted it; these have lintel-heads with arch-shaped hollows
-cut in the soffits. The hall and cellar at Richmond, which occupy the
-south-east angle of the bailey, appear to be those built by Alan of
-Brittany before 1088. A few additions took place here at the end of the
-twelfth century,[128] but the windows in the north wall of the hall,
-which are of two lights, with edge-rolls in the jambs, are clearly
-of early date. When, for a time, the great stone tower became the
-fashionable form of keep, a great hall formed part of its internal
-arrangements; but this was the hall of the lord’s private dwelling, and
-was used by the garrison only in time of siege. Domestic buildings,
-including a great hall, may sometimes have been constructed of timber
-within the bailey, and at the end of the twelfth century were probably
-superseded by permanent buildings of stone, like the halls at Warkworth
-or at Oakham. As at Richmond, such halls would be placed against or
-close to the curtain, to leave the interior of the bailey as open as
-possible. In case of siege, freedom of movement within the area of
-the castle was essential, and the bailey formed the natural base of
-operations. The hall at Chepstow was on the highest and narrowest part
-of the rocky promontory on which the castle stands, at the head of the
-bailey; its south wall formed part of the curtain overhanging the great
-ditch between the castle and the town (106).[129]
-
-[Illustration: LUDLOW CASTLE: inner bailey]
-
-Norman castle-builders were careful to provide chapels within their
-fortresses. In several cases, the chapel within the bailey appears to
-have been the first building of stone raised inside the enclosure. The
-small chapel at Richmond, in a tower of the east curtain, is almost
-beyond doubt that which was granted by Alan of Brittany to St Mary’s
-abbey at York about 1085. The details are very rude in character: there
-is a plain wall arcade, supported on shafts, the capitals of which
-have rough voluting and no abaci. The same type of capital is found in
-the wall arcading of the original gatehouse at Ludlow (95), and also,
-though with more finished ornament, in that of the circular nave of St
-Mary Magdalene’s chapel (108) within the same castle. Certain details
-in the chapel at Ludlow, especially the bands of chevron ornament round
-the arches, seem to indicate that the nave is later than the eleventh
-century. The arch which divided the nave from a rectangular chancel
-ending in a half octagon, is of advanced twelfth century date; and it
-is clear that the chancel must have been built or remodelled at a later
-date than the building of the nave. The aisled chapel at Durham castle,
-which now forms part of the basement of Bishop Pudsey’s building along
-the north side of the bailey, has groined vaults, cylindrical columns,
-and capitals with voluted crockets and square abaci, which may be
-safely ascribed to 1075 or a little later. The capitals may be compared
-with those of the original gateway arch at Richmond. The classical
-spirit which is so noticeable in them, and is derived directly from
-the contemporary work of Normandy, is also apparent in the capitals
-of the crypt of the castle chapel at Oxford. Oxford castle was founded
-in 1071, Durham in 1072. At Hastings, the first of the Conqueror’s
-castles, there is, as has been said, much herring-bone work in the
-north wall of the chapel nave and in the vice or turret-stair of
-the central tower. Such definitely architectural detail as is left,
-however, belongs to a rebuilding of the later part of the twelfth
-century.
-
-[Illustration: Ludlow; St Mary Magdalene’s Chapel]
-
-The importance of the castle chapel in Norman times, and indeed
-throughout the middle ages, deserves a note. Chapels were often
-richly endowed, and, as at Hastings, Bridgnorth, and Leicester,
-were sometimes founded as collegiate establishments, with a dean and
-canons. The collegiate church of St Mary at Warwick, founded by Roger
-of Newburgh, the second Norman earl, probably had its origin in a
-castle chapel, removed to a new and enlarged site within the town. The
-greatest of these collegiate chapels, although one of the youngest,
-was St George’s at Windsor, founded by Edward III. The chapels at
-Hastings, Bridgnorth, and Leicester were churches of some size and
-importance; and their chapters, like those of the secular cathedrals,
-usually consisted of royal clerks, generally non-resident, whose
-duties were served by vicars. As royal chapels, they were exempt from
-episcopal jurisdiction; and the term of “free chapel,” which was given
-to them, became applied in course of time to chapels founded in private
-castles and even upon manors.[130] In most cases a castle chapel was
-served by a single priest, either the incumbent or his vicar. The
-incumbent of the free chapel of St Michael in Shrewsbury castle,
-usually a royal clerk holding his grant from the king, and inducted
-by the sheriff as the king’s officer, held the church of St Julian in
-Shrewsbury as parcel of his cure.[131] Where the Norman castle and
-parish church stood side by side, as at Earls Barton or Higham Ferrers
-in Northamptonshire, the lord of the castle and his household would
-doubtless attend the church. But the foundation of a chapel within
-the castle was a common thing, even when the church, as at Ludlow or
-Warwick, was at no great distance; and in later years, when chantry
-foundations became usual, castle chapels increased in number. Thus
-at Ludlow, a second chapel, served by two chantry priests, was built
-within the outer bailey about 1328;[132] and a college of eight chantry
-priests was founded in 1308 by one of the Beauchamps in his castle of
-Elmley in Worcestershire.[133]
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER VI
-
-THE KEEP OF THE NORMAN CASTLE
-
-
-We have seen that there were two types of early Norman castle in
-England. There was the ordinary mount-and-bailey castle, with its
-defences of earthwork and timber; and there was the castle founded
-on a rocky site, in which there was no mount, and the defences were
-of stone. In the first instance, the strongest position, the mount,
-was occupied by the donjon or keep. In the second case, as at Ludlow,
-the wall was defended by a strong gatehouse and a certain number of
-towers; but at first there was, strictly speaking, no keep. During
-the first half of the twelfth century, an era of constant rebellion
-against the Crown, private owners constructed castles in very large
-numbers, for purposes of aggression and self-defence. The second half,
-the age of the first Plantagenets, was an era of consolidation, during
-which the building of castles was methodised under royal control.
-Unlicensed fortresses disappeared, leaving only their earthworks to
-mark their place. The permanent castle of stone became the rule; and
-to this period, the second age of our medieval military architecture,
-belong some of our most formidable and imposing castles. The aim of the
-builders, during this epoch, was to strengthen to the best of their
-ability that point in the plan which would form a centre of ultimate
-resistance to an attack from without. This point was the keep.[134]
-
-[Illustration: CARISBROOKE: steps to keep]
-
-The keep of Norman and early Plantagenet days was virtually a castle
-within a castle. In the mount-and-bailey castle, there was generally
-only one entrance to the enclosure. If the besiegers forced this and
-entered the bailey, a ditch divided them from the mount, the most
-formidable part of the defences. Here the defenders could concentrate
-themselves for a last struggle, in which the advantage, unless the
-siege could be prolonged indefinitely, was distinctly on their side.
-Even where the mount was of inconsiderable height, it commanded the
-bailey and the ditch at its base. Its sides were too steep to
-allow of its being climbed without some artificial means of foothold.
-A chance arrow, tipped with burning tow, might reach the palisade
-round the summit of the mount, and set it alight in a dry season; but
-the defending party had all the advantage of being able to discharge
-their missiles downward and into a large portion of the bailey. Their
-disadvantage lay in the possibility of a prolonged blockade by a large
-force, and in consequent scarcity of ammunition and victuals. The
-danger of fire could be minimised by covering the wooden defences with
-skins newly flayed or soaked in water; but the work of renewing these
-in case of a long siege would be difficult.
-
-The wooden donjon on the mount took the form of a square tower
-surrounded, at the edge of the mount, by a palisade, and approached,
-as has been described already, by a steep wooden bridge, which crossed
-the ditch into the bailey. But it is obvious that the existence of a
-castle in any given place as a permanent centre of royal influence must
-lead to the abandonment of wooden defences in favour of defences of
-more lasting material. The stone curtain first took the place of the
-palisade in the defences of the bailey, and was built across the ditch
-and up the sides of the mount, ceasing, as can be seen at Berkhampstead
-(42) or Tamworth, at the level of the summit. The next step was to
-replace the palisade of the mount with a stone wall of circular or
-polygonal shape. In some instances where this was done, it is possible
-that the old wooden tower was left within the enclosure. Cases in which
-a new tower of stone was built upon the mount are rare. Builders would
-hesitate to charge the surface of the artificial hillock with the
-concentrated weight of a large square tower. The encircling curtain
-was much better adapted to the plan of the mount, and distributed
-its weight more successfully over the edge of the surface. But, with
-the building of a stone wall round the summit, the necessity of a
-tower would be removed. Just as, in castles like Exeter and Ludlow,
-there was from the first a stone wall without a definite keep, the
-enclosure being virtually a keep in itself, so, in the more limited
-area of the mount, the encircling wall formed the keep, and, in the
-larger examples, sheltered upon its inner side buildings, usually of
-timber, which afforded the necessary cover for the defenders, while
-their roofs, abutting on the wall below the summit, left room for the
-rampart-walk and the wooden galleries which were fitted to the curtain
-in time of siege.
-
-[Illustration: Cardiff; Keep]
-
-This was the genesis of the so-called “shell” keep, which converted
-the summit of the mount into a strong inner ward, the centre of which
-was clear of buildings, and gave more chance of concentration to the
-defenders than the narrow passage between the wooden tower and the
-palisade, into which the angles of the tower would have projected
-awkwardly. One of the best examples of the type which remains is the
-keep upon the larger of the two mounts at Lincoln, a polygon of fifteen
-faces on the outside, twelve on the inside. The wall has lost its
-parapet, but retains its rampart-walk; it is 8 feet thick, and keeps
-its height of 20 feet perfect round the whole of the enclosure. The
-masonry is ashlar of late twelfth century character, and each of the
-external angles is capped by a flat pilaster buttress. The marks on the
-inner face of the walls indicate that the enclosure was surrounded by
-timber buildings, with which two small mural chambers communicated, in
-the thickness of the outer curtain where it joins the keep. The doorway
-of the keep is in the north-east face of the wall, which is pierced by
-a segmental-headed archway, with a semicircular covering arch on the
-outer face. This doorway, defended by a wooden door with a draw-bar,
-was approached by a stone stair made in the side of the mount. At the
-present day the ditch at the foot has been filled up, and the stairs
-are modern, but originally the ditch must have been crossed by a
-drawbridge at the foot of the stair, which, when drawn up, would have
-left the mount isolated from the bailey. There was a small doorway
-in the south-west face of the keep wall, probably intended to be a
-postern, through which an exit could be gained in emergencies.[135]
-
-[Illustration: Alnwick; Plan]
-
-The shell of masonry upon the mount, however, was by no means the
-universal form taken by the keep. Sometimes, as at York, the timber
-defences of the mount survived until a comparatively late period,
-when their place was taken by a tower of a form in keeping with the
-principles of fortification of the day.[136] At Alnwick (115) the
-base of the great mount, with a considerable portion of its ditch,
-remains between the two wards of the castle. The present cluster of
-towers and connecting buildings upon the mount, surrounding a somewhat
-dark and confined courtyard, is in large part a nineteenth century
-reconstruction of the fourteenth century house of the Percys which
-occupied the site. The outer and inner archways, however, of the
-gatehouse through which the keep is entered, are twelfth century work,
-and agree very well in date with the large remains of Norman masonry
-which can be traced in the curtains of both wards. It is probable that,
-about the middle of the twelfth century, Eustace, son of John, who
-died in 1157, surrounded the whole of the present enclosure with stone
-walls, and, levelling the mount to its present height, built in stone
-the earliest domestic buildings of the castle, upon the enlarged site
-of the earlier wooden donjon and palisade. The appearance of Eustace’s
-buildings must have been very different from that of the mansion of the
-Percys; and we may assume that he defended the summit of the levelled
-mound by a thick curtain, against which his hall and other domestic
-apartments were placed.
-
-[Illustration: Beaugency]
-
-[Illustration: Falaise]
-
-In France and Normandy, the rectangular donjon of stone began
-to supersede the wooden tower at an early date. At Langeais
-(Indre-et-Loire), Fulk the Black, count of Anjou, built a stone donjon
-as early as 992.[137] Three walls of this structure are left: it
-was oblong in form and was composed of a basement and upper floor.
-The masonry is largely faced with courses of small cubical stones,
-following the manner inherited by the Romanesque builders of France
-from their Roman predecessors: tiles are introduced in the arched heads
-of the windows in the upper stage, which are not mere loops, but have a
-considerable outward opening. This keep was obviously intended to be at
-once stronghold and dwelling-house. Such a building was a translation
-into stone of a wooden construction like the tower-house on the motte
-at Ardres. It is built on a promontory above a small stream, and is
-defended by a ditch on the landward side. Many of these stone towers
-remain in Normandy and the country round the Loire; and, as a rule, are
-earlier in date and larger in area than most of the similar buildings
-in England. The tower of Beaugency (Loiret) is an oblong on plan,
-measuring about 76 feet long by 66 feet broad (116): the present height
-is 115 feet. The date indicated by the masonry is about 1100.[138] The
-fabrics of the towers of Falaise (Calvados) and Domfront (Orne) may be
-attributed to Henry I. In or about 1119 he systematically garrisoned
-his fortresses at Rouen and other places, of which Falaise was
-one.[139] Domfront, from 1092 onwards, was his favourite castle.[140]
-Its strong position gave it an exceptional advantage as a base of
-operations; and in 1101, when Henry ceded his Norman possessions to his
-brother Robert, he kept Domfront for himself.[141] After the battle of
-Tinchebray (1106) Henry was lord of Normandy, and restored order in
-the duchy by razing the unlicensed strongholds built under Robert’s
-weak rule.[142] The tower of Domfront, however, and possibly that of
-Falaise, were not built until 1123.[143] At Domfront the castle is a
-large enclosure, occupying the highest point of a long hill which has
-a gradual eastward slope, but rises in an abrupt cliff from a narrow
-valley on the west, and descends steeply on the north and south. A
-deep ditch, through which the modern road from Caen to Angers has been
-carried, divided the castle from the town. The great tower lies to the
-east of the centre of the castle enclosure, so as to command the ditch
-and the town beyond. Only the north-west angle, with a portion of the
-adjacent walls, remains perfect. The height slightly exceeds 70 feet.
-The area of the whole structure is 85 feet by 70, not counting the
-buttresses and plinth. At Falaise (117) the great tower occupies nearly
-the whole of the summit of the isolated cliff on which it stands, the
-town occupying the hilly but lower ground on the north side. The length
-of the tower is a little less than that of Domfront, while the breadth
-is slightly greater. The height is about the same.
-
-The tower of Domfront, like that of Beaugency, stood within a walled
-castle, where the capture of the bailey would have exposed the tower
-directly to the besiegers. It was therefore built with an exclusive
-view to strength, and its window openings, even upon the second floor
-above the basement, were small and narrow, those on the first floor
-being mere loops. On the other hand, the tower of Falaise stands high
-above the curtain-wall by which the ascent from the town was protected.
-Its outer face is of ashlar throughout, and the window openings of the
-two upper stages, far above the reach of stones and arrows, are double,
-divided by shafts with carved capitals. Both towers were separated into
-three parts by cross-walls; but the two upper stages at Falaise are
-now undivided, and at Domfront, above the basement, there remain only
-indications of such a division.
-
-Returning to England, we may safely assert that, with very few
-exceptions, our rectangular towers belong to a period which bears, from
-the historical point of view, a close likeness to the period of Henry
-I.’s fortifications in Normandy. Henry II. pursued the same policy of
-destroying unlicensed castles and strengthening royal strongholds;
-and his building operations took the form of providing his castles
-with towers, such as already were a chief feature of the castles of
-Normandy and Maine, but were certainly very exceptional in England. The
-approximate date of several of these towers can be obtained from the
-entries in the Pipe Rolls for the reign of Henry II.[144]
-
-Henry II., like the Conqueror, directed his attention to the defence
-of the main water-ways of his kingdom. The castles of the coast and
-of the Welsh and Scottish frontiers were also chief objects of his
-care. The Pipe Rolls of 1158-9 and 1160-1 contain accounts of large
-sums spent on the castle of Wark-on-Tweed, at the extreme north-west
-corner of the kingdom.[145] In 1158-9 occur charges for the tower of
-Gloucester,[146] at the head of the Severn estuary; and in the same and
-following years are many mentions of the castle and tower of the great
-littoral stronghold of Scarborough.[147] Berkhampstead, commanding the
-approach to London from the north-west, was an object of substantial
-expense in 1159-60 and 1161-2.[148] In 1160-1 £215. 18s. 5d. was spent
-in the fortification of the city of Chester:[149] work was also done
-at Oswestry,[150] and other accounts show that attention was paid to
-the victualling of castles on the Welsh border at Clun and Ruthin.[151]
-Accounts, beginning in 1164-5, refer to the strengthening of Shrewsbury
-castle.[152] Sums were spent on the tower of Bridgnorth, which
-commanded the defiles of the Severn between Shrewsbury and Worcester,
-in 1168-9 and following years;[153] and mentions of Hereford,[154]
-Shrawardine,[155] and Ellesmere,[156] testify to the care with which
-the western frontier of the kingdom was protected. Of the coast
-castles, apart from Scarborough, Dover has a constant place in these
-accounts. For example, in 1168-9, 40s. 6d. was paid for the hire of
-ships to bring lime from Gravesend to Dover, and £34. 5s. 4d. was spent
-on the work for which this was required.[157] Southampton castle was
-repaired in 1161-2,[158] and a well was made there in 1172-3.[159] The
-tower of Hastings was in progress in 1171-2.[160] In 1165-6 £256. 4s.
-9d. was spent upon the castle of Orford, the great stronghold of the
-Suffolk coast, which was an object of large yearly expense down to
-1171-2.[161] On the line of the upper Thames, continual sums were spent
-on the palace-castle of Windsor: the wall of the castle is referred
-to in 1171-2 and 1172-3.[162] Work was done at Oxford and a well made
-in 1172-3 and 1173-4.[163] Hertford castle was maintained to guard
-the Lea.[164] In addition to Dover, the castles of Rochester,[165]
-Chilham,[166] and Canterbury[167] protected the main routes to the
-narrowest part of the Channel. The chief fortress of the vale of
-Trent was at Nottingham, where large sums were spent in 1171-2 and
-1172-3.[168] Of the inland castles of the north, the tower of Newcastle
-cost some £385 between 1171-2 and 1174-5[169] This forms a contrast to
-the small sum spent on the tower of York—£15. 7s. 3d.—in 1172-3:[170]
-it is clear, from the Pipe Rolls of later reigns, that this was merely
-a wooden structure.[171]
-
-However, there are earlier instances of towers which are of first-class
-importance, and these must be briefly described before we dwell upon
-the characteristics of the donjons of the second half of the twelfth
-century. We have seen that William the Conqueror, immediately after his
-coronation, began the construction of certain strongholds in connection
-with the city of London.[172] His first work was probably to enclose
-within a palisade the undefended sides of the bailey, the east side of
-which was covered by a portion of the Roman city-wall. Before the end
-of his reign, the White tower had been begun as a principal feature
-of the castle, and was completed in the reign of William Rufus, who
-in 1097 built a wall about it.[173] This tower is therefore at least
-as early in date as most of the early square towers of Normandy and
-the adjacent provinces, and is considerably earlier than the towers
-of Falaise and Domfront. A tradition attributes the design to the
-direction of Gundulf, bishop of Rochester 1077-1108, who is also said
-to have been the builder of the donjon-like tower at Malling in Kent,
-originally attached to the church of St Leonard, and of the tower, the
-ruins of which remain, on the north side of the quire of Rochester
-cathedral.
-
-The White tower is at present 90 feet in height, and is therefore
-much lower than the nearly contemporary tower of Beaugency. Its area,
-however, is far greater, covering an oblong of 118 feet from east to
-west by 107 feet from north to south. It is four stages in height, and
-was built of rubble masonry, ashlar work being confined entirely to
-the pilaster buttresses and windows, and the plinth. Modern repairs
-have made the original appearance of the tower hard to reconstruct.
-The entrance was upon the first floor, and was never covered by a
-fore-building: this entrance seems to have been in the western part
-of the south wall. A well-stair or vice, in a round turret at the
-north-east corner, was the chief means of communication between all the
-floors; but vices were also made from the second floor to the roof in
-the square turrets of the north-west and south-west angles. There is
-also a square turret above the place which would ordinarily be occupied
-by the south-east angle; but the south wall, throughout its height, is
-continued into an apsidal projection, which is curved round to meet the
-east wall. The two upper stages of this projection form the apse of
-St John’s chapel, with its encircling gallery. The faces of the tower
-and the apse are strengthened by flat buttresses at regular intervals,
-which are gathered in at a string on the level of the floor of the
-uppermost stage, and again at the level of the roof. There are no
-window openings in the basement, which was originally used for stores.
-The window openings of the first and second floors were originally
-narrow loops, with wide internal splays, but have been considerably
-enlarged, with some damage to the appearance of strength which the
-tower once possessed. The openings in the aisle of the chapel on the
-second floor, however, were wider than the rest. The third floor, being
-out of the range of ordinary missiles, had wide window openings: the
-two openings in the south wall of the larger room on this floor are
-double. The greatest thickness of the walls of the basement is 15 feet:
-the walls of the uppermost stage are from 10 to 11 feet thick.
-
-[Illustration: White Tower; Plan of Second Floor]
-
-[Illustration: White Tower; St John’s Chapel]
-
-The tower is divided internally into two parts by a longitudinal wall,
-east of the centre, 10 feet thick.[174] Thus in the basement there
-is a large western chamber, 91 by 35 feet, and on every floor above
-there is a corresponding room, the dimensions of which increase with
-the thinning of the outer walls to a maximum of 95 by 40 feet. The
-eastern chamber, however, is divided into two parts by a cross-wall,
-considerably to the south of the centre. There is thus in the basement
-and each floor an oblong north-eastern chamber, into which access is
-obtained from the main well-stair. In the basement there is a doorway
-in the longitudinal wall between this and the western chamber; but,
-on each of the upper floors, the communication is maintained by five
-openings in the wall. Apart from the recesses of the loops, and the
-mural lobbies which lead to the vices in the turrets, there are only
-two mural passages, one in the first and one in the second stage,
-communicating with garde-robes; but the wall of the third floor is
-pierced all round by a gallery, with a barrel vault, in the thickness
-of the wall, which communicates at either end with the broad gallery
-above the aisles of St John’s chapel.
-
-[Illustration: Tower of London; St John’s Chapel
-
-[Illustration: Christchurch]
-
-The south-eastern quarter of the tower contains, in the basement, the
-sub-crypt of the chapel, known in later days as “Little Ease.” On the
-first floor is the upper crypt, which, as well as the sub-crypt, has a
-barrel vault, and ends in an apse. The second floor is the ground-floor
-of the chapel and its aisle or ambulatory, which is divided from the
-nave by plain round-headed arches springing from cylindrical columns
-with capitals, those of the eastern columns famous for the Tau-shaped
-plaques left uncarved between their volutes, those of the western
-columns scalloped (122). The nave of the chapel rises through the
-third floor to the barrel vault. The aisles have groined cross-vaults:
-the gallery above them on the third floor is covered by a half barrel
-vault. This gallery, as before mentioned, is connected in its north
-and west walls with the mural gallery of the main chambers. The ground
-floor of the chapel communicated with the north-eastern chamber through
-a doorway in the cross-wall; but the main entrance was through a short
-mural lobby from the western chamber, which led into the west end of
-the south aisle. At a late date a vice was made in the thickness of the
-wall from this lobby to a doorway in the basement, by which access was
-obtained to the chapel from the later domestic buildings adjoining the
-south side of the tower.
-
-The well of the tower, a most necessary feature in case of siege,
-was in the floor of the western chamber of the basement, near its
-south-western angle, and was cased with ashlar. Only three fireplaces
-remain, all in the east wall, two on the first, and one on the second
-floor: the smoke escaped through holes in the adjacent wall. The use of
-the rooms on the various floors is uncertain, and it is possible that
-they may have been separated by wooden partitions into smaller rooms.
-The basement chambers, however, were obviously store-rooms; and the
-great western chamber on the third floor was used by many of our kings
-as a council-chamber. The first-floor rooms may have been intended for
-the use of the garrison, while the larger room on the second floor was
-probably the great hall of the tower, and the smaller room the king’s
-great chamber. The upper room, next the council-chamber, may have been
-for the use of the queen and her household. Accommodation, suited to
-the scanty needs of the times, was thus provided for a large number
-of persons; and the great size of the chapel alone indicates that the
-tower was intended as an occasional residence for the royal family.
-The palace hall at Westminster, however, was in building, when Rufus
-made his wall round the Tower; and it is clear that the cold and dark
-interior of the fortress was planned mainly with a view to defence, and
-with little respect for comfort.
-
-The great tower of Colchester castle (47), which is of the same date as
-the White tower, covers an even larger area. The internal measurements
-of the ground-floor, excluding the projections at the angles, are 152
-feet north and south by 111 feet east and west. This, the greatest of
-all Norman keeps, has unfortunately lost its two upper stages, and,
-with them, the chapel, which, like that in the White Tower, was built
-with an apsidal projection covering the junction of south and east
-walls. The crypt and sub-vault of the chapel, however, remain. In this
-respect, and in the division of the floors into larger and smaller
-chambers by a cross-wall running north and south, the likeness between
-these two great towers is very marked. The rectangular projections,
-on the other hand, which cap three of the angles of the tower at
-Colchester, are far more prominent than those of the Tower of London,
-and form small towers in themselves; and, even at the angle where the
-apse of the chapel is extended eastward, the south wall has been built
-of a thickness to correspond with the projections at the north-east
-and north-west angles. That at the south-west angle differs in plan
-from the rest, being longer from east to west and wider on its western
-face than the others. Its south face also is recessed from the level
-of the south wall of the tower, but projects in a large rectangular
-buttress at the point where it joins the main wall. This south-west
-tower contained the main staircase. The entrance was on the ground
-floor, immediately east of the buttress just mentioned, and not, as in
-most rectangular keeps, upon the first floor. The ashlar with which
-the exterior of the tower was cased has been stripped off, and the
-rubble core of the walls, with its bonding courses of Roman tiles, is
-now exposed. Below the ground floor the walls spread considerably:
-this can be seen upon the north and west sides, where the hill drops
-towards the river, and the upper part of the solid foundation is above
-ground. Between the angle towers the walls are broken, on the east and
-west sides, by two rectangular buttresses of slight projection: on the
-north side there is only one, and on the south side none. The ground
-floor and first floor were lighted by narrow loops, splayed inwardly
-through about half the thickness of the wall. In each of the east,
-north, and west walls of the ground floor there are three of these.
-The south wall has only two: one lights the well chamber on the east
-of the entry, while the other, at the opposite extremity of the wall,
-lights the sub-vault of the chapel. The wall between the two, being on
-the side of the tower most open to attack, is of great solidity, and
-is unbroken by opening or buttress. In each face of the first floor,
-exclusive of the angle towers and apse of the chapel, there were four
-loops. The window openings of the upper stages were probably larger.
-One of the most striking features of this tower is the plentiful use of
-Roman tiles among the masonry, especially in the cross-wall, where they
-are arranged in a very regular and beautiful series of “herring-bone”
-courses (101). This employment of Roman material gave rise to a
-tradition, not yet wholly extinct, that the tower was a Roman building.
-It need hardly be said that nothing would be more natural than for the
-Norman masons to adopt the economical principle of applying to their
-own use material which lay ready to hand among the ruins of the Roman
-station.
-
-[Illustration: Dover]
-
-[Illustration: Clun]
-
-The towers of London and Colchester are exceptional in their date and
-in the hugeness of their proportions. Although the towers of the later
-part of the twelfth century have many features in common with them—the
-division by means of cross-walls, the well-stairs in one or more of the
-angles, the pilaster buttresses projecting from the outer walls, and
-the mural galleries and chambers—no tower was subsequently attempted
-upon their scale. The tower of Rochester (frontispiece), which appears
-to have been begun somewhat earlier than 1140, and is therefore
-intermediate in date between these two exceptional examples and the
-later towers, is 113 feet high to the top of the parapet, and is 70
-feet square (exterior measurement) at its base. The tower of Dover
-(126), built in the early part of the reign of Henry II., measures
-98 by 96 feet at the base. The walls, however, have the exceptional
-thickness of 24 to 21 feet, so that the internal measurements are
-considerably reduced, while the height to the top of the parapet is
-only 83 feet. The towers of London and Colchester are also exceptional
-in the importance given to the chapel in their plans. The great
-prominence of the angle turrets at Colchester is an unique feature,
-while the position of the main entrance upon the ground floor,
-although not unique, is very unusual.
-
-The later towers differ from those of London and Colchester in the
-fact that they were additions to enclosures already existing, instead
-of being the nucleus of a castle founded for the first time. Although
-they have a general family likeness, neither their position on the
-plan, which was necessarily dictated by the nature of the site, nor
-the details of their arrangements, are uniform. Most of the castles in
-which they occur are divided by a wall, built across the enclosure from
-curtain to curtain, into an outer and inner ward or bailey. The tower,
-standing at the highest point of the inner ward, was placed so as to
-command both these divisions of the castle. If the outer ward were
-entered, the besiegers were confronted by a second line of defence, the
-wall of the inner ward, in conjunction with which the great tower, with
-its superior height, could be used by the defenders. Finally, if the
-inner ward were taken, the tower still remained as a formidable refuge
-for the garrison.
-
-[Illustration: Guildford]
-
-Where a new tower keep was added to castles of the usual type, whose
-main defences consisted of an earthen mount and banks, it was often
-raised, as at Canterbury and Hastings, on a new site, independent
-of the mount, which was probably avoided as affording insufficient
-foundation. Thus, at Rochester, the old mount of the eleventh century
-castle, now known as Boley Hill, remains at some distance from the
-later enclosure. But there were cases, and possibly more than are
-generally recognised, in which the mount was utilised for a tower. At
-Christchurch the comparatively small keep was built entirely upon the
-artificial mount. The keeps of Norwich and Hedingham (135), two of the
-grandest of their class, were built upon mounts, which, if in great
-part natural hills, had been scarped and heightened by art. The mounts
-at Guildford and Clun (127) are artificial. In both these last cases
-the summit of the mount was converted into a shell keep, surrounded
-by a wall; but on the eastern side of this enclosure a tower, of
-respectable if not large dimensions, was made. The tower at Clun was
-built against the east slope of the mount, the basement being entirely
-below the level of the summit of the earthwork. This is also partly the
-case at Guildford (128), where the tower is placed across the eastern
-edge of the mount. The inclusion at Kenilworth of artificial soil
-within the basement of the keep has led to the suspicion that the mount
-of the castle was reduced in height, and the tower built round the
-lower portion (132).
-
-[Illustration: Scarborough; Plan]
-
-At Guildford and Clun the combination of a shell of masonry with a
-tower keep produced the effect of a small inner ward—which is virtually
-what a shell keep is—with a tower upon its _enceinte_. Frequently,
-as at Scarborough (129) and Bamburgh the tower keep stood upon the
-line of the curtain between the two wards. At Scarborough it actually
-stands athwart that line, but its greater projection is towards the
-inner ward, from which, of course, it was entered. The towers at
-Norham (157) and Kenilworth fill up a corner of the inner ward, but
-have no noticeable projection beyond the curtain. This is also the
-case at Porchester (131), where the north-west angle, in which the
-keep stands, is also the north-west angle of the Roman station.[175]
-Some, however, of the finest of these towers, Rochester, Dover, and
-Newcastle, stood wholly detached within the inner ward, although, as
-at Rochester, near enough to the curtain to enable the defenders to
-command the outer approaches from the upper stages.
-
-[Illustration: Map of Rectangular Keeps]
-
-[Illustration: Porchester]
-
-From the point of view of dimensions the towers may be divided into two
-classes. There are the towers proper, such as Clun, Corfe, Guildford,
-Hedingham, Helmsley, Newcastle, Porchester, Richmond, Rochester, and
-Scarborough, in which the height is greater than the length or breadth.
-Such towers are approximately square; and to them must be added Dover,
-in which, however, owing to the immense thickness of the walls, the
-height is less than the length or breadth. In one case, Porchester
-(131), the measurement from north to south exceeds that from east to
-west by 13 feet, and at first was also in excess of the height; but
-the tower was raised to nearly twice its height not long after the
-completion of the original design. The second class is composed of
-keeps, of which one or both of the dimensions of the ground-plan exceed
-the height, without the exceptional circumstances which governed the
-proportions of Dover. Such keeps are noticeably oblong in shape. At
-Castle Rising and the tower of Bowes in Yorkshire the height is less
-than either the length or breadth. At Kenilworth (132) the length from
-east to west exceeds the breadth by nearly 30, and the height by 7
-feet. Middleham, from north to south, measures approximately 100 feet
-by 80 from east to west: its height is only 55 feet, which, though it
-surpasses the 50 feet of Bowes and Castle Rising, is much less than
-the 80 feet of Kenilworth. Its length and breadth, however, make up an
-area far surpassing the 87 by 58 feet of Kenilworth, the 82 by 60 feet
-of Bowes, and the 75 by 54 feet of Castle Rising. The foundations of
-another keep of this class remain at Duffield in Derbyshire. Bamburgh,
-69 by 61 feet, but only 55 feet high, is another member of the class.
-Another great Northumbrian keep, Norham, although its height is 90
-feet, is oblong in plan; and its measurement from east to west comes
-within 4 feet of the height, so that it stands on the border between
-the second and the first class.
-
-[Illustration: Kenilworth]
-
-The internal divisions of the keeps are not uniformly the same, and
-do not always correspond to the height. The usual arrangement in the
-loftier keeps, as at Hedingham, Porchester, Rochester, and Scarborough,
-is a basement with three upper floors; but at Corfe, which is 80 feet
-high, as at Guildford, which is only 63 feet high, there are only two
-upper floors. At Dover, 83 feet high, and Newcastle, 75 feet high,
-the second floor was surrounded by a mural gallery, high above the
-floor-level, so that the second and third floors were combined into
-one lofty room.[176] At Norham, however, there were four upper floors.
-Kenilworth, only 10 feet lower, had a lofty basement with only one
-floor above it. At Bowes there were two floors. At Middleham and Castle
-Rising, there was one main floor; but, by the subdivision of the rooms
-on this stage, a second floor was made in portions of the building.
-As a rule, the walls grow thinner as they rise: this was achieved by
-rebating the inner face at each floor to provide a ledge for the floor
-timbers. In exceptional cases, there is an off-set on the exterior of
-the tower; and at Rochester the walls are thinned from 12 feet at the
-base to 10 feet at the top by a slight exterior batter. At Porchester
-the walls are 11 feet thick at the base: this is reduced to 7 feet at
-the first floor, and, by an off-set at the level of the original roof,
-to 6 feet in the upper stage. The thickest walls, next to those at
-Dover, appear to be at Newcastle, where their thickness at the first
-floor is 14 feet.
-
-Many of these towers, such as Rochester and Dover, are built of
-rag-stone or coursed rubble, with dressings of ashlar. The masonry
-at Guildford (128) is extremely rough, and “herring-bone” coursing
-is extensively used: the date of the tower, however, to judge by its
-internal details, is not earlier than the third quarter of the twelfth
-century.[177] On the other hand, not a few have their walls cased with
-ashlar. Hedingham and Porchester are noble examples from the east and
-south of England; Bridgnorth and Kenilworth from the midlands. Of the
-towers of Yorkshire, Bowes, Richmond, and Scarborough have ashlar
-casing; Middleham is of rubble with ashlar dressings. Ashlar facing
-is used throughout at Bamburgh, Newcastle, and Norham: at Norham the
-ashlar is of two distinct kinds, small cubical stones being used in one
-part, and larger stones in another.[178] As at Colchester, Dover, and
-Kenilworth, the foundations of the larger towers spread considerably,
-and rise above ground in a battering plinth, into which the
-buttresses at the angles and on the face of the walls die off without
-interruption. At Newcastle there is a roll string-course above the
-plinth, and at Bamburgh (91) the plinth is moulded with a very imposing
-effect. Where the tower is built on an uneven site, as at Middleham
-or Scarborough, the plinth appears only on the faces where the ground
-falls away from the tower.
-
-The angles of the tower were always strengthened by rectangular
-pilaster buttresses of the ordinary twelfth century type, formed by
-thickening the two adjacent walls. In most cases these meet, forming
-a solid exterior angle. Occasionally, as at Guildford, Hedingham,
-and Rochester, a hollow angle is left between them, which, at Castle
-Rising and Scarborough, is filled by a shaft or bead. Above the line
-of the parapet the angle buttresses are continued into square turrets.
-Within one or more of these angles, there was a vice. At Newcastle
-(139) the angle buttresses are of such breadth and projection as to
-form distinct towers: this is even more noticeable at Kenilworth, where
-there are angle towers not unlike those at Colchester. On the faces of
-the tower between these angles there were usually one or more pilaster
-buttresses of slight projection. These varied in number according to
-the plan and site of the tower. At Dover there is one on each face,
-with the exception of the side which is covered by the forebuilding.
-At Kenilworth there are four on one face, three on another, two on a
-third: the remaining wall has disappeared. At Porchester there is one
-on each of the west and north faces, none on the east or south: when
-the tower was heightened, neither angle nor intermediate buttresses
-were continued upwards. It is worthy of note that one of the angle
-towers at Newcastle is polygonal, not rectangular, in shape. This
-points to a transition in methods of fortification, of which more will
-be said hereafter. The south-east angle at Rochester is rounded; but
-this is the result of a repair of the tower which took place in the
-thirteenth century.
-
-[Illustration: HEDINGHAM: great tower]
-
-As the main object of these towers was defensive, their external
-architectural features were generally confined to their excellent
-masonry. A moulded plinth, as at Bamburgh, is of very rare occurrence.
-At Norwich and Castle Rising a wall is arcaded or recessed: this,
-however, is quite contrary to the usual practice. String-courses,
-where they were used, were generally confined to the buttresses, as
-at Kenilworth; although in a few cases, as at Richmond, they were
-continued along the wall. The necessary window openings were few and
-small. Here, however, a distinction must be made. It has been remarked
-already that the donjon of a castle sometimes formed the residence of
-its lord as well as a strong tower in time of war. The towers of London
-and Colchester were certainly planned upon their liberal scale with
-this double end in view; and, destitute of comfort as they seem
-to us to-day, the upper floors of the White Tower were at any rate
-well lighted. Similarly, at Rochester, there was a large provision
-of single-light windows in the floors above the basement. And, as
-a rule, while the basement was lighted by a very few narrow loops,
-set high in the wall, and the first floor, which was not above the
-range of missiles, was lighted sparingly by narrow loops with wide
-internal splays, the second floor, which formed the main apartment, had
-much larger windows. These, as in the Tower of London, or at Dover,
-Hedingham, and Scarborough, were sometimes of two lights, divided by
-an intervening shaft or piece of wall. At Newcastle, where the second
-floor, owing to the thickness of the walls, in which separate chambers
-are contrived, is very dark, there is a wide single opening in the
-intermediate buttress of the east face, which externally has a moulded
-arch and jamb-shafts (139). At Richmond, a tower the single object
-of which seems to have been defence, the window openings, with one
-exception, are narrow loops with internal splays; and, of all twelfth
-century towers, this was probably the darkest and least comfortable
-(93).[179]
-
-The main entrance of the tower was usually on the first floor,
-although sometimes, as at Dover, Newcastle, and Norwich, it was on
-the second floor, and led directly into the main apartment. It was
-obviously unsafe to make an entrance in the basement, where the doors
-could be easily forced or burned. At the same time, there is, as we
-have noticed, a basement entrance at Colchester, where the approach
-was protected by a strong ditch. The rocks on which Bamburgh and
-Scarborough stand made the position almost impregnable, and in both
-cases the main doorway of the tower is on a level with the soil of the
-ward in which it stands.[180] When the outer opening of the original
-gateway at Richmond was removed to make way for the new tower, the
-inner opening was left, forming a direct communication between the
-interior of the castle and the basement: this also was permitted by the
-natural strength of the site; but the main entrance to the tower was
-in the south-east corner of the first floor, from the rampart-walk.
-At Ludlow, both openings of the gateway were walled up (94), and a
-stair was made to the first floor against part of the west wall of the
-tower.[181] Even in the tower on the mount at Guildford, the main
-entrance was on the first floor (128). Where the doorway led into
-the chief apartment of the tower, it received special architectural
-treatment. That at Newcastle is a wide opening with a semicircular
-arch of three orders and shafts in the jambs: it has been rebuilt, but
-probably follows the original design closely. On the other hand, the
-first-floor entrance at Kenilworth, which led into the main room, is
-exceedingly plain, with a segmental arch, and a semicircular relieving
-arch in the wall above.
-
-[Illustration: NEWCASTLE: great tower]
-
-Entrances on upper floors were necessarily approached by stairs,
-which were habitually placed against the wall, at right angles to
-the entrance, and sometimes, as at Dover, Newcastle, and Rochester,
-turned the angle of the wall in their descent. These were usually
-covered by a structure known as the fore-building, which provided a
-formidable covered approach to the main entrance. The fore-building
-formed a substantial annexe to the tower, and has some variety of plan.
-Indications of it are found in its simplest form at Scarborough, where
-it was of two stages. The lower stage was a vaulted passage against
-the south wall, from the end of which the basement doorway was entered
-at right angles; the upper stage was entered by a doorway from the
-first floor of the tower. The entrance passage was closed by wooden
-doors; if these were forced, an attacking party would still have some
-difficulty and danger in breaking into the tower, while missiles,
-hurled upon them through a hole in the floor of the upper stage, would
-make retreat from the passage a delicate matter. The fore-building at
-Kenilworth was also of two stages, enclosing an entrance stair, which
-led to the doorway on the first floor. The arrangement at Rochester was
-more complicated. Here the stair began against the north-west angle
-buttress, where it was covered by a small tower of two stages, the
-lower containing the doorway, the upper communicating with a vaulted
-chamber in the angle of the first floor of the tower. The stair then
-turned the angle, and, protected by an outer wall some 6 feet high,
-rose along the north wall of the tower to a drawbridge, with a deep
-pit below. At the further side of the drawbridge, the east part of
-the north wall was covered by a building in three stages. The middle
-stage, entered from the drawbridge, contained a chamber, in which was
-the main entrance to the first floor of the keep. The lowest stage was
-a vault, which communicated with the basement of the tower; the upper
-stage, entered from the second floor of the tower, contained a room,
-which may have been a chapel. At Dover and Newcastle the fore-buildings
-were even more elaborate, including a lower tower which protected
-the entrance and right-angled turn of the stair, a middle tower which
-covered the stair half-way up, and an upper tower at the head of the
-stair, beyond the platform from which the second floor was entered.
-The basement of the fore-building at Newcastle was the castle chapel;
-the lower tower was, as at Rochester, simply a gate-tower; the middle
-tower formed a covering to a second gateway on the stair; and the
-upper tower contained a vaulted guard-room commanding the platform of
-entrance. At Dover, the upper tower, solid at the base, had vaulted
-chambers on the first and second floors; the middle tower enclosed a
-well, the mouth of which was contained in a chamber entered from the
-platform in front of the main doorway of the keep; while the lower
-tower formed a large projection at the south-west angle of the keep,
-containing upon its first floor a covered landing for the stair, from
-which opened to the east a room, probably an oratory, and to the west
-a porter’s lodge. Upon the second floor was the chapel of the keep,
-entered from the main apartments. A vault in the basement of the lower
-tower of the fore-building communicates with the basement of the keep
-through another vault, which is common to the keep and fore-building.
-Similarly, the vault at the first-floor level of the upper tower
-communicates with the main first floor through another common vaulted
-chamber. The Dover fore-building is thus an integral portion of the
-keep.
-
-Of all existing fore-buildings, that at Castle Rising (143) is in the
-best state of preservation. Here the main entrance to the keep is on
-the east face of the building, near its north end. The stair, which
-had a timber roof, ascends by the side of the east wall, straight from
-the ground. There is a gateway at its foot, and another gateway at a
-landing half-way up. The upper flight of stairs, which was also roofed
-with timber, passes through a third gateway into the upper floor of
-a tower, which, as at Rochester and Norwich, covers the main doorway
-of the keep, and is not placed, as at Dover and Newcastle, beyond the
-doorway. Each of the doorways of the fore-building has a rounded arch
-with an edge-roll, and shafts with cushion capitals in the jambs. The
-main doorway of the keep has five orders, the four outer orders being
-shafted, and the arch having rich late Norman mouldings. The chamber
-at the head of the stair is vaulted in two bays, but originally had a
-timber roof. There is a vaulted chamber beneath it.
-
-There is an exceptional arrangement at Porchester (131), where the
-stair, instead of being covered by the fore-building, is set outside
-it, against its eastern face. From the landing at the head there is a
-straight passage, between the first-floor rooms of the fore-building,
-to the main entrance of the tower; while, from the same landing,
-another flight of stairs leads to the northern rampart-walk of the
-castle. Another exceptional fore-building is found at Berkeley
-(142). Here, however, the exception consists in the fact that it is
-a fore-building, not to a tower, but to a shell-keep of peculiar
-construction. The mount of the early Norman castle was reduced in
-height, and its base, forming a platform some 20 feet above the ground,
-was enclosed within a wall, 8 feet thick, which is strengthened by
-pilaster buttresses and rises to a height of 60 feet. Against the
-south-east face of this wall is a narrow fore-building. The stair,
-which was covered by a timber roof, passes through the lower stage of
-a gateway-tower, and ascends to a platform, from which, after another
-gateway has been passed, the interior of the shell is entered. The room
-upon the first floor of the gateway-tower is entered from the platform
-by a narrow ledge above the stair.
-
-[Illustration: Berkeley]
-
-[Illustration: CASTLE RISING: stair of forebuilding]
-
-[Illustration: Rochester; internal cross-wall]
-
-As the main doorway of a tower-keep was set in the outer face of a
-thick wall, a narrow passage had to be traversed before the interior
-of the tower was reached. At Castle Rising, the wall is comparatively
-thin, and the doorway is recessed deeply, so that the tower is
-entered directly. In most cases, the keep was divided internally into
-two parts by a cross-wall, which reached from the basement to the
-summit.[182] This wall was often central, as at Porchester, Rochester,
-and Scarborough; but in towers which are oblong in plan, as at Castle
-Rising and Middleham, it divided the keep into two unequal rectangles.
-At Bowes, as also in the Norman keep of Domfront, it was so far from
-being central that it cut off only a narrow oblong from the interior,
-the large main room on the first floor of Bowes being left nearly
-square. In a square keep, the cross-wall was frequently opposite the
-main entrance, and parallel with the fore-building. At Hedingham,
-Lancaster, Porchester, and Scarborough, it is at right angles to the
-fore-building, so that the main entrance is, as in the oblong keep
-of Castle Rising, in an end, and not in a side of one of the rooms.
-The cross-wall at Scarborough was not continued to the second floor;
-and, on the first floor, a transverse arch took its place, throwing
-the two main rooms into one. A great transverse arch, perhaps the
-finest architectural feature in any of our tower-keeps, also spans the
-second floor at Hedingham, in place of the cross-wall (147). On the
-second floor at Rochester, the cross-wall is represented by two pairs
-of rounded arches, divided by a central block of wall containing the
-well-shaft (145). But a cross-wall was not an universal feature of a
-tower-keep. Neither Clun nor Guildford, towers of moderate size, have
-one; and, of the greater keeps, Newcastle, Richmond, and Kenilworth
-have undivided interiors. This is remarkable in a keep of the area of
-Kenilworth: at Newcastle and Richmond the walls are so solid that the
-interior space is comparatively small, while at Newcastle additional
-room was supplied by unusually spacious mural chambers. At Castle
-Rising, in addition to the main cross-wall, each of the divisions
-of the keep has a smaller cross-wall at its extremity, cutting off
-additional apartments from the main rooms, and allowing in one place
-the insertion of an upper floor.
-
-Of the divisions of the tower, whether divided by a cross-wall or not,
-the basement was probably used for the storage of arms and provisions.
-It sometimes contained the opening of the well of the keep.[183] The
-first floor, where there was no other, contained the main apartment or
-hall. In the loftier type of keep, this was on the second floor, and,
-as we have just seen, the substitution of an arch or arcade for the
-cross-wall sometimes converted this floor into one large apartment. At
-Dover and Porchester, as in the Tower of London, the division into two
-apartments was maintained, and there is only a small doorway through
-the cross-wall. The second room, in these instances, probably formed
-the “great chamber” or private apartment of the lord of the castle when
-in residence. Where the hall was on the second floor the first floor
-was probably set apart for the garrison in time of siege and for the
-servants. The provision for private bedrooms was, in those days of
-publicity, extremely small; but where, as at Dover and Newcastle, the
-thickness of the wall allowed of several large mural chambers, some of
-them may have been devoted to this purpose; and in some keeps, as at
-Hedingham, an upper floor above the main apartments was provided, which
-doubtless served this end.[184]
-
-[Illustration: HEDINGHAM: doorway of great tower]
-
-[Illustration: HEDINGHAM: second floor of great tower]
-
-For the purpose of communication between the floors, the example of
-the towers of London and Colchester was followed. A well-stair was
-constructed in one of the angles from the basement to the summit of
-the tower, and had an entrance to each floor through a short passage
-in the thickness of the wall, or sometimes in the embrasure of one of
-the windows. This single stair was the only means of approach to the
-basement. At Dover there are two such stairs; and, in a few instances,
-there are small outer doorways to the basement, which may be
-original, like the postern, high above the ground at Newcastle, or may
-have been cut at a later date, like the entrance to the basement from
-the fore-building at Kenilworth. The two stairs at Dover are diagonally
-opposite to one another. At Rochester a second stair, also diagonal to
-the other, begins at the first floor and ascends to the roof. The main
-stair at Guildford starts in an angle of the first floor: the basement
-was probably entered by a trap-door and ladder, but later, probably in
-the thirteenth century, a doorway was cut through the wall into the
-basement below the main entrance. At Scarborough, although the main
-entrance was at the basement level, it merely opened on a stair leading
-to the first floor: the stair to the basement, if there was one, seems
-to have been in one of the angles which has been destroyed. In the
-keeps of Richmond and Ludlow, owing to the preservation of the older
-gatehouses in whole or in part, the arrangements are exceptional. The
-basement at Richmond (93) had, as we have seen, its own entrance from
-the interior of the castle; but there was also an inserted stair, now
-blocked, in one of its angles from the first floor. The main stair of
-the tower, however, started to the left of the main entrance on the
-first floor, and continued upwards straight through the south wall to
-the level of the second floor, where it stopped. The stair from the
-second floor to the roof started from a point above the first floor
-entrance, and also ran through the whole thickness of the south wall
-above the lower stair, opening on the rampart at a point above the
-entrance to the second floor.[185] At Ludlow, as a consequence of the
-transformation of the gatehouse, the original straight stair from the
-basement to the floor above, in the thickness of the east wall, was
-blocked up, and the basement was entered only by a trap-door in the
-first floor.[186]
-
-The various floors of the tower-keep were of timber, and vaulted
-chambers, even in the basement, were an exception. The basement at
-Newcastle has an original vaulted roof, on eight ribs springing from
-a central column: the vaulting of the basement at Richmond, also from
-a central column, is an insertion. At Norham the basement is divided
-by the cross-wall into two parts, one of which has a cross-wall of
-its own, dividing it into two chambers, both barrel-vaulted: the
-other division has four bays of groined vaulting, divided by plain
-transverse arches. The basement at Bamburgh was also vaulted in three
-chambers, the largest of which had a central arcade of three arches,
-from which ribs were struck to the outer wall and cross-wall. The two
-chambers of the basement at Middleham were also vaulted, one from a
-central arcade of five bays. But these northern examples are quite
-exceptional; and, even at Castle Rising, where the architectural
-treatment of the various portions of the building is unusually
-elaborate, and the larger chamber of the basement is divided by a row
-of columns, vaulting was confined to the small subdivisions which
-support the lesser first-floor chambers already mentioned.
-
-[Illustration: NEWCASTLE: chapel]
-
-Mural chambers, made in the thickness of the wall, were necessarily
-vaulted, the usual form employed being the barrel-vault, which sprang
-from the wall without any dividing string-course. Otherwise, the only
-apartment which had a stone roof was the chapel, frequently found in
-connection with the tower-keep. It must be added, however, that the
-chapel hardly ever occupies any part of a main floor in the keep, and
-that at Castle Rising, where it is in an angle of the first floor,
-the chancel alone is vaulted, and is constructed in the thickness of
-the wall. Chapels on the scale of those of London and Colchester were
-never again attempted in a keep. According to the usual theory, chapels
-in castles and houses were planned so that no room used for secular
-purposes should be above them; and their position in a keep was usually
-upon the upper floor of a tower in the fore-building, communicating
-with the adjacent floor of the main structure. The altar was always
-placed against an east wall, and the distinction between nave and
-chancel was usually kept. Thus at Rochester, where all three stages of
-the tower of the fore-building are vaulted, the top floor was probably
-a chapel, the nave of which was entered directly from the second floor
-of the keep through a mural passage, while the chancel communicated
-through a small vaulted lobby and a short stair with the main stair of
-the keep.[187] At Dover the chapel, with ribbed vaulting, and a chancel
-arch of two orders with chevron moulding and jamb-shafts, occupies
-the upper floor of the lower tower of the fore-building. The walls of
-chancel and nave are arcaded, which is a very usual feature in a castle
-chapel, but does not appear at Rochester. The entrance from the second
-floor of the keep at Dover was through a mural chamber and a passage
-along the west wall of the chapel, which led to the chapel doorway on
-the left hand, and a small vaulted room, possibly a vestry, on the
-right. At Porchester, again, the south chamber on the first floor of
-the fore-building was the chapel, approached from the passage which led
-through the fore-building to the main doorway. The chapel at Newcastle
-(152) is in an unusual position, in the basement of the fore-building,
-and is entered through a passage from the foot of the main stair. It
-also had originally an outer doorway, which communicated directly with
-the outer stair of the fore-building near its foot—another unusual
-feature. The ribbed vaulting, wall-arcading, and chancel arch, are of
-remarkably excellent workmanship, and the “water-leaf” ornament of the
-capitals of the wall-arcade bears a close resemblance to that of the
-capitals of the contemporary Galilee of Durham. As the fore-building
-at Newcastle is against the east wall of the keep, the longer axis of
-the nave of the chapel runs north and south, and is at right angles
-to that of the chancel. The chapel is thus =T=-shaped: the altar was
-placed on one side of the chancel, against the east wall, and was
-practically invisible from the nave. It is probable that the constable
-of the castle and his family or friends occupied the western part of
-the chancel, facing the altar, while the nave was used by the garrison
-and servants.[188]
-
-Roomy chapels, like those at Newcastle and Old Sarum, were not merely
-the chapel of the great tower, but of the whole castle. On the other
-hand, the ordinary chapel of a tower-keep provided less accommodation,
-and seems to have been intended for the lord of the castle or his
-deputy and their immediate household. At Guildford the chapel of the
-keep is a mere oratory, formed by two mural chambers at right angles
-to one another, in the south-west angle of the first floor. The main
-body of the chapel, covered with a barrel-vault, is in the west wall;
-the space for the altar, arranged so that the priest faced eastwards,
-is in the south wall, and is covered by a half-barrel-vault set at
-right angles to the longer axis. The nave, which is thus quite out of
-sight of the altar-chamber, has a wall-arcade of late twelfth-century
-character, supplying a valuable clue to the real date of this rudely
-built and archaic-looking keep. Although a chapel or oratory in the
-keep was not uncommon, it was on the whole a luxury. At Richmond and
-Ludlow no provision was made for one; the chapels of the castles, which
-remain in both cases, were of earlier date than the conversion of the
-gatehouse into a tower. It is not unlikely that the name of chapel may
-have been given in later days to rooms in keeps and fore-buildings
-which were intended for quite other purposes.[189]
-
-Although, in time of siege, cooking in the keep itself would sometimes
-be necessary, no special part of the tower was set aside as a kitchen.
-Castle Rising is an exception, where the room cut off at the north-west
-angle of the first floor seems to have served this purpose, and a
-circular chimney-shaft was hollowed out in the angle itself.[190]
-Fireplaces are found in most tower-keeps, though not on all floors.
-Rochester and Dover were well provided in this way, while, on the
-other hand, the tower of Porchester was without any apparent means
-of artificial warmth. The fireplaces at Dover in the cross-wall are
-of great size; those at Rochester are numerous, but small, and have
-arches decorated with the thick and roughly-cut chevron ornament which
-also appears in the arcade of the cross-wall on the second floor. The
-original fireplaces at Newcastle are in the large mural chambers on the
-first and second floors. The main apartment here was probably warmed by
-a brazier on the floor; and this may have been a common method, as it
-was in the halls of private houses. A vent for the smoke must have been
-made in the roof.
-
-Water, in view of the straitened circumstances of a siege, was a
-necessity in a keep, and, where there are no remains of a well, it
-is safe to assume that one has been filled up. In a mount-keep like
-Guildford, the well may have been inside the shell which walls in the
-front part of the mount. The wells of the Tower of London and Castle
-Rising were in the basements. At Colchester there is a well-chamber in
-the south wall of the basement, to the right of the entrance-passage.
-But in the later keeps the pipe of the well, a cylinder lined with
-ashlar, was often carried up through the thickness of a wall to the
-upper floors, which thus received their supply of water directly,
-without the necessity of a journey to the basement. At Kenilworth it
-was in the south wall, close to the south-west angle, with an opening
-on the basement and first floor. It is in the east wall at Newcastle,
-near the north-east angle: it has only one opening, at the well-head
-on the second floor, and is reached by a mural passage from the main
-apartment. There are two wells at Dover, one in the middle tower of
-the fore-building, with an opening at the level of the second floor,
-the other in the south wall of the keep, with its only opening on the
-second floor, in a mural chamber to the left of the main entrance. The
-pipe at Rochester is in the centre of the cross-wall, and was carried
-up to the third floor, with an opening in the north chamber of each
-stage.
-
-Mural chambers have been noticed incidentally. Some keeps, even of the
-largest size, have their walls unpierced, save for window openings:
-this is the case with Corfe. Porchester, in spite of its great size,
-contains only two, which were used for the common and necessary purpose
-of garde-robes or latrines. On the other hand, the exceptionally
-massive walls of Dover contain a large number of such chambers, most
-of which are of considerable size: the position of the garde-robes
-here is not easy to determine. At Newcastle advantage was taken of
-the thickness of the walls to construct large chambers in connection
-with the first and second floors: that in the south wall of the second
-floor, known as the “king’s chamber,” has an original fireplace, and
-is well lighted. A doorway at its north-west corner leads into a
-garde-robe in the west wall. The number of mural chambers at Newcastle
-is small compared with that at Dover, but the walls were freely pierced
-with passages and galleries. A stair, made through the upper part of
-the south and west walls to the ramparts, seems to have been abandoned
-during the progress of the work: the notion that it was deliberately
-intended to lead a body of the enemy, who might have entered the tower,
-into a _cul-de-sac_, is fanciful, but it certainly might have had
-this unintentional effect. At Dover, Hedingham, Newcastle, Norwich,
-and Rochester, where the hall or apartments on the second floor were
-of unusual height, galleries were made in the walls round the upper
-part of the stage. The gallery at Dover was not continued round the
-north-west angle of the tower, but a passage, now blocked, was made
-through the cross-wall from north to south, so that the east room on
-this floor was completely surrounded by a gallery. The gallery at
-Rochester surrounds the whole tower, communicating with the vices in
-the south-west and north-east angles, and opening upon the interior of
-the tower in no less than fourteen places, each of which corresponds to
-a loop in the outer wall. Where the arcade which, on the second floor,
-takes the place of the cross-wall, joins the east and west walls, the
-floor of the gallery is raised by a few steps, to provide the adjacent
-arch with a solid abutment. The arrangement of the mural galleries at
-Bamburgh, which, owing to the modern alterations of the interior of the
-tower, is rather obscure, seems to have been very like that at Dover,
-with a passage through the cross-wall between two divided rooms upon
-the second floor. The gallery at Hedingham, like that at Rochester, is
-complete, and this floor, which is still roofed, is admirably lighted
-(147). In cases where a mural chamber served as a garde-robe, as at
-Guildford, Porchester, and the tower of the Peak, the outer wall, in
-which the seat was contained, was slightly thickened and corbelled
-out at this level, and a vent made below the seat. At Kenilworth the
-north-west turret seems to have been used entirely as a garde-robe,
-the lower part of the basement forming a pit for the refuse.[191] The
-garde-robes at Castle Rising are contained in a vaulted chamber in the
-west wall of the first floor, the vents opening upon the recesses by
-which the outer face of the wall is broken up.
-
-[Illustration: NORHAM: great tower]
-
-[Illustration: NEWARK CASTLE]
-
-The roof of the tower-keep was of timber with an outer covering of
-lead, and was some feet below the level of the encircling rampart-walk
-on the top of the outer walls. The rampart-walk had a parapet upon its
-outer face, which at regular intervals was lowered to form embrasures.
-The solid portions of the parapet were of much greater breadth than
-the embrasures: the familiar type of battlemented parapet, in which
-the embrasures are of equal width with the solid “cops” or _merlons_
-between them, belongs to a later date. From the rampart-walk stairs
-led into the summits of the angle turrets, which were some feet above
-the level of the parapet. The original arrangement of the roof can be
-gathered only from the marks left against the inside of the walls. In
-towers with a cross-wall, like Rochester, each of the divisions was
-covered, as a general rule, by a roof of more or less high pitch. A
-central gutter ran along the top of the cross-wall, and side gutters
-along each of the lateral walls, which were drained through spout-holes
-made in the outer walls, which carried the rampart-walk. At Porchester,
-where, as already noted, the tower was heightened, there was originally
-a high-pitched central roof, with lean-to roofs against each of the
-lateral walls, and gutters above the centre of each of the two interior
-chambers. This curious arrangement seems to suggest that the cross-wall
-itself was added when the tower was heightened, and that the gutters
-originally were supported by timber struts in the second or attic stage
-of the tower. When the tower was raised, a flat roof was planned and
-possibly laid, and, by a curious and unique device, for which it is
-hard to find an adequate reason, the parapets of the east and west
-walls were slightly gabled. The present roof, however, is formed in
-the usual way, with two gables and central and side gutters. In towers
-without a cross-wall, like Ludlow, Newcastle, and Richmond, the
-covering was a single high-pitched roof. In any case, the roof was
-below the level of the rampart-walk, and was not intended to form a
-free field for the defence of the tower: the occupation of the roof of
-the tower for purposes of defence was not contemplated until a somewhat
-later period than that at which the rectangular tower-keep was in
-general fashion. At Rochester, and probably in many other instances,
-the inner side of the rampart-walk was protected by a rear-wall, lower
-than the parapet. The parapet at Rochester was 2 feet broad and 8 feet
-high: the rear-wall had a breadth of 3 feet, and the rampart-walk of 4
-feet. A foot of wall was left for the springing of the roofs and for
-their side-gutters. The roof at Newcastle was re-laid in 1240; but here
-and at Dover the insertion of comparatively modern vaults makes the
-original arrangement difficult to trace. The present roof of Richmond
-is modern, with a skylight to give light and air to the dark room on
-the second floor: the height of the outer walls above the roof suggests
-that the original roof was of unusually high pitch or rose above an
-intermediate attic. The angle turrets formed elevated platforms,
-approached from the rampart-walk by stone stairs. Their elevation
-afforded a greater command of the proceedings of the enemy at the foot
-of the tower; and their solid construction may sometimes have allowed
-the defenders to employ them for stone-throwing engines, without
-interference with the operations of the soldiers on the somewhat narrow
-rampart-walk.
-
-It has already been shown that, if the main object of these towers
-was defensive, many of them seem to have been planned with a degree
-of comfort which indicates that their builders had an eye to their
-permanent use as the principal residence within the enclosure of the
-castle, and that, in the towers built during the reign of Henry II., a
-compromise between their military and domestic character was effected.
-It is clear, however, that, in the cases of Richmond and Ludlow, the
-converted gatehouse-towers were planned simply as military strongholds.
-Their position, in both these instances, was exposed to direct attack,
-while the early domestic buildings occupied a more sheltered position
-on the further side of the inner ward. The tower-keep can never have
-formed a convenient residence, even where, as at Hedingham, it was
-well lighted, or, as at Dover, was unusually roomy. New methods of
-fortification led to its general disuse, and although, in certain
-parts of England, the type persisted upon a small scale until the end
-of the middle ages, the period during which the fashion of building
-rectangular tower-keeps was pursued was comparatively short.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER VII
-
-THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION: CYLINDRICAL TOWER-KEEPS
-
-
-The development of the castle during the twelfth century was governed,
-as has been explained, by the methods of attack which its defenders
-had to meet. The strong fortresses of the reign of Henry II., with
-their stone curtains and rectangular keeps, opposed to the enemy a
-solid front of passive strength which defied attack. Sufficiently
-provisioned, a small garrison was capable of holding out against a long
-blockade, and tiring the patience of the assailants, whose artillery
-could make but little impression upon the masonry of the castle. At
-the same time, the stone castle with the rectangular tower-keep does
-not represent a final point in the perfection of fortification. The
-early Plantagenet castles were, on the contrary, merely a departure
-from the ordinary type of castle, composed of earthwork and timber, in
-the direction of an organised system of permanent stone castles. They
-belonged to a transitional period; for, even while they were being
-built, improvements upon their most striking feature, the rectangular
-keep, were suggesting themselves. During the last twenty years of the
-twelfth century, lessons learned by the Crusaders from the traditional
-methods of fortification employed in the Eastern empire exercised
-a profound influence upon the military architecture of France and
-England; and the application of these lessons during the thirteenth
-century entirely altered the defensive scheme of the castle, until
-the plan of masterpieces of fortification like Caerphilly and Harlech
-presented an entire contrast to the plan of defensive strongholds like
-Norham and Scarborough.
-
-The first necessity which had governed the development of
-fortification was that of enclosing the defended position so as to
-present an adequate barrier to attack. The bailey was surrounded
-with its palisade; while the palisaded mount, with its wooden tower,
-commanded—that is, overlooked—the operations of the defenders within
-the bailey, and provided a second line of defence, if the bailey were
-taken. As siege-engines increased in strength, stone-work took the
-place of stockading. The bailey was encircled by a stone wall with a
-certain number of towers on its circumference. It was sometimes divided
-into an outer and inner ward by a cross-wall, or, as at Ludlow (96),
-a large outer bailey was added to it, which formed a courtyard for
-barracks and stabling, and a protection in time of war for dwellers on
-the outskirts of the castle and for their flocks. A wall superseded
-the palisade round the mount, or a strong tower was built, either
-in connection with the mount or on a new site, which commanded the
-whole enclosure. Thus the passive strength of the castle was ensured.
-But stone walls and towers, however strong, were in themselves an
-insufficient protection, unless the defenders could keep themselves
-fully informed of the movements of the enemy. It was necessary that
-they should be able to command the field in which the besiegers worked,
-and especially the foot of the wall or tower on which the attack was
-concentrated. The battering-ram, the scaling-ladder, and the mine must
-be kept under constant observation. A first step towards this was the
-establishment of projecting towers along the wall at intervals. These
-flank the wall—that is, the outer face of the wall between them can be
-overlooked and protected by bodies of men posted upon the projection on
-either flank. At first, however, the system of flanking was far from
-perfect; and therefore the next step was in the direction of improving
-it, so that every portion of the outer surface of the _enceinte_ might
-be covered by the fire of the defenders. This improvement, which we are
-about to trace, was effected gradually, (1) by a change in the form of
-the flanking defences themselves; (2) by their multiplication at more
-frequent intervals. The first of these changes begins to be noticeable
-during the later years of the twelfth century: the second was brought
-to pass in the first half of the thirteenth century, and led to further
-developments in the arrangement of the lines of defence.
-
-The rectangular form of the keep and of the towers on the curtain was
-in two respects a drawback to the defence of the castle. In the first
-place, the salient angles of the masonry were liable to destruction
-by sap and mine. The parallel jointing of the stonework made the
-removal of fragments of stone by the bore or pick at these points a
-comparatively easy, if still laborious, task. In the second place, the
-angles of a tower or curtain, which were thus points of danger, were
-precisely the places which the defenders were least able to command
-satisfactorily. Each face of a rectangular tower commands the field
-immediately in front of it: the range of shot, from the point of view
-of each marksman, is in a direction at right angles to the face of
-the tower. Strictly speaking, the foot of the whole curtain and its
-towers lies within a “dead angle,” as vertical fire from the rampart is
-impossible; but the wooden galleries attached to the rampart obviated
-this difficulty. But, if the lines of two adjacent faces of the tower
-are produced, it will be seen that the space contained by these is
-out of the defenders’ range, and within it miners can work securely,
-while the main attack is directed against the faces of the rectangle.
-One obvious concrete illustration of this is seen at Rochester. When
-King John, in 1215, besieged the castle, he directed against it his
-stone-throwing engines. Finding that progress by this means was slow,
-he set his miners to work. A breach was made in the outer curtain, and
-the miners continued their operations on the tower, and eventually,
-after much difficulty, broke their way through it.[192] We can see
-to-day that the south-east angle of the tower has been rebuilt, and
-that the form of the reconstructed turret is round, and not square.
-This, no doubt, marks the place where the breach was made: the repairs
-are evidently part of the work taken in hand by Henry III. in 1225.
-
-A further weak point in the defences of the castle was the insufficient
-flanking of the curtain. In the eleventh century, as we have seen,
-flanking towers were discouraged by feudal over-lords, who rightly
-recognised the danger which a strongly fortified castle, in the hands
-of rebels, might mean to themselves. As time went on, stone curtains
-were provided with towers; but these were not many in number, and,
-so long as the rectangular form of tower continued in fashion, long
-spaces of straight wall were left between the projections. The risk of
-providing too many salient angles was probably recognised by military
-engineers. From the flanking towers the adjacent part of the wall could
-be covered by the artillery of the defence; but, where a long interval
-existed between two towers, the wall mid-way was out of effective
-range. To protect these unflanked points in time of siege, a body of
-defenders would have to be kept on each spot. A twelfth-century castle,
-therefore, to be thoroughly defended, needed a large garrison to cover
-its numerous weak points. Any attempt to concentrate the defence upon
-one threatened spot might lead to the weakening of the defence at other
-points, of which the enemy would not be slow to take advantage.
-
-Added to this was an inherent drawback in the normal plan of the
-castle. Its wards and keep provided a system of successive lines of
-defence, which caused an enemy immense trouble to pierce, but could
-not offer a combined resistance to him. In many castles, like Norham
-or Barnard Castle, the inner ward and keep were placed at a distant
-angle of the enclosure, and were protected from external attack by
-steep outer slopes and a river at their foot. In such cases, the wall
-of the outer ward offered the first resistance: the inner ward did
-not come into action until the enemy had entered the outer ward, and
-the defenders had to retire to the inner enclosure. If the inner wall
-was breached or stormed, the keep gave the defence its last shelter.
-At Château-Gaillard, as has already been described, the chief feature
-of the siege was the capture of ward after ward: the defenders, in
-despair, did not even attempt to resort, as a final resource, to
-the keep. Château-Gaillard was in its own day a model of scientific
-fortification. Its fall was therefore a very striking example of the
-disadvantage of successive lines of defence, of which only one could
-be effectively used at a time. It is true that here and there, as
-at Rochester, the keep was placed so near the curtain of an outer
-ward that the exterior of the castle could be commanded from its
-battlements, and its artillery could be brought into play over the
-heads of the defenders of the curtain. At Richmond, the great tower
-commands the one side of the castle from which attack was possible,
-and was thus placed in the very fore-front of the defence. But such
-arrangements were happy ideas which occurred to individual engineers,
-and do not imply any systematic advance in the science of defence.
-
-[Illustration: Château-Gaillard; Plan]
-
-The experiences of the earliest Crusaders brought the warriors of
-the west face to face with methods of defence far superior to those
-employed in England and France. The city-wall of Antioch gave them an
-example of a perfect system of flanking defences; and, in the triple
-_enceinte_ of Constantinople they saw how successive lines of defence
-could be used in co-operation. At Antioch the wall was flanked at
-frequent intervals by fifty towers. Each of these, rising above the
-curtain, commanded not only its space of intermediate wall, but the
-rampart-walk as well. The rampart-walk, moreover, passed through the
-towers, which were protected by strong doors. To gain the whole line
-of wall, therefore, it was necessary to occupy the towers, each of
-which could be converted into a separate stronghold, isolating the
-intermediate rampart-walk. The siege was badly conducted, the Crusaders
-limiting themselves to a strong position between the city and the
-Orontes, and allowing the defenders to hold their communications on
-two sides of the city open for some five months. Posts of observation
-were eventually established on the two neglected sides; but the actual
-capture of the city was due to the treachery of one of the commanders
-of the Turkish garrison, who admitted a body of Franks into one of the
-towers in his charge. They made their way into seven more towers, and
-so gained access to the city.[193] The three walls of Constantinople
-surrounded the whole city: each was higher than the one outside it,
-so that all three could be used simultaneously by the defenders.[194]
-Against such a system of concentric defence, the besiegers were
-manifestly at a disadvantage.
-
-These lessons from the east, stimulating though they were, did not
-produce their full practical effect for some generations in the
-west. Our engineers had to pass through a long epoch of gradual
-experiment before they could arrive at a finished system of flanking
-or of concentric lines of defence. The traditional mount-and-bailey
-plan provided the foundation of the plan of the stone castle. The
-traditional importance of the keep as the ultimate place of refuge
-dictated the arrangement of ward behind ward, culminating in the great
-tower. Meanwhile, the improvement of flanking defences led more and
-more to the concentration of engineering skill upon the curtain, so
-that the keep gradually took a place of secondary importance. As an
-obvious result of further improvement, the keep was dispensed with,
-and the whole attention of the engineer was directed to combining the
-defences of the castle into a double or triple line of simultaneous
-resistance to attack. These steps took time: the transition from one to
-the other was effected by no sudden revolution, but by work along old
-lines, a work of revision and improvement, until the finished product
-formed an almost complete antithesis to the source from which it was
-derived.
-
-The earliest signs of transition in England are seen in the
-strengthening of the masonry by the reduction and elimination of
-salient angles. It is obvious that, if a rounded or polygonal form is
-given to a projecting tower, or if the angle of a rectangular tower is
-rounded off, a wider field will be commanded by the artillery of the
-defence. The new range will be a large segment of a circle radiating
-from the centre of the tower, instead of a rectangle in front of each
-face. The sectors at the angles within which an attacking party can
-work securely will be thus eliminated, and the chances of the success
-of a mine will be less. The masonry also will offer much greater
-resistance to the battering or boring engines of the enemy. The joints
-are no longer parallel, but radiating, so that it becomes much harder
-work to force out stones and effect a breach. The obtuse angles of
-polygonal towers, with the joints of the masonry in the alternate faces
-running in oblique directions to each other, have a much greater power
-of resistance than the right angles of the ordinary twelfth-century
-tower.
-
-The general use of circular and polygonal forms is first found in
-connection with the principal tower of the castle, the keep. The
-main object was at first, no doubt, the greater cohesion imparted
-to the masonry: the scientific advantages, from the point of view
-of artillery, probably were not realised till later. In France the
-cylindrical donjon appeared at an earlier date than in England: that
-at Château-sur-Epte (Eure) is said to have been begun in 1097.[195]
-The tower of Houdan (Seine-et-Oise) is a cylinder flanked by four
-cylindrical turrets: it was built during the reign of Louis VI.
-(1108-37),[196] and the form shows that the builders looked, not merely
-to the strength of the masonry, but to the reduction of the enemy’s
-chances of successful attack. The majority, however, of such donjons
-in France belong to the second half of the twelfth century and the
-beginning of the thirteenth, and were contemporary with our rectangular
-towers. But the engineers of Henry II., to whom we owe so many of our
-stone keeps, were certainly acquainted with the possible benefits of
-forms other than square. The keep of Orford in Suffolk was probably
-built between 1166 and 1172,[197] and is therefore earlier in date than
-many rectangular keeps.
-
-[Illustration: Conisbrough; Keep]
-
-Internally, it is cylindrical; externally, a polygon of twenty-one
-sides, with three very large rectangular turrets projecting from it.
-It has a basement and two main floors, and is entered by a two-storied
-fore-building, which forms a southward continuation of the eastern
-turret. The sloping base of the tower is continued round the turrets,
-and greatly strengthens their angles; while the turrets themselves
-are so placed as to flank the whole tower and fore-building very
-effectively, and to provide additional room in the interior. This
-combination of the rectangular and polygonal forms is, for its date, an
-unique departure from the ordinary type of English tower-keep. But it
-must be remembered that the shell-keep on the mount usually took the
-form of a cylindrical or polygonal wall strengthened by buttresses; and
-at Orford, where the tower appears to stand upon the base of a levelled
-mount, we may have a conscious adaptation of this form to the heavier
-and loftier tower. At Gisors (Eure) the older donjon was an octagonal
-tower, built on a mount, and surrounded by a circular wall. The tower
-was probably built by Henry II. between 1161 and 1184,[198] within
-the somewhat earlier shell, and took the form which was best suited
-to the artificial soil on which it stood. But there are at least two
-instances of English rectangular keeps in which a slight departure from
-the normal form was made for obvious purposes of additional strength,
-without reference to an artificial site. At Newcastle the north-west
-turret is octagonal, with very obtuse angles. In the small tower of
-Mitford, on the Wansbeck above Morpeth, the north wall is built with an
-obtuse salient angle, so that the tower forms an irregular pentagon.
-The date of this tower cannot be fixed with certainty, but it probably
-belongs to the second half, at any rate, of the twelfth century; and
-it can hardly be doubted that the object of this peculiar device was to
-give the defenders better command of the angles of the tower which were
-exposed to attack from the inner ward.
-
-[Illustration: Conisbrough; Keep. Plans]
-
-Somewhat later than these is the noble cylindrical keep of Conisbrough
-(166), which is attributed to Hamelin Plantagenet, a natural brother of
-Henry II., and husband of Isabel, heiress of William, earl of Surrey.
-Hamelin died in 1201: the tower was built, as the architectural details
-show, during the last quarter of the twelfth century. It is a regular
-cylinder; and to its circumference are applied six bold buttresses,
-which narrow slightly outwards, and rise above the parapet in turrets.
-The whole is built of dressed stone in large rectangular blocks, the
-fine condition of which, after more than seven hundred years, is
-extraordinary. The construction is unusually solid: the thickness of
-the wall in the basement exceeds 20 feet. On the first floor it is
-just under 15 feet: in the two upper floors it is reduced by internal
-off-sets, until, at the rampart level, 75 to 80 feet above the ground,
-it is 12½ feet. In addition to this the buttresses, which project
-9 feet at the basement level and 8 feet above, are not used, like the
-turrets at Orford, to contain additional rooms, but are built solid.
-The chapel, however, was formed by constructing a chamber in the
-eastern buttress upon the third floor.
-
-[Illustration: Conisbrough; Fireplace]
-
-The tower of Conisbrough, like that of Orford, was intended for
-residential as well as defensive purposes; but light and comfort were
-sacrificed to military necessities. The entrance, as usual, was upon
-the first floor, but there is no trace of any fore-building, nor is
-the original means of approach at all clear. The basement was simply
-a domed well-chamber and store-room: the only approach to it from the
-first floor was an opening in the centre of the guard-chamber, over
-which was probably the windlass by which buckets were lowered into the
-well.[199] The first floor was a guard-chamber: there were no windows,
-and the only means of admitting daylight was through the open door on
-the far side of the passage through the wall. On the right-hand side of
-this passage, a curved stair mounts through the thickness of the wall
-to the second floor, which it enters by a landing in the embrasure[200]
-of a loop on the north side. This floor was the hall of the keep.
-There is a large fireplace (168) in the west wall, with a spreading
-chimney-breast, and a lintel of joggled stones resting on triple
-shafts with carved capitals. In the wall between the fireplace and the
-entrance is a rectangular recess, containing a small sink, which was
-drained through the wall. There are two windows, the loop close to the
-entrance, and a double window opening to the south-east. The embrasures
-are barrel-vaulted: that of the double window has a stone bench on all
-three sides, and stands three steps above the floor of the hall. This
-window was not glazed: the upright between the two rectangular openings
-has at the back a rounded projection, through a hole in which the bolt
-of the shutters passed, and the fastening was further secured by a
-wooden draw-bar. On the north-east side of the hall a winding passage
-with two turns and a flight of steps leads through the thickness of the
-wall to a garde-robe.
-
-To reach the third floor, the hall had to be crossed to a recess in
-the direction of the south-west buttress. From this point a curved
-staircase mounted through the wall to the embrasure of a loop in
-the south-east face of the third floor. The apartment on this floor
-contained a smaller fireplace, immediately above that on the second
-floor, and treated with similar architectural ornament. The flue of
-the lower chimney runs up through the wall behind that of the other:
-the common chimney-top projects from the rampart-walk above. There is
-also upon this floor a trefoil-headed recess with a sink. There are two
-windows, the loop in the south-east face, and a double opening, similar
-to that below, looking south. This room corresponded to the “great
-chamber,” which is found in the larger houses of the middle ages. On
-its east side the chapel, an irregular hexagon, vaulted in two ribbed
-bays with a transverse arch between, was constructed in the eastern
-wall and buttress. The details of its beautiful capitals, like those of
-the fireplaces, show elementary foliage of the water-leaf type, such as
-is found in the chapel of the tower at Newcastle (152). Chevron is used
-in the stilted transverse arch and round the outside of the arch of the
-loop at the east end. The quatrefoil openings north and south of the
-chancel bay, and the trefoil-headed _piscinae_ in the same walls, are
-of an advanced transitional character; and, by comparing these details,
-a date approximating to 1185-90 may with some certainty be given to the
-tower. In the north wall of the chapel a doorway leads into a small
-vestry or priest’s chamber, lighted by a loop. The stairway to the
-rampart-walk mounts through the wall above this chamber, and its head
-is above the western bay of the chapel. It is entered from a recess in
-the north-east wall of the second floor, and from this recess there is
-also a zigzag passage to a garde-robe, the seat of which is corbelled
-out in the angle between the north-east buttress and the north wall of
-the tower. The two lower stairways and the two garde-robe chambers are
-each lighted by a small loop.
-
-In the roomier arrangement of the keep at Orford, the stair is a vice
-in the turret or buttress to which the fore-building is annexed. The
-chapel is upon the first floor of the fore-building, and, being on a
-level of its own, not corresponding to the levels of the tower, is
-approached from the stair by a separate passage. The entrance to the
-chapel is a doorway on the left of this passage, which is continued
-through the south-east wall of the tower to a priest’s room in the
-south turret.
-
-The defensive side of the arrangements at Conisbrough must now be
-considered. The tower stands close to the north-east corner of a
-large bailey, the shape of which follows that of the knoll on which
-it is built: the north segment of the tower, with the two adjacent
-buttresses, continues the line of the curtain; but five-sixths of the
-circumference, with four of the buttresses, are within the enclosure.
-On the north and east sides the steepness of the hill made access
-nearly impracticable, and the natural point of attack was from the
-south and south-west. The position of the keep is at the point furthest
-removed from attack, and the capture of the inner ward, as will be
-seen in a later chapter, was rendered very difficult by a well-guarded
-approach.[201] The tower stood on higher ground than the rest of the
-ward, and the entrance, on the south-east side, was sheltered by the
-east curtain. The south and south-west faces were fully exposed to an
-attack from the inner ward, and it was on this side, therefore, that
-the defenders needed full command of the sides and base of the tower.
-Accordingly, when we mount to the rampart-walk, and examine the tops of
-the buttresses, we find that the two which are upon the north curtain,
-and were not exposed to attack, contain cisterns. The two on either
-side of the main entrance were not necessary for flanking purposes, as
-the entrance itself would be defended by some kind of platform in time
-of siege. One, therefore, above the chapel, was employed as a house for
-carrier-pigeons; while the other contained an oven, in which stones
-and arrows could be heated. The remaining two buttresses are raised
-platforms which effectively flanked that part of the circumference
-which was otherwise insufficiently guarded, and lay open to catapults
-and mining operations. The spreading base of the tower and buttresses
-served further to keep the battering-ram and bore from direct contact
-with the main wall of the tower, and improved the flanking position of
-the defenders; while missiles dropped from the summit upon this talus
-or sloping surface would rebound upon the enemy with deadly effect.
-
-Above the talus the solidity of the main wall defied the force of
-catapults. These engines, however, had increased in strength and range,
-and it was no longer safe to give light to the tower in the somewhat
-lavish method adopted by the engineers of some of our large keeps. At
-Conisbrough, as we have seen, the walls of the first floor, save for
-the entrance passage, are absolutely solid. The loops in the upper
-floors are very few in number, and the one on the most exposed face
-is almost concealed by a buttress. The double window on the second
-floor is immediately over the main entrance, on a side which it would
-be difficult to command with a large siege-engine. That on the third
-floor is placed upon an exposed face, but would probably be out of
-range.[202] The garde-robe vents are on the side where the tower
-crosses the line of the curtain.
-
-In time of siege the larger windows would be shuttered and barred. The
-defence would be conducted from the top of the tower, while a body
-of the garrison would be told off to protect the main entrance. The
-whole summit would be utilised. The defence was not confined, as in a
-rectangular keep, to the rampart-walk; but there was a rear-wall to
-the walk, through which openings probably gave access to a covered
-round-house above the third floor. To this room, which, to judge
-from contemporary instances, had a conical roof, arms and missiles
-could be hauled up, through trap-doors in the floors below, from the
-guard-room and the store-chamber in the basement. There was no vaulted
-roof in the tower above the basement, so that the flat roof could
-not be used as a platform for catapults. There is no indication that
-hoarding was employed outside the rampart. The tower and its buttresses
-were finished off with a battlemented parapet in the usual way; the
-buttresses, as has been shown, were so constructed and so near together
-that additional wooden defences were practically unnecessary.
-
-[Illustration: Etampes; Donjon. Plan]
-
-[Illustration: GOODRICH CASTLE: round tower with spur at base]
-
-[Illustration: GOODRICH CASTLE: buttery hatches]
-
-In France the treatment of the donjon was pursued with more variation
-than in England. To the middle of the twelfth century belongs, for
-instance, the donjon of Etampes (Seine-et-Oise), which takes the form
-of a quatrefoil (172). The donjon of Provins (Seine-et-Marne) is of
-much the same date, the ground-plan forming an octagon flanked by
-four cylindrical turrets. Although both these towers have analogies
-in England, they were constructed nevertheless by French engineers
-at a period before even the rectangular tower had become common with
-ours.[203] They are also only two out of many diverse experiments. The
-cylindrical form, however, commended itself to the builders of the
-finest French examples. Château-Gaillard (163) follows closely upon
-Conisbrough in point of date, having been begun by Richard I. in 1196.
-The donjon is not, as at Conisbrough, a tower to which the line of a
-somewhat earlier curtain has been adapted, but is part of a homogeneous
-scheme of fortification. The site of the castle is the top of a very
-steep and almost isolated hill on the right bank of the Seine: the west
-slope is a precipice, and the only practicable attack could be made
-from the ridge joining the hill to the high ground on the south. The
-donjon is set so that its west face projects from the curtain of the
-inner ward, upon the very edge of the precipice. The interior forms a
-regular cylinder, and the west face is a segment of a circle. On this
-side the solidity of the masonry is increased by a tremendous outward
-slope or batter, the whole height of the basement and adjacent
-curtain. Towards the inner ward, however, the cylinder is strengthened
-by a covering spur, also battered, so that, while the interior of
-the castle was commanded from the rampart, the tower offered to the
-besiegers an angle of immense thickness and strength, immediately
-opposite the gateway of the inner ward. A possible prototype in
-France of this form of defence is the donjon of La-Roche-Guyon
-(Seine-et-Oise), higher up the Seine, where the spur covers about a
-quarter of the circumference of the tower. Philip Augustus adopted
-the same device a few years later in the White tower at Issoudun
-(Indre).[204] It is seen at Goodrich (174), Chepstow, and elsewhere.
-
-[Illustration: Château-Gaillard]
-
-As the upper portion of the tower of Château-Gaillard is gone, its
-internal arrangements are difficult to decipher. It was purely a tower
-of defence; but the inaccessible nature of the west side allowed of
-large windows being made in that face upon the first floor. There was
-probably a low second floor, above which was the roof and rampart-walk.
-The rampart was defended with the aid of a device, unusual at the
-time, although very general at a later period. The sides of the tower
-within the ward were furnished with narrow buttress projections above
-the battering base, which gradually increased in breadth as they went
-higher. These divided the face of the tower into a series of recesses
-spanned by low arches, on the outer face of which the parapet was
-carried. The top of each recess, between the parapet and the wall,
-was left open, so that the defenders could use the holes for raining
-down missiles upon their opponents. Such holes, formed by corbelling
-out a parapet in advance of a wall or tower, are called machicolations
-(_mâchicoulis_),[205] and gradually superseded the external gallery
-of timber. Holes in stone roofs for the same purpose are found at an
-earlier date, as in the fore-building at Scarborough; and, as early as
-1160, they appear in connection with the parapet of a donjon at Niort
-(Deux-Sèvres).[206] The general tradition is that they were invented
-by the Crusaders in Syria, where wood for hoarding was not easily
-obtained; and this is probably true.[207] They appear in a state of
-perfection, which testifies to a long course of previous experiment,
-at the great Syrian castle of Le Krak des Chevaliers (176), begun in
-1202. But hoarding continued in use in Europe long after the building
-of Château-Gaillard, and even the donjon of Coucy (Aisne), by far the
-finest of all cylindrical donjons, was garnished with timber hoarding
-carried on stone corbels—an interesting example of the transition from
-one form of defence to another.
-
-[Illustration: Le Krak des Chevaliers]
-
-[Illustration: Coucy]
-
-The cylindrical form of donjon was brought to perfection in France
-under Philip Augustus (1180-1223). At Gisors, which came into
-his hands in 1193, he built a new circular tower on the line of
-the curtain, which superseded Henry II.’s octagonal tower on the
-mount. His fortification of Gisors led directly to the building of
-Château-Gaillard by Richard I., to cover the approach from French
-territory to Rouen.[208] But in 1204 the capture of this great
-stronghold delivered Rouen into Philip’s hands; and in 1207 he built
-the donjon, now known as the Tour Jeanne d’Arc, at Rouen. Here we meet
-with the tower vaulted from basement to roof, with a strongly defended
-entrance at the level of the ward in which it stands, of which the most
-perfect example is found at Coucy.[209] Coucy, the work of a powerful
-vassal of the crown of France, represents a degree of scientific
-fortification to which none of our cylindrical donjons attains. The
-castle was constructed, like Conway at a later period, in connection
-with the defences of a walled town.[210] It consists of two wards, a
-large outer ward or base-court and an inner ward of irregular shape,
-with four straight sides of unequal length and round towers at the
-angles. In the middle of the east side, between the two wards, is the
-donjon (177), a cylinder of some 200 feet high—90 feet higher than the
-tower of Rochester. It stands isolated from the curtain of the inner
-ward, from the line of which about one-third of its circumference
-projects, and is surrounded by a ditch, originally paved with stone.
-To this ditch there was no external access. On the outer edge of the
-ditch, joining the east curtain of the inner ward at two points, was
-a strong wall or _chemise_. Outside this was the ditch dividing the
-inner ward from the base-court. Within the inner ward, a low wall took
-the place of the _chemise_ of the donjon, and access to the tower was
-provided by a bridge across the stone-flagged ditch. The bridge was
-worked by a windlass, and, when not in use, remained drawn up on the
-threshold of the tower.
-
-The donjon of Coucy is built in three stages, and has a large
-apartment, originally vaulted, on each floor. There is no basement
-chamber below the level of the entrance. In order to facilitate
-vaulting the various floors, each chamber was planned with twelve
-sides, lofty niches being left between the abutments of the vault.[211]
-Without giving a detailed description, we may notice the points in
-which this great structure resembles and improves upon the tower of
-Conisbrough. (1) The isolation of the tower, defended by its own ditch
-and, towards the field, by its own curtain, makes an entrance on the
-ground floor possible. In this respect, the builders of Coucy followed
-the example of Philip Augustus at the Louvre and at Rouen. (2) The
-defences of the entrance are more elaborate than at Conisbrough, where
-the doorway was closed merely by a strong wooden door, reinforced
-by two draw-bars, and a straight passage led into the guard-room on
-the first floor. At Coucy there was a similar door, but in front of
-it was an iron portcullis, worked from the first floor of the tower,
-and sliding through grooves at the back of the jambs of the doorway.
-The portcullis was defended further by a machicolation or open groove
-in the floor above. The entrance passage behind the wooden door was
-closed by a hinged grille at the entrance to the guard-room. (3) The
-stair, as at Conisbrough, was on the right of the entrance passage,
-but, instead of following the curve of the wall, was a vice, which
-led straight to the roof, communicating with the two upper floors on
-the way. The device adopted at Conisbrough, by which the stair ends
-at each floor, and, in order to ascend further, the floor has to be
-crossed, was adopted in the lesser towers at Coucy,[212] but not in the
-donjon. The Conisbrough method has the advantage, very desirable in a
-tower, of keeping the approach to the roof under direct observation
-throughout its entire distance: we find it used in the stairs of the
-rectangular keep at Richmond. (4) The tower of Coucy, as already
-noticed, was defended by a lofty parapet, pierced with arches, which,
-in time of siege, gave access to an outer wooden gallery supported
-by stone corbels.[213] The form of the corbels is that which became
-general in later times: each is composed of four courses of stone
-projecting one above the other, with their outer ends rounded. (5)
-The well at Coucy was in one of the niches between the abutments of
-the ground-floor vault. (6) There are garde-robes at Coucy on the
-left of the entrance-passage, and in a similar position at the entry
-to the first floor. (7) We have seen that at Conisbrough arms were
-probably transported from the basement to the roof through a series
-of trap-doors in the floors. At Coucy there was a circular opening
-left for this purpose in the crown of the vault of each floor. (8)
-The solidity of the tower of Coucy is emphasised by the absence of
-large windows, even more noticeable than at Conisbrough; and, although
-the tower contains fireplaces, its purely defensive character is
-unmistakable. It provided accommodation for an enormous garrison, but
-for residential purposes, it would have been uncomfortable to the last
-degree. It contains no trace of a permanent chapel: when the tower was
-in use, an altar might have been set up in one of the niches on the
-first floor; but the regular chapel was in the inner ward, and was
-connected with the domestic buildings.
-
-In the walls of the tower of Coucy can still be seen the holes which
-served to attach the scaffolding during construction. The spiral course
-which they take shows that the scaffolding, rising with the tower,
-formed an inclined plane of a moderate slope, up which the necessary
-materials could be wheeled. The advantage of a cylindrical tower from
-this point of view is obvious. Another structural feature is the
-provision of gutters for the drainage of the roof in the stonework at
-the back of the vault-ribs of the second floor. The absence of any
-effective provision for draining the centre of the roof at Conisbrough
-points to the probability that it was sheltered, as already explained,
-by a conical roof of its own.
-
-[Illustration: Pembroke]
-
-The introduction of the cylindrical donjon in England coincides with a
-period at which the keep was already beginning to disappear from the
-castle. The principal examples, which may be attributed to the early
-years of the thirteenth century, are on the frontier and in the south
-of Wales. Chief among them is the fine tower of Pembroke (180), which
-was probably built by William Marshal, earl of Pembroke and Striguil,
-about 1200. The castle of Pembroke was of great importance, owing to
-its situation upon an arm of Milford haven,[214] and its command of the
-passage to Ireland. The keep was probably the first completed portion
-of the present castle, the stone-work of which, as it stands to-day,
-is very largely of the late twelfth and early thirteenth century.[215]
-It is a round tower, with a basement and three upper floors, standing
-just within, but not touching, the curtain which divided the inner and
-higher from the outer ward. The height is 75 feet; the floors were
-of wood, but the uppermost stage was vaulted by a dome, which still
-remains, rising in the centre of the tower above the rampart-walk. The
-stair is a vice in the west wall, from the basement to the summit: the
-main entrance was upon the first floor, but there is also a basement
-entrance, which seems to have been pierced not long after the building
-of the tower. The whole structure batters upwards, and the walls are
-slightly gathered in at each stage on the outside, a method the reverse
-of that pursued at Conisbrough: the masonry is roughly coursed rubble.
-On each of the first and second floors there is, towards the inner
-ward, a two-light window with pointed openings, the spandrils between
-which and the enclosing arch are pierced with plate tracery. The third
-floor was lighted by windows pierced in the dome.[216] Commanding, as
-it does, the whole interior of the castle, this tower is remarkably
-grand in situation; and its thick walls offered considerable resistance
-to artillery. It shows, however, no advance upon the defence of
-Conisbrough. The rampart-walk is narrow, and the dome in the centre
-prevented the employment of the roof as a platform.
-
-[Illustration: Pembroke; Plan]
-
-The cylindrical donjon in England and Wales was simply an experiment
-attempted here and there, as an improvement upon the rectangular tower,
-but was never carried to the general perfection which it attained in
-France. Its isolation at Coucy, upon the outer face of the inner ward,
-protected by its own inner ditch, and covered by a strong curtain of
-its own, are signs of a perfection of engineering skill to which our
-builders did not attain. In one case, at Flint, we find a round tower
-which is isolated within its own ditch at one corner of the castle,
-but stands outside the main wall, and had no separate curtain of its
-own.[217] The plan strongly suggests a mount-and-bailey fortress, the
-isolated tower occupying the site of the mount, and the bailey walled
-in, leaving the moat, which was marshy and was filled with water at
-high tide, clear. The construction of this keep is peculiar: it is
-composed of an outer and inner circle of masonry, with barrel-vaulted
-passages between the two. Its actual date is unknown.[218] But, as
-a rule, where the keep stands upon the outer line of defence, it is
-joined by the curtain of the bailey. Thus at Caldicot, near Chepstow,
-the castle is simply a mount-and-bailey enclosure surrounded by a stone
-curtain of the thirteenth century. The keep is a round tower at one
-corner, standing upon the partially levelled mount; and the curtain
-crosses the ditch to join it on both sides. At Conisbrough, where the
-keep was on the line of the curtain; at Pembroke, where it stood just
-within the line, there was no ditch round it: the high ground on which
-it was placed seems to have been thought a sufficient protection.
-
-There are, however, a few round towers which, although they have not
-their own curtain in the sense of Coucy, are yet within defences of
-a peculiar nature, and therefore stand in a class apart. The most
-remarkable of these is Launceston, where the tower stands upon the
-summit of a lofty artificial mount of early Norman origin, and is
-approached by a steep and well-defended stair, ascending the face of
-the mount to the main entrance. Round the outer edge of the mount
-remain the lower courses of a stone wall, concentric with the keep.
-Within this is another and higher circular wall, which was crowned by
-a rampart-walk, approached by a stair in the thickness of the wall, to
-the left of the entrance. Inside this enclosure is the tower itself,
-which now consists of a basement and a ruined upper floor. The narrow
-space between the tower and the encircling wall was evidently roofed
-over at the height of the first floor of the tower: holes for joists
-still remain.[219] This double circle of masonry recalls Flint, where,
-however, the intermediate passage was vaulted, and the outer circle was
-probably the whole height of the tower.[220] Flint does not possess
-the low outer wall which existed at Launceston. The nearest analogy to
-Launceston is at Provins (Seine-et-Marne), where the octagonal keep
-has its own outer curtain, and is composed of an outer octagon with
-cylindrical turrets at the angles, commanded by an inner octagon rising
-two stages higher. The upper stage at Provins is surrounded by a lofty
-crenellated wall, on which rests a conical roof.
-
-[Illustration: Dolbadarn]
-
-Another case is the keep of Tretower in Breconshire, which stands on
-a slightly elevated site near the confluence of the Rhiangol with the
-Usk. Here the arrangement is very curious. The keep, a round tower
-with a basement and three upper stages, stands within the ruins of
-an approximately rectangular enclosure. This enclosure bears a close
-resemblance to the outer wall of a rectangular keep, but has two
-octagonal projections from the south face, one of which contains a
-vice, and the other a large fireplace. The tower itself seems to be
-somewhat earlier than the year 1200: the fireplaces on the first and
-second floors have architectural decoration recalling that of the
-fireplaces at Conisbrough, shafts with capitals carved with foliage of
-a very elementary kind. The solution which suggests itself is that a
-rectangular tower, of a somewhat original plan, was begun and raised
-to a certain height, and that the builders then changed their minds,
-built a circular tower within the unfinished keep, and left the outer
-walls to serve as a curtain for the new structure.
-
-The keep at Tretower, in its ordinary features, may be compared with
-the tower of Bronllys, only a few miles distant, on the other side of
-the pass through the Black mountains, at the southern foot of which
-Tretower stands. This tower also seems to be a work of the end of the
-twelfth century, but its architectural details are much plainer: both
-seem originally to have been between 70 and 80 feet high, and each
-contained a basement and three floors. Each has a battering base, and
-above this the wall at Tretower batters slightly to the summit; the
-diameter of Tretower exceeds that of Bronllys throughout. The original
-entrance in each case was on the first floor, from which at Tretower
-a vice led to the top of the building. The basement at Tretower had
-its separate stair in the wall opposite the entrance. At Bronllys the
-basement has a pointed barrel vault, and was entered by a stone stair
-and ladder from a trap-door in one of the window recesses of the first
-floor. The stair from the first floor to the second opened from another
-window recess, and curved through the wall, as at Conisbrough; there
-was, as also at Conisbrough, a separate stair to the third floor. The
-wall of the basement at Bronllys has been broken through in two places,
-and in one of these a hollow in the wall has been disclosed, in which
-originally a great beam was inserted to give coherence to the masonry.
-The same feature is seen in the outer building at Tretower. This device
-was frequently employed in the construction of medieval walls, but its
-traces are not often so clearly seen.
-
-[Illustration: Dolbadarn; Interior]
-
-One feature of the tower of Bronllys is that, like that of Caldicot, it
-stands upon an artificial mount, which occupies the ordinary position
-of such earthworks, at the head of the enclosure. The more roomy,
-but lower, tower at Hawarden, the upper floor of which is internally
-an octagon, almost surrounded by a mural passage, is built upon a
-lofty mount. At Skenfrith in Monmouthshire the tower, nearly equal
-to Bronllys in diameter, but not higher than Hawarden, stands upon a
-very low mount, and is placed in an isolated position, nearly in the
-centre of a trapezoidal enclosure. Here the lowness of the mount and
-the absence of indications of a normal earthwork plan suggest that it
-was raised to strengthen the foundations of the tower, and is not the
-mount of an earlier castle. The knoll, on the other hand, on which
-the round tower of Dolbadarn (183) stands, between the two lakes at
-the foot of the pass of Llanberis, is natural. The details of this
-tower are very plain, but it was probably built during the thirteenth
-century. There is no trace of any castle in connection with this small
-military outpost, which, like the not far-distant rectangular keep of
-Dolwyddelan, on the eastern slopes of Moel Siabod, bears some analogy
-to the “pele-towers” of the north of England, and may have been built
-by a Welsh chieftain upon an English model during the reign of Henry
-III.
-
-[Illustration: York; Clifford’s Tower]
-
-None of the towers in England and Wales mentioned in this chapter have
-the inner spur which has been noticed as characteristic of French
-towers. It appears, as has been said, at Goodrich and Chepstow. Other
-instances are a tower in the outer curtain at Denbigh, and the spur on
-the inward face of the great tower at Barnard Castle. Here the work
-is not earlier than the time of Edward II., and the tower is little
-more than a large mural tower added to a large shell-keep standing on
-a high rocky point. The spur here is a half pyramid, the apex of which
-dies away in the face of the tower. Of an octagonal tower we have one
-example at Odiham in Hampshire, which may be of the end of the twelfth
-century. This has the feature, anomalous for so early a date, of angle
-buttresses which project 4 feet, but are only 2 feet broad.
-
-[Illustration: Berkeley Castle; Plan]
-
-Of donjons which were built in England during the reign of Henry III.,
-the most interesting, by virtue of their plan, are those of York
-and Pontefract. The tower of York (185), raised upon the mount of
-the northern of the two castles, was built possibly about 1230, and
-assumed the quatrefoil shape which is found in France at Etampes. This
-keep, presumably because it is built on a mount, is usually called a
-“shell”; it was, however, a regular tower, and the entrance, in the
-angle between two of the leaves of the quatrefoil, is guarded by a
-rectangular fore-building, on the first floor of which was the chapel.
-As at Etampes, the quatrefoil plan is preserved internally, but the
-angles formed by the meeting of the four segments are chamfered off:
-there was no vaulting, as at Etampes, but the floors were of wood.
-A quatrefoil plan was also adopted at Pontefract, with some slight
-variation, owing to the irregular shape of the rocky mount. This keep
-is in a state of complete ruin, although some idea of its former shape
-may be gathered from a bird’s-eye view preserved among the records of
-the duchy of Lancaster.[221] We can see, from what is left, that it
-was not built upon the top of the mount; but that, on three sides, the
-mount was enclosed by walls of revetment,[222] which formed the base
-of the segments composing the quatrefoil. This process recalls the
-walling-in of the mount at Berkeley, where, however, the lower part of
-the mount was left, and the space between the slope and the wall filled
-in with earth. At Pontefract the slope of the mount must have been much
-reduced before the walls of revetment were added: the sandstone upon
-which the castle was built is soft, and would lend itself easily to
-such an operation.
-
-The bird’s-eye view of Pontefract just mentioned cannot be regarded
-as absolutely trustworthy, but it gives us the relative position of
-the various towers of the castle. It shows us a curtain flanked by a
-formidable row of mural towers; the keep, a complicated erection of
-several segments, with bartizans[223] projecting from the battlements
-in the angles formed by the junction of the segments, is still the
-dominant feature of the castle; but our attention is equally claimed
-by the defences of the curtain and the domestic buildings which it
-encloses. And, in pursuing our subject, we must first trace the growth
-of domestic buildings within the castle area, and then turn to that
-strengthening of the curtain which led eventually to the disuse of the
-keep.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER VIII
-
-THE DWELLING-HOUSE IN THE CASTLE
-
-
-The castle needed, among its chief requirements, a dwelling-house which
-might be occupied by the owner and his household. Thus the stronghold
-of the lord of Ardres upon its mount was planned as a capacious
-dwelling, with a kitchen attached; and where, as in this case, the
-keep was the castle, it necessarily served the double purpose of
-fortress and residence. Enough has been said of the rectangular and
-cylindrical forms of tower-keep to show that the domestic and military
-elements were often combined in their arrangements. But the use of the
-tower-keep as the principal residence within the castle was a fashion
-of comparatively short duration. The example of its double use had
-been set in the great towers of London and Colchester, and in the
-rectangular towers of Norman and French castles. Of the towers of Henry
-II.’s reign, those which, like Castle Rising, are low in proportion
-to the area they cover, generally have the best provision for living
-purposes. Lofty towers, like Newcastle or Conisbrough, can never have
-been comfortable residences; and it is not surprising to find that at
-Newcastle, about half a century after the building of the tower, a
-more commodious dwelling-house was built within the castle area.[224]
-But we have seen already that in early castles, as at Oxford, a hall
-for the lord or his constable was generally, if not always, built
-within the bailey. The practical necessity of this is obvious in
-mount-and-bailey castles, where the tower on the mount, or the stone
-shell which took its place, was reserved for the main purpose of a
-final refuge in time of siege. No one who examines the sites of castles
-like Lincoln, Launceston, or Clare, with their formidable mounts, can
-fail to realise that the mount was an inconvenient place of residence,
-and that domestic buildings would be naturally provided in the annexed
-bailey. Bishop Bek’s thirteenth-century hall at Durham, built against
-the western curtain of the bailey, stands upon the substructure of a
-far earlier building. The domestic buildings in the bailey at Guildford
-appear to be of earlier date than the stone tower on the mount; while
-at Christchurch in Hampshire (123), the dwelling-house next the river
-and the tower on the mount appear to be almost contemporary.
-
-Castles which, for reasons already explained, were surrounded from
-the beginning with a stone wall, and had at first no regular keep,
-contain even better examples of the existence of a separate hall.
-The eleventh-century hall at Richmond is almost perfect, although
-some additions, made nearly a century later to the upper part of
-the structure, have led to the mistaken attribution of a later date
-to the whole building.[225] At Ludlow, mingled with the fabric of
-the fourteenth-century hall, are clear indications of the earlier
-stone hall, built, as at Richmond, against the curtain on the least
-accessible side of the inner ward. The fabric of the great hall at
-Chepstow, much enriched and beautified in the thirteenth century, is
-contemporary with the foundation of the castle in the eleventh century.
-Part, at any rate, of the substructure of the hall at Newark belongs to
-the castle founded in the twelfth century by Bishop Alexander, although
-the whole building on that side of the enclosure, with the exception of
-an angle-tower, bears witness to reconstruction and repair at two later
-periods. At Porchester, again, the substructure of the hall contains a
-considerable amount of early Norman work, which may be attributed to
-the time of Henry I.
-
-The situation and plan of the hall remained very much the same
-throughout the middle ages. What we find at Richmond, Ludlow,
-Chepstow, or Durham, we find also at Manorbier, Caerphilly, Harlech,
-and Carnarvon, at Warwick and at Naworth. The domestic buildings were
-placed against the curtain on one side or at an end of the inner ward,
-and preferably where a precipice or steep slope made the assault of
-the curtain on that side difficult or impossible. This position is
-well illustrated in the fortified thirteenth-century house of Aydon
-in Northumberland. Here there was, on the side of entrance, a large
-walled outer ward, or, as it was called in the north of England, a
-“barmkin.”[226] The house was built round two sides of a walled inner
-courtyard, the hall and main apartments standing on the brink of a
-deep ravine, where they were safe from approach or from the peril of
-siege-engines. The curtain was therefore pierced with window-openings
-of a fairly large size, which gave the house more light and comfort
-internally than would have been possible upon a more exposed face of
-the site. The hall at Warkworth (49) was built against a solid curtain
-upon the steepest side of the peninsula occupied by the castle, and,
-although there were no window-openings in the curtain at the level of
-the hall, it was pierced by a postern, through which the kitchen could
-be supplied, at the end nearest the tower. Castles on comparatively
-level sites show the same disposition. At Cardiff (191), the domestic
-buildings are on the west side of the enclosure, built against the
-curtain, and protected by the river, and bear the same relation in the
-plan to the main entrance and the shell-keep on the mount, as the hall
-at Warkworth bears to the gateway and the mount with its later strong
-house.[227]
-
-[Illustration: Cardiff Castle; Plan]
-
-The plan of the hall and its adjacent buildings was, and continued
-to be, that of the ordinary dwelling-house. The _aula_ of Harold at
-Bosham in Sussex is represented in the Bayeux tapestry (36) as a house
-with a basement, apparently vaulted, and an upper floor approached by
-an external staircase. No division of the upper floor is shown: it
-consists apparently of one large room. This plan, with the division of
-the hall by a cross-wall into a main and smaller chamber, is precisely
-what we find, at the end of the century after the Conquest, at the
-large town house in Bury St Edmunds known as Moyses hall, or at the
-manor-house of Boothby Pagnell in Lincolnshire. It is represented in
-manor-houses of the later Gothic period at the so-called “Goxhill
-priory” in Lincolnshire or at the house of the bishops of Lincoln at
-Liddington in Rutland. Its most familiar survival in non-military
-architecture is in the halls of several of the Oxford colleges, like
-Christ Church or New college. In the plan of the monastery, the frater
-or dining-hall followed the same lines of an upper room upon a vaulted
-substructure. Similarly, the hall of a castle was simply an ordinary
-_aula_ placed within an enclosure walled for military purposes. The
-hall at Christchurch is the exact counterpart of Harold’s _aula_ in
-the Bayeux tapestry. It is a rectangular building, probably of the
-third quarter of the twelfth century, with a basement, originally
-vaulted, and lighted by narrow loops. The first floor formed one large
-apartment, and was well lighted with double window openings, one of
-which, at the south end, received special architectural treatment.
-There was a fireplace in the east wall, on the side next the stream:
-the cylindrical chimney-shaft still remains. The entrance, near the
-south end of the west wall, was probably approached by an outer stair
-at right angles to the wall, and led into the lower end of the hall,
-opposite the daïs for the high table. The fireplace, set diagonally
-to the entrance, warmed the daïs and the body of the hall: the end
-near the doorway, corresponding to the “screens” of the ordinary hall,
-was probably left free for the coming and going of the servants. The
-basement was simply a cellar and storehouse. It had a doorway in the
-west wall, while in the east wall was a gateway communicating with
-the water. The elevation is nearly identical with that of the house
-at Boothby Pagnell; but at Boothby Pagnell a cross-wall divides both
-upper floor and basement into larger and smaller chambers; while
-at Christchurch there was at the south-east corner a rectangular
-garde-robe turret, built out into the stream, which kept the vents from
-both basement and upper floor continually flushed.[228]
-
-The division of the first floor into a larger and smaller apartment
-corresponds to the division of the ordinary dwelling-house into hall or
-common-room of the house, and bower or withdrawing-room and sleeping
-apartment for the chief members of the family.[229] In the developed
-plan of the medieval private house, the small vaults below the bower
-became the cellar, and, as at Manorbier, a vice was provided by which
-wine could be brought directly from it to the high table. The bower
-or solar[230] itself was known in large houses as the great chamber,
-and access to it was obtained through a door near one end of the
-cross-wall behind the daïs. There was, however, a variation upon this
-plan in which the hall and bower are on a different floor-level, and
-this appears at a fairly early date. In this case the hall occupied the
-whole height of the basement and first floor, and was entered from the
-ground-level of the bailey: the cellar, in this case, was on a level
-with the floor of the hall, and the solar was reached from the daïs by
-a stair. This plan became very common in the later Gothic period; and
-is well illustrated in manor-houses like Haddon and Compton Wyniates,
-and in the colleges of Cambridge, where the common-room or parlour took
-the place of the cellar, and the solar was occupied by the master’s
-lodging. But it is also found in castles and fortified houses, as at
-Berkeley and Stokesay. An indication of its employment at a date not
-long after the Norman conquest is found in the story of the insult
-offered to Robert of Normandy by William Rufus and Henry I. They came
-to visit him, about the year 1078, at the castle of L’Aigle, where he
-was staying, either in the constable’s house or some dwelling near the
-castle. William and Henry played dice “upon the solar,” and indulged
-in horseplay, which took the form of making a deafening noise, and
-pouring water on Robert and his followers, who were below. Robert lost
-his temper, and rushed into the dining-hall (_cenaculum_) to punish
-his brothers: the quarrel, stopped for the time being by their father,
-was the beginning of the long feud which ended for Robert in his
-confinement at Cardiff. The mention of the “solar” distinctly implies
-a room upon the upper floor, probably at some elevation above the
-hall.[231]
-
-This alternative plan supplied more direct communication with the
-kitchen than was possible, where the hall was upon an upper floor; and
-in connection with it, a kitchen and its accompanying offices are very
-frequently found at the lower end, near the entry of the hall. This
-became, in manor-houses and in the colleges of Cambridge, the normal
-position of the kitchen, buttery, and pantry, divided from the body of
-the hall by the “screens.” Most of the cooking in the earlier castles
-must have been done either in temporary sheds or in the open air: the
-basement of the hall, which, in later manor-houses, was sometimes used
-as a kitchen, was not so used at an early period. The apartment in
-a corner of the cleverly planned first floor of the keep at Castle
-Rising was probably a kitchen, and is a rare instance of a room set
-apart for this purpose before the end of the twelfth century. It must
-be remembered, however, that the domestic buildings of castles were
-very often, as at Ludlow, enlarged and entirely rebuilt, until they
-became, as at Cardiff and Warwick, splendid mansions; and details with
-regard to the original arrangement of the lesser apartments are thus
-hard to recover.
-
-[Illustration: LUDLOW: interior of building west of great hall]
-
-At Warkworth (49), probably a little before 1200, a house of
-considerable extent, including more than one private apartment and
-a kitchen, was built against, and at the same time with the, west
-curtain.[232] Up to this time, the castle had been an ordinary
-mount-and-bailey stronghold with timber defences, and no earlier
-stonework remains. The new house was much beautified by additions
-made in the fifteenth century, but the plan was little altered. Its
-central part was the hall, parallel with the curtain which it joined.
-The entrance was in the side wall next the bailey, and led, as usual,
-into the lower end of the hall, which occupied the full height of
-the house, and thus formed the only internal means of communication
-between the lord’s and the servants’ quarters. An unusual feature of
-the hall, which cannot have been well lighted, was an eastern aisle,
-over which the sloping roof was probably continued. At the upper
-end, behind the daïs, the cellar was entered directly from the hall:
-a straight stair next the curtain gave access to a landing, from
-which a doorway gave access to the great chamber. The great chamber
-communicated with a polygonal angle tower, called by the curious
-name of “Cradyfargus,”[233] the first floor of which, next the great
-chamber, may have been the chamber of the master of the house, while
-the upper floor was probably used by the ladies. Nearly at right angles
-to the great chamber, against the south curtain, was a chapel, of
-which enough remains to show us that the ground-floor, entered from
-the bailey, was used by the servants and garrison: while the west end
-was divided into two stories, the upper one of which was entered from
-the private apartments, and was a gallery for the use of the lord and
-his family. It is difficult to speak positively of the arrangements of
-the kitchen, which stood against the west curtain at the other end of
-the hall. It may originally, like the kitchen at Berkeley, have had no
-direct communication with the hall: the passage and offices between,
-in their present state of ruin, are fifteenth-century additions or
-reconstructions. But all the elements of the larger English house are
-here. The chief alterations in the fifteenth century were the building
-of a porch and gateway-tower in front of the hall entrance, and the
-insertion of a lofty turret, with a vice and vaulted vestibule to the
-great chamber, to the north-eastern angle of the hall, where it blocks
-the last bay of the aisle.
-
-An aisled hall, as at Warkworth, was a very exceptional feature. There
-are, however, a few existing examples of a hall with a nave and two
-aisles, the most famous of which is the thirteenth-century hall at
-Winchester. The midland castles of Leicester and Oakham also had aisled
-halls: that at Leicester was divided by arcades of timber, and still
-exists, although many of its original features, including the timber
-columns, have been removed or obscured. The hall at Oakham has been
-more fortunate. This castle, upon a flat site which had no strategic
-advantages, was really an _aula_ or manor-house, enclosed by a strong
-earthen bank, and was probably not surrounded by a wall until the
-thirteenth century. Within this enclosure Walkelin de Ferrers, towards
-the end of the twelfth century, built an aisled hall of four bays, the
-architectural details of which are of unusual beauty, and of great
-importance in the history of early Gothic art in England. The building
-runs east and west, the original entrance, from the ground-level of
-the bailey, being, as usual, in the last bay of a side-wall, in this
-case the easternmost bay of the south wall.[234] The daïs was at the
-west end; and two doors, which probably communicated with the kitchen
-and buttery, remain in the east wall. The aisles would doubtless be
-kept clear of tables, to facilitate the service from the kitchen.[235]
-At either end of the building, the arcades spring, not from responds,
-but from corbels. Semicircular responds would have interfered with
-the benches behind the high table, and with the free passage of the
-servants between the kitchen and the aisles.[236] The columns are
-slender cylinders of Clipsham stone: the capitals are tall, and carved
-with a great variety of stiff-stalk foliage, with which are mingled
-bands of nail-head and dog-tooth. The arches are rounded: dog-tooth
-is used in the hood-mouldings, which rest upon figure-corbels. The
-classical character of the foliage, and the refined sculpture of the
-figures and heads in the corbels throughout the hall, have analogies in
-one or two other buildings of the district: they recall very closely
-the early Gothic work of the Burgundian province, and its English
-derivatives at Canterbury and Chichester. Nothing, however, is known
-of the masons employed; and the fabric has no documentary history. In
-the low side-walls are double window-openings, each with a sculptured
-tympanum beneath an enclosing arch: the pier dividing each of the
-windows is faced with a shaft, and the jambs are adorned with elaborate
-dog-tooth. These windows may be compared with those of the aisled
-hall of the episcopal palace at Lincoln, built about a quarter of a
-century later, where the arcades at both ends sprang from corbels. A
-close parallel to the arrangements of the hall at Oakham is provided
-by the contemporary hall, built by Bishop Pudsey at Auckland castle,
-near Durham. Here, again, the so-called castle was simply an _aula_
-without the strong earthworks which give Oakham a military character.
-The proportions of the Auckland hall are larger, and its architecture
-more simple, but with even more advanced Gothic characteristics. At the
-end of the thirteenth century, considerable alterations were made in
-the structure, and at the Restoration the hall was converted by Bishop
-Cosin into a chapel.[237] This involved the blocking up of the original
-entrance, the position of which exactly corresponded to that of Oakham.
-A new doorway was made in the west wall, and the bay which originally
-was set apart for the daïs was converted into an ante-chapel. In
-neither case do any other contemporary buildings remain: the mansion at
-Auckland, on the west side of the old hall, is a building of several
-periods, of which the earliest existing portion is not earlier than the
-reign of Henry VII.
-
-[Illustration: DURHAM CASTLE
-
-HISTORICAL GROUND PLAN]
-
-Hugh Pudsey (1153-95), the prelate responsible for the hall at
-Auckland, did much to increase the splendour of the episcopal
-castle at Durham (199). Durham castle is an excellent example of a
-mount-and-bailey fortress on a strong triangular site, with precipitous
-natural defences on the north and west. The entrance was on the one
-accessible side, from the plateau on which the cathedral and monastery
-stood. At the apex of the site, on the right of the entrance, was the
-mount, with a shell-keep on its summit; while to the left, along the
-west side of the bailey, was the original hall. The eleventh-century
-chapel was on the north side of the bailey, nearly opposite the
-entrance. Pudsey’s chief work was the construction of a long building
-of three stories in connection with the north curtain. The eastern part
-of the basement was formed by the early chapel; the rest was probably
-devoted to store-rooms and cellars. On the first floor was a great
-hall, entered by a doorway (201) which may fairly be called the most
-magnificent example of late Norman Romanesque art in England. Above
-this, on the second floor, approached by a vice in the south-east
-corner, was another hall, known as the Constable’s hall, and to-day as
-the Norman gallery. The walls of this upper structure were lightened by
-their construction as a continuous arcade, the arches forming frames to
-window-openings, and the piers between them being faced with detached
-shafts in couples (203). The internal arrangements of this building
-are now much obscured by the partition of the lower hall into several
-large rooms; while the south part of the upper hall has been cut up by
-smaller partitions. Early in the sixteenth century a new chapel was
-built on the east side of the lower hall, and against the south wall of
-the basement and first floor was made a stone gallery of two stories.
-The outer stair to the lower hall was then taken away; but Bishop
-Pudsey’s doorway was left, and light was thrown upon it by a large
-mullioned window in the outer wall of the gallery.[238]
-
-Meanwhile, about the end of the thirteenth century, Bishop Bek, who
-also improved upon Pudsey’s work at Auckland, raised against the
-west curtain, and upon the substructure of the early hall, the great
-banqueting-hall, which is now used as the dining-hall of University
-college. This hall, again, has inevitably been much altered, but
-its actual plan and arrangements are very fairly maintained to-day,
-and the long two-light windows with simple geometrical tracery in
-the side walls represent, with some restoration of stone-work, its
-original lighting. The entrance, up a flight of stairs and through a
-porch added by Bishop Cosin, is in the south end of the east wall,
-and leads into screens roofed by a gallery, on the south of which
-are the kitchen and servants’ offices. A doorway in the east wall
-led from the daïs to the bishop’s private rooms; but at this end the
-older arrangements were altered by the construction of Tunstall’s
-gallery in the sixteenth century, and, later, still, by the addition
-of Cosin’s splendid Renaissance staircase—alterations which provided
-covered access from Bek’s hall to Pudsey’s building at right angles
-to it. The buildings just described are some of the most beautiful
-and instructive remains of domestic architecture in England, and have
-no military characteristics. The strength of the castle, however, was
-not forgotten. No English castle, even when Bamburgh and Richmond
-are remembered, presents a more formidable defence than the curtain,
-pierced by a few spare openings and by the narrow western windows of
-Bek’s hall, which revets and crowns the cliff above the Wear; while, in
-the fourteenth century, Bishop Hatfield (1345-81) replaced the older
-keep by a new and probably more lofty polygonal shell.
-
-[Illustration: Durham Castle; Doorway]
-
-At Durham the buildings of Pudsey and Bek alike stand upon basements,
-which were used as cellars and store-rooms; and the preference for
-first-floor halls in castles was doubtless due to the necessity of
-providing plenty of room for magazines, both for provisions and arms,
-within a confined space, and keeping the muster-ground in the centre
-of the bailey as clear as possible. At Newark (157), where the ground
-fell away towards the river, the hall was built on the slope, and was
-entered from the level of the bailey, the slope being utilised for the
-construction of a large vaulted basement, lighted by loops from the
-river side, and communicating with the water by a sloping passage and
-a gateway opening on a small quay. The use of every available space
-for storage is illustrated at Carew castle in Pembrokeshire, where
-the whole space beneath the lesser hall and its adjacent buildings
-is occupied by cellars, while the basement of the greater hall, on
-the opposite side of the courtyard, appears to have been used as
-stables. At Pembroke a large natural cavern below the hall and its
-adjacent buildings was turned to use as a lower store-house. A vice
-was constructed in the rock from a ground-floor chamber north of the
-hall, and the mouth of the cavern was closed by a wall, in which was a
-gateway, opening upon a path from the water-side.
-
-[Illustration: DURHAM: arcading on south side of Constable’s hall]
-
-If Henry II. may be given the chief credit for the construction of
-rectangular keeps in castles, Henry III. was almost as active in
-building halls. The finest example of his work now remaining is at
-Winchester. At the Tower of London, at Scarborough, and at Newcastle,
-the name alone of his halls, rectangular buildings with high-pitched
-roofs, remains. But, in and after his reign, the hall and the adjacent
-domestic buildings became a fixed feature of the plan of the castle.
-In castles which, up to this time, may have possessed small and
-inconvenient halls, or possibly halls built merely of timber, new
-and more permanent domestic buildings were constructed. Thus, at
-Rockingham castle, the beautiful doorway of the thirteenth-century hall
-(205), with deeply undercut mouldings and jamb-shafts with foliated
-capitals, still forms the entrance to the house of the sixteenth
-and seventeenth centuries, the hall of which is probably of the exact
-dimensions of its medieval predecessor.[239] In castles which are the
-most perfect examples of fortification, such as Caerphilly or Conway,
-the hall forms an integral part of the plan, filling its natural place
-in the design; and of these, Caerphilly was completed about the end of
-the reign of Henry III. The enthusiasm of Henry for fine architecture,
-domestic as well as ecclesiastical, was imitated by many of his
-powerful subjects; and it is actually from this period that we may
-trace that prominence of the domestic element in our castles which was
-eventually cultivated at the expense of fortification.
-
-[Illustration: Rockingham Castle; Doorway of hall]
-
-In the dwelling-houses, often of palatial size, which grew up within
-castles, and reached their perfect development in the thirteenth and
-fourteenth centuries, the main apartments, in addition to the hall,
-were the great chamber, the kitchen with its offices, and the chapel.
-The normal plan, as already shown, was that of the first-floor hall,
-with the great chamber at one end, and the kitchen at the other. The
-plan of the chapel was not fixed, but, where it formed part of the
-block of buildings, it is usually found in connection with the great
-chamber end of the hall.
-
-The main points of the hall may be briefly recapitulated. The entrance
-was invariably in the side wall next the bailey, at the end nearest
-the usual place for the kitchen. This end was screened off from the
-hall by curtains or by a wooden partition containing one or more doors.
-This shut out draught; while the passage thus formed was generally
-covered by its own ceiling, the space above forming a gallery, which
-was entered from a vice at a corner of the end wall. At the further
-end of the hall was the daïs with the high table, at right angles to
-which were placed the long tables in the body of the hall. The hall
-was covered by a high-pitched timber roof, the principals of which
-were borne by corbels in the side walls. In early examples, warmth was
-supplied by a large hearth in the middle of the floor, a little below
-the daïs, the smoke from which escaped through a louvre in the roof
-above; but it became customary to make a fireplace in one of the side
-walls.[240] Light was admitted through window-openings in the side wall
-next the ward; but, where the outer wall of the castle was secure from
-attack, as at Warwick or Ludlow, windows were made there also. These
-windows were usually of two lights, divided by a mullion, with simple
-tracery in the head. They also had a transom, below which they were
-closed by shutters, the upper part of the window alone being glazed. In
-the hall at Ludlow, the date of which is about 1300, there were three
-two-light windows next the ward, while the curtain was pierced by three
-single-light openings. The hearth stood in the body of the hall just
-below the daïs, and was carried by a pier in the cellar beneath. In the
-fifteenth century the middle window next the ward was blocked, and a
-fireplace inserted: the hearth was then removed. The hall formed the
-chief living-room of the house, and in it the majority of the lord’s
-retinue not only had their meals, but slept.
-
-The great chamber, as time went on, became the nucleus of a number of
-private apartments. In the most simple examples, it is a rectangular
-apartment behind the daïs, communicating with it directly through a
-doorway on one side of the end wall. Where the hall occupied the ground
-floor, a vice, or, as at Warkworth, a straight stair, furnished an
-entrance to it. At Ludlow, where the kitchen was a detached building,
-and at Stokesay (207), there was a first-floor chamber at both ends
-of the hall. The domestic buildings at Ludlow are very symmetrically
-arranged, the hall, in the middle, being slightly recessed between two
-projecting blocks of building, each with a chamber on the first floor
-(195). Of these, that at the east end of the hall, behind the daïs, was
-evidently the more important; and, in the fifteenth century, it was on
-this side that an additional block of private apartments was built.
-From each floor of the great chamber block a large garde-robe tower was
-entered: this tower projects from the north curtain of the castle, and
-was added when the earlier hall was remodelled and the hall and its
-adjoining blocks assumed their present shape.
-
-[Illustration: Stokesay]
-
-[Illustration: Manorbier Castle; Outer stair to Chapel]
-
-Manorbier castle contains an interesting example of the enlargement
-of domestic buildings, with a solar block at either end of the hall.
-The castle stands on rising ground in a deep valley, about half a
-mile from the sea. The inner ward or castle proper is surrounded by
-a curtain, with a gatehouse in the east wall. The dwelling-house is
-upon the west side of the ward, at the end opposite the main entrance,
-and consists of two distinct portions. The earlier consists of a
-first-floor hall and great chamber above cellars. There was a floor
-above the great chamber, probably forming a bower for the ladies of
-the household, the hall corresponding in height to these two upper
-stages. The present entrance to the hall is in the side wall at the end
-next the great chamber, and was probably made, with the outer stair
-against the wall, in the thirteenth century. The hall itself with its
-adjacent buildings appears to be originally of the later part of the
-twelfth century: the cellars below have semicircular barrel vaults. In
-the second half of the thirteenth century a new block of buildings was
-made at the opposite or south end of the hall. It was now probably that
-the new entrance was made. The position of the daïs seems to have been
-reversed, and a window in the south end-wall of the hall blocked by a
-fireplace. Behind this wall, and entered by a doorway in its west end,
-was the new great chamber, a long, narrow building, with its principal
-axis at right angles to that of the hall, and with a floor above. At
-each end of the south wall of this apartment is a passage. That at the
-west end passes along the line of the curtain to a garde-robe tower
-which projects at the south-west angle of the castle: the passage is
-still roofed with flat slabs on continuous corbelling, and is well
-lighted by loops in the curtain. The other passage, at the south-east
-corner of the great chamber, forms a lobby to a large chapel, which
-was built across the south-west angle of the ward, so that a small
-triangular yard was left between it and the curtain. There is a
-separate outer stair to the chapel (208), placed, like the stair to the
-hall, at right angles to the wall. The whole group of buildings, with
-its two outer stairs, is unexcelled for picturesqueness in any castle.
-
-The kitchen at Manorbier was placed, at any rate when the
-thirteenth-century alterations were undertaken (probably about 1260),
-at right angles to the hall and older great chamber, against the north
-curtain. Owing to the confinement of the space within the curtain, and
-the growing necessity of private accommodation, the position of the
-kitchen was not fixed so regularly in the castle as in the ordinary
-dwelling-house. At Berkeley (186), where the hall was built against the
-east curtain of the inner ward, the kitchen is a polygonal building,
-divided from the screens by a buttery, and occupying a more or less
-normal place in the plan. At Warkworth (49), as we have noticed, the
-kitchen is in its proper place, near the entrance end of the hall, but
-may have been at first a separate structure. The original position of
-the kitchen at Cardiff (191) seems to have conformed to this plan. The
-desirability of placing the kitchen within easy reach of the hall is
-obvious. At Kenilworth, where the magnificent hall, built towards the
-end of the fourteenth century, occupies the whole north side of the
-inner ward, and is on a first floor above a vaulted cellar, the private
-apartments formed a wing against the west curtain of the ward, while
-the kitchen was against the east curtain, and was within easy reach
-of the stair to the hall, and the passage below it which led into the
-cellar. The kitchen at Ludlow (106) was a separate building, opposite
-the entrance to the hall and the western solar block, and placed
-against the north outer wall of the small courtyard which covers the
-keep. In the two great Edwardian castles of Conway and Carnarvon, where
-the halls were large and the space limited, the kitchens were built
-against the curtain opposite the hall.[241]
-
-The chapel was also a variable factor in the plan. It has already been
-remarked that, in some early castles, the chapel was a collegiate
-church, standing separately within the precincts of the castle, and
-sometimes, as at Hastings, filling up, with the houses of the dean and
-canons or their deputies, a very considerable part of the enclosure.
-Indeed, nearly all the ruins left within the curtain at Hastings are
-those of the large cruciform church and the buildings in connection
-with it. At Ludlow the Norman chapel was a detached building in the
-inner ward (106). This was the private chapel of the lord of the
-castle, and in the sixteenth century was joined by a gallery to the
-block of buildings at the east end of the hall: the nave was then
-divided into two floors, so that the first floor formed a private
-gallery or solar, while the household used the ground-floor. This
-method of division of the west end of the chapel into two floors is
-very usual: it was employed twice at Warkworth, both in the chapel
-attached to the domestic buildings already described, and in the
-chapel of the later tower-house on the mount. It may also be seen
-in the chapel at Berkeley, and in many manor-houses, as at Compton
-Wyniates. At Ludlow we have noticed that there was a second chapel for
-the garrison in the outer ward, built in the fourteenth century: with
-this the arrangement at the Tower of London may be compared, where
-the royal chapel of St John is in the White tower, but the garrison
-chapel of St Peter was built on the north side of the inner ward. The
-chapel at Kenilworth was against the south wall of the outer ward.
-There was a chapel on the south side of the inner ward at Alnwick. As
-a rule, however, only one chapel would be provided. The chapels found
-in tower-keeps have already been discussed: with the exception of
-Newcastle and Old Sarum, they were, as a rule, private chapels or mere
-oratories.
-
-In later castles, two considerations determined the planning of the
-chapel. It was placed so that the altar should be as nearly as possible
-against the east wall, and so that there should be direct access from
-the private apartments to the gallery at the west end. These conditions
-are met both in the earlier and later chapels at Warkworth: they can
-be traced in the plan of Bodiam and other late medieval castles. At
-Berkeley (186) where the solar block was at right angles to the hall,
-against the south, or, more correctly, the south-west curtain, the
-chapel fills the angle between the buildings, and the entrance is
-masked by a vestibule from which a vice led to the private apartments.
-The altar is placed rather north of east, against the wall at the back
-of the hall daïs, and the gallery at the opposite end was entered
-from the great chamber. The main axis of the chapel is at an obtuse
-angle to that of the hall, and a vestry was made in the south-east
-corner, where the wall dividing it from the hall is thickest. In the
-plan of the great Welsh castles of the later part of the thirteenth
-century the chapel was usually in close connection with the domestic
-buildings. At Conway, where there is also a beautiful oratory, with
-a vaulted chancel, on the first floor of the north-east tower, the
-chapel was formed by screening off the eastern portion of the great
-hall. At Harlech the chapel was built against the north curtain, the
-solar block probably occupying the angle between chapel and hall. The
-chapel at Kidwelly was in the two upper stages of the south-east tower
-of the inner ward, and was in close communication with the hall and the
-apartments adjoining it. The position of the beautiful little chapel at
-Beaumaris is somewhat isolated, on the first floor of the tower in the
-middle of the east curtain of the inner ward. The only communication
-with the hall block on the north side of the court was through a long
-and narrow passage in the thickness of the curtain; and the chapel is
-too small to have served for the devotions of a large garrison. It was
-so arranged, however, that, if the entrance to the tower were left
-open, the service might be followed by worshippers in the bailey below.
-Ample room, however, was given to the congregation in most cases: the
-first-floor chapel at Manorbier is a chamber of considerable size. It
-has a pointed barrel-vault and stands above a cellar, which also has a
-pointed barrel-vault and contains a fireplace. The fashion of founding
-collegiate establishments in castles did not cease until the end of the
-middle ages. The chapel—the third within the castle—which was begun
-during the fifteenth century at Warkworth bears witness to an intention
-of this kind on the part of one of the earls of Northumberland; but the
-actual details of the proposed foundation are not known, and probably
-were never placed on paper.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER IX
-
-CASTLES OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY: THE FORTIFICATION OF THE CURTAIN
-
-
-The keep had a traditional importance in the scheme of the castle,
-and the main energy of the castle-builders of the twelfth century
-was directed towards strengthening its power of resistance. But the
-improvement of siege artillery naturally turned their attention to the
-strengthening of the outer defences as well. The day of the palisade
-was past, and the stone curtain called for more scientific treatment
-than it had yet received. In the thirteenth century, then, military
-engineers began to concentrate their ingenuity upon the outer walls
-and entrances of the castle. Their interest was transferred by degrees
-from the keep to the curtain, while, at the same time, the domestic
-employment of the keep ceased in favour of the more comfortable
-quarters against the castle wall. In this way, as scientific
-fortification developed, the keep dropped into a secondary position, or
-was left out of the plan altogether.
-
-[Illustration: PEMBROKE: inner side of gatehouse]
-
-In tracing this gradual disappearance of the keep, it should be kept
-in mind that the stone keep, when we first meet with it, is actually a
-supplement of more permanent material added to a palisaded enclosure.
-In early walled enclosures, like Richmond or Ludlow, the stone defences
-made the special provision of a keep unnecessary: the whole castle,
-protected by its stone wall, had in itself the strength of a keep. It
-was only when it became likely that the stone curtain might show less
-resistance than its builders anticipated, that, in both the castles
-just mentioned, a tower-keep was provided. In both cases, the tower
-stood in the forefront of the defence of the principal ward of the
-castle. In the first instance it protected the curtain, while, if all
-else failed, its use, the primary use of such buildings, as an ultimate
-place of retirement for the defenders, could be demonstrated. During
-the reign of Henry II., the stone keep, whether a tower or a shell on
-the mound, was the dominating feature of the stone-walled castle. At
-Conisbrough and Pembroke (181) the great tower still keeps its pride
-of place, but the curtains of the ward in which it stands have
-been built or reconstructed with a view to effectual flanking; while
-the two semicircular towers which guarded the southern curtain of the
-inner ward at Pembroke were evidently an addition, after the keep had
-been built. In castles like Manorbier, the oldest parts of which are
-of the later part of the twelfth century, the builders returned to the
-original keepless plan of Richmond and Ludlow. The care, which, in the
-earlier castles, had been expended upon a single rallying point in
-the scheme of defence, was now applied to the whole outer wall of the
-castle, so that it began to offer a connected front to an attack.
-
-During the transition, however, the keep, as we have seen, received
-its full share of attention. At Château-Gaillard (163) it was an
-integral part of one united design, the outer defences of which remain
-to be described. The great tower is at the highest point of the inner
-or third ward, which forms an irregular oval. But, before reaching
-this ward, two outer lines of defence had to be forced. There was
-only one possible approach for a besieging army, along the isthmus
-on the south-east side of the cliff. On this side the castle proper
-was protected by a powerful outwork, which offered a sharp angle to
-the isthmus. When Philip Augustus began to use his machines against
-the castle in February 1203-4, the round tower at the apex of this
-horn-work[242] was the main object of his attack. The sloping sides
-of the angle were flanked by two smaller round towers, while the
-entrance, close to the north angle, was covered on one side by a
-cylindrical tower, to which there was probably a corresponding tower
-in the opposite curtain. The horn-work was surrounded by an outer
-ditch. The strength of the curtain seems to have been little affected
-by the siege-engines. Breaches, both here and in the inner ward, were
-not made until Philip’s miners had weakened the masonry by boring
-galleries beneath it. A very deep ditch with perpendicular sides, cut
-in the chalk, stretched across the whole ridge, and divided the outwork
-from the middle ward, which was capped at the angles by cylindrical
-towers, and contained buildings of which the substructures, and some
-cellars excavated in the chalk, are left. The curtain of this ward
-was continued along the face of the precipice and the north-eastern
-slope, so as practically to enclose the inner ward. The two wards,
-however, were not concentric, for the inner ward occupied one end of
-the space enclosed by the middle ward, from which it was divided
-by a ditch. The wall of the inner ward was the most remarkable and
-original of the defences of the castle. Its whole outer face, save on
-the side next the precipice, was formed of a series of convex curves
-intersecting with each other, so that no flat surface was left. The
-wall is solid, and, looking at its fluted outer surface, we may well
-admire Philip’s military skill, which found it a not too formidable
-obstacle. A gateway in the east face gave access to the inner ward from
-the narrowest portion of the middle ward, and the ditch at this point
-was originally crossed by a stone causeway. The projecting spur of the
-great tower faced the gateway. The whole formidable design was perfect
-from the point of view of flanking, while the plan was a step towards
-the concentric arrangement of one ward within another. The prominence
-of the keep in the plan was, however, an archaic feature; and the
-history of the siege of 1204 shows very clearly that the great tower
-was practically a superfluity, and that the last hopes of the defenders
-were centred in the wall of the inner ward. When Philip’s miners had
-endangered its stability, and his engines were brought to play upon the
-weakened stonework, their hope was lost.[243]
-
-The inventive skill shown in the inner wall of Château-Gaillard was not
-displayed again in the same form. But a step in the flanking of the
-curtain by round towers is seen in the wall of Conisbrough (217). Here
-the inner ward is nearly oval, and the southern half of the curtain,
-in which is contained the entrance from the outworks, is strengthened
-by small solid towers with battering bases, projecting some two-thirds
-of a circle from the wall.[244] Such solid projections for flanking
-purposes are found at Scarborough and Knaresborough, and could be
-easily added to an earlier wall, when necessity required. For the
-convenience of the defenders, however, larger towers with rooms on each
-floor were desirable; and the actual improvement of the defences of the
-curtain is seen in the multiplication of such towers, so as to leave no
-part of the wall unflanked. The circular or polygonal form was almost
-universally adopted for them.
-
-[Illustration: CONISBROUGH: barbican of inner bailey]
-
-[Illustration: MANORBIER CASTLE from south-west]
-
-Warkworth (49) is an example of a twelfth-century castle in which an
-approach was made to an adequately defended curtain, although with long
-distances between the towers. The arrangement, however, is a complete
-contrast to the haphazard projection of towers from earlier curtains,
-as at Ludlow. The castle stands high on the right bank of the Coquet:
-the river bends round it, so that the only level approach is from
-the plateau on the west side, and the town climbs the tongue of land
-between the castle and the river.[245] The mount is at the apex of
-the castle site, immediately above the town. On the west side of the
-enclosure the curtain, which is strong and thick, is unbroken by any
-tower: against the inner face are the domestic buildings. The south
-wall, which contains the gatehouse, is flanked by two angle-towers,
-on the west by the tower known as “Cradyfargus,” and on the east by a
-square tower, called the Amble tower. In the east wall, which commanded
-the ascent from the town, is a half-octagon tower, in each face of
-which is a huge loop for a cross-bow, so that a few archers could
-effectually rake the path outside with their fire. Of these towers,
-Cradyfargus projects into the castle enclosure with a blunt angle,
-its walls on this side being a mere continuation of the curtain. The
-basement was entered from the cellar behind the hall, the first floor
-from the great chamber above, and the second floor by a stair in the
-thickness of the wall from the vestibule or landing, west of the great
-chamber. The projection of the eastern tower is entirely outward: its
-internal face was flat. There was a basement and two floors: the first
-floor had an external stair from the ward, but it does not appear how
-the second floor was reached, though the jamb of a door may still be
-seen. The east tower had a garde-robe near the entrance of the basement
-and on the first floor: in Cradyfargus there are only traces of
-garde-robe arrangements. Although the space enclosed by the walls was
-large, and the flanking by no means perfect, the two most assailable
-sides of the fortress were very secure. The gatehouse, a building of
-about the year 1200 (221), formed an intermediate projection in the
-south wall between Cradyfargus and the Amble tower: the gateway is
-recessed between two half-octagon turrets. The preference of polygonal
-forms for the defences of this castle is rather characteristic of the
-north of England. There was, however, a conservative spirit in this
-district, which is seen in the retention of the rectangular form for
-the Amble tower. Even in a fourteenth-century castle like Dunstanburgh
-the angle towers are rectangular in form; while the “pele-tower” of
-the northern borders, throughout the middle ages, shows no important
-variation from the square form.
-
-The importance given to the gatehouse at Warkworth was a sign of the
-times. We have seen how, at Lewes and Tickhill, the first thought
-of the builders was to provide their earthworks with a stone house
-of entry. Norman gatehouses were very simple in construction. The
-gatehouse at Warkworth, on the other hand, was anything but simple in
-its arrangements, and all the forethought possible was taken for its
-defence. There are three stories, the lowest of which is the vaulted
-hall of entrance to the castle, flanked, in the ground-floor of the
-half-octagon towers, by guard-rooms described in the survey of 1567 as
-a porter’s lodge and a prison. The defences of the passage need close
-attention. The entrance was closed by a gate which opened outwards,
-and stood about 4 feet in advance of the portcullis: the space between
-was commanded by arrow-loops in the walls of the guardrooms. The
-herse of the portcullis seems to have been worked from the second
-floor of the gatehouse:[246] the upper and broader portion ran in a
-groove which ceases at the level of the string-course below the vault
-of the passage, while the lower descended to the ground. Beyond the
-portcullis, the passage was kept under observation through cross-loops
-in the side walls. The vault stopped 5 feet short of the inner gateway,
-and the passage was covered by a wooden roof. On each side of the inner
-gateway were the entrances to the guard-rooms, which flanked the whole
-passage.
-
-[Illustration: WARKWORTH: gatehouse]
-
-[Illustration: WARKWORTH: tower on mount]
-
-The plan of the castle gatehouse at Warkworth was that of the great
-majority of medieval gatehouses, whether in castles or in the walls
-of fortified towns. The ground-floor of the main block of building,
-which generally had two upper floors, contained the hall of entry, and
-was flanked by two cylindrical or octagonal towers, the lowest stories
-of which were guard-rooms, and were pierced with loops commanding the
-approach and the passage. Usually the gateway was placed at the back
-of an arched recess, which formed a porch. The position of the gate
-and portcullis at Warkworth was rather exceptional. Ordinarily the
-portcullis descended in front of the gate, which opened inwards, and
-was secured, when closed, by one or more draw-bars. This, however, was
-impossible, where the gate, as at Warkworth, opened outwards, so that
-the usual arrangement had to be reversed. But, while the actual plan
-of the gatehouse kept its general characteristics with little change,
-the defences of the entrance were multiplied. Thus the Byward tower,
-the outer gatehouse of the Tower of London, had an outer portcullis
-in front of a wooden door opening inwards, behind which was a second
-portcullis, blocking the entrance to the inner and wider portion of the
-passage, which had a timber ceiling. In addition to this, between the
-outer portcullis and the gate, the vault was crossed by a rib, pierced
-with three holes, which allowed the defenders to harass an attacking
-party from above, and also could be used for strengthening the gate
-in time of siege by a timber framework, the upper ends of which were
-fixed in the holes. Such holes, which were not merely machicolations
-in the vault, are found elsewhere, as in the gatehouses of Pembroke
-and Warwick castles and the west gatehouse of the town of Southampton.
-In this last case, a single rectangular gate-tower projected from the
-inner face of the wall only, next the town. The gate of the passage
-through the ground floor was defended upon its outer face by these
-holes alone: there were two portcullises, but both were upon the inner
-side of the gate. It is possible that such holes were originally
-left to fix the centering of the vault when it was first built:
-they converge towards one another, and probably were not filled up
-afterwards, in view of their defensive use.[247]
-
-One prominent feature, however, of the defences of a gateway, as time
-went on, was the provision of machicolations, in the shape of long
-rectangular slits, in the vault of the passage and in the arch in
-front of the portcullis. In some cases where they occur in connection
-with a portcullis, they may have been used for a heavy wooden frame,
-which could on occasion reinforce the iron herse of the portcullis.
-At Warkworth there is no original arrangement of this kind: the wall
-of the first floor above the gateway projects slightly upon a row of
-corbels, but this was done merely to give it additional strength.
-At a later date, however, the parapet at the top of the gatehouse
-was corbelled out, and the spaces between the corbels left open for
-machicolations. From the later part of the thirteenth century onwards,
-the usual arrangement, as at Chepstow or Tutbury, was to carry the
-parapet upon an arch in advance of the main face of the gatehouse, from
-one tower to the other, and to leave the space between the parapet and
-the main wall open, so that it commanded the field immediately in front
-of the portcullis. The effect of recessing the front of the gatehouse
-within a tall outer archway is magnificent, from the point of view of
-design. The design of gatehouses reaches its highest point in the great
-gatehouse of Denbigh, with its octagonal gate-hall, and in the King’s
-gateway at Carnarvon, where the enclosing arch, recessing the two lower
-stages of the gatehouse, bears the outer wall of the upper floor (253).
-
-[Illustration: Pembroke Castle; Interior of gateway]
-
-In some instances, as at Pembroke (224) and Kidwelly (225), where the
-gatehouse passage was defended by inner and outer portcullises, there
-are as many as three chases or slots in the vault between the outer
-and inner entrances. At Pembroke, where the gatehouse has the unusual
-feature of two flanking towers (213), of semicircular projection, on
-the side next the ward, an arch was thrown out from one tower to the
-other, some distance in advance of the inner archway. It is difficult
-to see how this inner barbican, as it may be called, was intended to
-be of use to an already strongly protected gateway; but the space
-within it may have been covered by a wooden platform, accessible from
-the first floor of the gatehouse, from which the interior of the castle
-could be commanded, and an enemy who had forced an entrance could be
-seriously annoyed. The vault of the entrance passage was generally a
-pointed barrel-vault, strengthened by transverse ribs at intervals; but
-the broader space in the centre of the passage was often ceiled, as
-in the Byward tower, with timber. The entrance passages of the inner
-gatehouses of Harlech (274) and Beaumaris (236) were roofed with wooden
-ceilings, supported by transverse ribs of stone set with only a narrow
-interval between them.
-
-[Illustration: Kidwelly Castle; Interior of gateway]
-
-The ground-floors of the flanking towers of the gatehouse were usually
-vaulted. The lodges from which the towers were entered, upon each
-side of the inner passage, had stone ceilings when the passage itself
-was vaulted through its whole length, or when they formed one room
-with the ground-floors of the towers. The ordinary plan, however,
-was to treat the flanking tower as an outer guard-room, approached
-from the inner lodge. If it was cylindrical in plan, the interior was
-arranged as a polygon, and vaulted with ribs springing from shafts
-in the angles.[248] This plan may be seen in the Byward tower and
-Middle tower of the Tower of London. In both towers the inner part of
-the passage was ceiled with timber, and the adjacent chambers formed
-lobbies to the vaulted ground-floors of the towers. In the Middle
-tower, however, the left-hand lobby was occupied by a vice leading to
-the first floor; and in the same position in the Byward tower is a
-square rectangular chamber with a ribbed vault.
-
-[Illustration: Rockingham Castle; Gatehouse]
-
-A good normal gatehouse, which may be taken as typical of the period,
-is that of Rockingham castle (226). Its details indicate that it
-belongs to the later part of the reign of Henry III. It is upon the
-east side of the enclosure, and its projection is almost entirely
-towards the field. The plan is, as usual, a rectangle with a passage
-through the centre, and with semicylindrical towers projecting on
-either side of the outer entrance. No vaulting was used. The passage is
-entered through a porch beneath a drop arch—that is to say, a pointed
-arch whose two segments are drawn from centres below the springing
-line—and was guarded, just within the arch, by a portcullis in front
-of a wooden door. At the inner end of the passage was another door.
-Openings in the side walls of the passage communicated with rectangular
-chambers;[249] and in the east walls of these were doorways into
-semicircular chambers within the towers. There was only one upper
-floor to the gatehouse and its towers. In this simple building, one
-is reminded at once of the rectangular stone gatehouse of the early
-Norman castle, with its upper chamber. Improvement is seen in the
-substitution, for the original entrance, of a central passage flanked
-by chambers upon the ground-floor; in the addition of flanking towers
-of scientific form; and in the protection of the timber doors by an
-iron portcullis.
-
-[Illustration: Newcastle; Black gate]
-
-The gatehouse at Newcastle, known as the Black gate (227), which became
-the entrance to the castle in the thirteenth century, is an example of
-a more elaborately constructed and exceptional type. The ground plan
-is simplicity itself, a central passage flanked by towers containing
-guard-chambers. The towers, however, are not merely projections from
-a rectangular body, but flank the whole gateway with a wide convex
-curve. There is a large single vaulted chamber on the ground floor
-of each, lighted by loops which enabled the occupants to command the
-castle ditch. The architectural details of the gateway are very simple,
-but there is a short arcade of trefoiled arches in each of the side
-walls, and the vaulting of the guard-rooms presents some ingenious
-peculiarities. The upper portion of the gatehouse was much altered in
-the seventeenth century. The original design, with its great segmental
-flanking towers, may have been the prototype of the even more noble
-gatehouse of Dunstanburgh, which is a work of nearly three-quarters of
-a century later.[250]
-
-[Illustration: Walled town in state of siege]
-
-The upper floors of the gatehouse may be reserved for discussion
-until we come to the concentric plan, in which the gatehouse became
-a building of exceptional importance. For military purposes the one
-necessary upper chamber was that in which the machinery controlling
-the portcullis was worked. In the floor of this room was the upper end
-of the groove, through which, by means of a pulley in the ceiling, the
-iron frame was drawn up or down, hanging here when it was not in use
-to close the entrance below. Many examples of a portcullis chamber
-remain, as at Berry Pomeroy and in Bootham bar at York.[251]
-
-[Illustration: York; Walmgate Bar]
-
-The entrance of the castle, under improved conditions of fortification,
-was defended by an outwork or barbican. The term “barbican,” which
-seems to be of eastern derivation, was used indiscriminately to denote
-any outwork by which the principal approach to a castle or a gateway
-of a town was covered. The word “barmkin,” which is possibly, as
-already noted, a corruption of “barbican,” was applied in the north
-of England to the outer yard of a “pele,” or fortified (literally,
-palisaded) residence. In many castles, as at Ludlow, Denbigh, or
-Manorbier, the outer ward was an addition or supplement to the plan of
-the castle, guarding the approach to the inner ward or castle proper,
-and its curtain was subsidiary to the strongly fortified curtain of
-the inner ward. Such outer wards or base-courts resemble the northern
-“barmkins,” an exact parallel to which is seen in the base-court of the
-fifteenth-century fortified house of Wingfield. Covering outworks were
-by no means uncommon, and also served the purpose of a barbican. As at
-Château-Gaillard, they might take the form of a walled outer ward, or,
-as at Llandovery, they might be horn-shaped earthworks, thrown out at
-an exposed point in the defences; in either case, they had their own
-ditch, an extension of the main ditch of the castle. But the barbican
-proper was a walled extension of a gatehouse to the field, confining
-the approach to the limited area of a narrow passage. The most simple
-instance is the barbican in front of Walmgate bar at York (229), where
-a gatehouse, originally of the twelfth century, was strengthened by the
-addition, upon the outer side, of two parallel walls at right angles
-to the sides of the gateway. Thus, in order to force the gates, an
-attacking party would have to traverse a long and narrow alley between
-high walls, in which they were exposed to the missiles of the defenders
-concentrated upon them from the ramparts of the gatehouse and the
-adjacent wall.
-
-The barbican was, in fact, an application to the main entrance of the
-castle of the form of defence hitherto applied most scientifically to
-the fore-building of the keep.[252] Its general employment as an outer
-defence was the direct consequence of the removal of interest from the
-keep to the curtain. Not merely had the wall itself to offer a stout
-resistance to attack, so that every point was simultaneously engaged
-in active defence; but the main approaches had to be so arranged as
-to involve an enemy in perplexity. In the protection of the main
-avenues of access to the town or castle, we arrive at an unconscious
-reproduction in stone of the methods employed by prehistoric builders
-of earthwork. Experience taught the engineers of the thirteenth and
-fourteenth centuries the lessons which she had taught the makers of
-Maiden Castle, and the adoption of the concentric plan of fortification
-followed as a matter of course.
-
-[Illustration: WARWICK: barbican]
-
-The contraction of the main entrance of the castle by a barbican is
-well seen at Bamburgh, Conisbrough (217), and Scarborough (129). In the
-first two instances, owing to the isolated position of the fortress,
-and the nature of the ground outside, the main approach would have
-to be in any case by a path made up the steep face of the hill, and
-immediately below the curtain. Bamburgh was unusually well aided by
-nature, and the gateway, flanked by two slender round towers, is at
-a level considerably lower than that of the summit of the rock; in
-this case, the rising road within the gateway, cut in the basalt, and
-commanded by the curtain and the keep within the curtain, was the
-barbican of the castle. The hill on which Conisbrough was set is merely
-a steep knoll, with a wide outer ditch on its less precipitous side.
-The outer ward, on the south-west side of the ditch, was apparently an
-earthwork without stone walls.[253] A gatehouse was set on the edge
-of the ditch, in advance of and at a lower level than the curtain of
-the inner ward. Its arrangements, so far as they can be traced, were
-not greatly superior to those of early stone gatehouses. Its lateral
-walls, however, were prolonged up the edge of the slope to the entrance
-of the inner ward. The left-hand wall joined an angle of the curtain
-half-way up the passage; the wall on the right hand was continued so as
-to cover the inner gateway, which was at right angles to the passage
-thus formed.[254] As at Bamburgh, the approach in this case is a narrow
-gangway between high walls, commanded throughout from the rampart of
-the inner ward, and, for the second half of the distance, passing
-immediately beneath it. A passage of this type, with a right-angled
-turn at its far end, might easily become a death-trap for a besieging
-force.
-
-At Scarborough the castle cliff is almost entirely separated from the
-town by a deep ravine, and the approach is along the narrow ridge
-between this chasm and the northward face of the rock. The gatehouse,
-flanked by rounded towers, forms part of a small and irregularly shaped
-walled outwork or barbican placed upon the outer curve of the ravine.
-From this _tête-du-pont_, as it may be called, a straight passage,
-walled on both sides, crosses the head of the ravine, passing over a
-bridge on its way, and skirting, on the left hand, the sheer edge of
-the cliff. On the further side, the space widens into the outer ward,
-commanded and nearly blocked by the rectangular keep. The wall on the
-left is continued along the edge of the cliff, while that on the right,
-which, as being more open to attack, is much the thicker, bears away
-with the curve of the slope, and joins the south curtain of the inner
-ward upon its west face.[255]
-
-[Illustration: Warwick Castle; Barbican]
-
-The examples already given illustrate the precautions which
-thirteenth-century engineers took to guard their castles from surprise
-and storm; and the arrangements found in the Welsh castles of Edward
-I.’s reign are even more remarkable. It will be noticed that in the
-three castles just mentioned the main gatehouse is thrown forward to
-the outer end of the barbican, which forms a narrow passage uniting
-the gatehouse to the inner entrance. In late thirteenth and fourteenth
-century castles, however, the barbican was, as we see it at Walmgate
-bar in York, an addition to the front of a gatehouse. This method of
-covering gateways by outer defences is seen at Kenilworth, where the
-approach to the outer ward of the castle, across the lake formed by
-the damming-up of two rivulets, was broken up into sections by three
-lines of defence. First, an outer earthwork, segmental in shape, and
-strengthened by round stone bastions, guarded the approach to the first
-gatehouse. Beyond this gatehouse, which formed a _tête-du-pont_ like
-the Middle tower at London, a long causeway or dam, with a wall on
-its eastern face, crossed the lake to the strong gatehouse known as
-Mortimer’s tower, which, guarded by two portcullises, stood upon the
-end of the dam, in advance of the curtain. But the ordinary barbican,
-which was characteristic of the castles of the fourteenth and fifteenth
-centuries, was not a long and elaborately protected line of outer
-defences, but a stone building thrown out in front of a gatehouse, so
-as to concentrate the attacking force into a small space, and prevent
-a combined rush on the principal gateway. The contracted approach thus
-made was usually, in the later examples, as at Warwick (231), Alnwick
-(243), and Porchester, all barbicans of the fourteenth century, a
-straight lane between walls. At Porchester it is set in front of the
-twelfth-century gatehouse of the inner ward, which was covered in
-the early fourteenth century by a rectangular projection, pierced by
-lateral doorways opening upon the scarp of the inner ward outside the
-curtain. The barbican proper, somewhat later in date, is composed of
-two parallel walls, guarding the drawbridge from the base-court or
-outer ward. A loop cut obliquely through the west wall of this passage
-opened towards the west gateway of the base-court, so that a surprise
-of the barbican could be prevented. In this case, as at Alnwick, the
-approach to the barbican was a drawbridge; but at Alnwick, where the
-drawbridge crossed an outer loop of the castle ditch, the ditch proper
-was crossed by a second drawbridge within the barbican.
-
-[Illustration: Mont-St-Michel; Châtelet]
-
-At Lewes, about the end of the thirteenth century, a barbican was added
-to the front of a Norman gatehouse which was of much the same character
-as the gatehouses at Porchester and Tickhill. The addition here took
-the shape of a short passage with a wall on each side, finished at
-its outer end by a new and lofty gatehouse, rising from the middle of
-the outer ditch of the castle, and approached by a mounting roadway.
-The shape of the new gatehouse is an oblong, with its main axis
-perpendicular to the road, but its angles were capped by round turrets,
-corbelled out at a point near the spring of the entrance archway (98).
-Such turrets are known as bartizans, and are common in French military
-architecture of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They were not
-so usual in England, and are seldom found on such a scale as at Lewes:
-smaller bartizans, corbelled out at a point nearer the battlements
-of the building in which they occur, may be seen in the gatehouse at
-Lincoln, and at the angles of the towers of Belsay (313) and Chipchase
-in Northumberland.[256] The parapet of the barbican gatehouse at Lewes
-is brought forward from the wall on a row of corbels so as to allow
-room for six formidable machicolations. The work bears some resemblance
-to the _châtelet_ which covers the main entrance of the fortified abbey
-of Mont-Saint-Michel (235).[257] In France an outer gatehouse like that
-at Lewes, or an outer enclosure like that at Scarborough, bore the name
-of _châtelet_ or _bastille_. All such defences in advance of a gateway,
-whatever the special name they may bear, may be classed under the head
-of barbicans.
-
-[Illustration: Beaumaris Castle; Gateway]
-
-[Illustration: TUTBURY: gatehouse]
-
-[Illustration: YORK: Micklegate bar]
-
-[Illustration: Carcassonne]
-
-In the highest examples of military skill in fortification—at Conway
-(254) and Beaumaris (236), for instance—the greatest care was taken to
-cover the gateways with oblique or right-angled approaches, so that
-straight access should be impossible to an enemy. The same method of
-hampering the path of an enemy with right angled turns is noticeable
-in French examples of fortification, and notably in the gateways of
-Carcassonne (239). In England, however, an entrance defended by a
-barbican in a straight line with it was generally preferred; and, even
-in castles like Caerphilly and Harlech, the strength of the entrances
-depended upon the disposition of the concentric wards of the castle,
-and they were guiltless of the devices and traps which are one leading
-feature of Beaumaris. A good example of an oblique approach to a
-thirteenth-century castle is at Pembroke, where the main gateway
-is covered by an open barbican, forming a rectangular vestibule, the
-entrance to which is in a wall nearly at right angles to the gateway.
-The west gate of Tenby is covered by an almost semicircular barbican,
-the original entrance to which, with a groove for a portcullis, is on
-the north side, so that an angle had to be turned before the gateway
-was reached. At a much later date other openings were pierced in the
-outer wall of the barbican, and the curious arrangement is known
-to-day by the misleading name of the “Five Arches.” The east side of
-the chief ward of Carew castle was protected by a rectangular outer
-court, entered from the field by a small gatehouse. The gatehouse of
-the inner ward is in the south half of the east wall, and is flanked
-by a round angle-tower and a tower which projects from the middle of
-the wall. The outer faces of these two towers were joined by a wall
-which thus covered the gatehouse, and was pierced by a doorway, set a
-little to the north of the main entrance, with its jambs sloping to
-the left. This gave access to a walled-in passage, with an upper floor,
-leading obliquely to the inner entrance. As this side of the castle was
-on level ground and was much exposed, special care was taken to guard
-the approaches; there was, however, only one portcullis, at the inner
-end of the main gateway; but the wooden doors, four of which had to be
-passed before the portcullis was reached, were of great strength, and
-each was closed with several very massive draw-bars.
-
-[Illustration: Tenby; West Gate]
-
-The town gateway at Tenby may be compared to the Porte de Laon at
-Coucy, which was also covered by a semicircular barbican. While,
-however, the Tenby barbican was directly attached to the wall, the
-barbican at Coucy was separated from the gateway by the town ditch
-and a bridge, and was altogether more elaborate. The bridge itself
-crossed the ditch in two sections, describing an obtuse angle, at the
-apex of which was a round tower. The road passed through the tower,
-and turned the angle at its inner gate, from which the second section
-of the bridge passed straight to the actual gateway. At Coucy all
-the resources of fortification were displayed; while at Tenby the
-application of the same principle was simple and unpretending.[258]
-Equally masterly is the oblique entrance to the castle of Kerak in
-Syria, beside which the entrances to Pembroke and Carew are of small
-account.[259] The long rectangular castle of Kerak is divided into
-two nearly equal wards by a wall parallel to its major axis. The main
-gateway is on the east side of the junction of the cross-wall with
-the outer curtain; but, instead of leading directly into the castle,
-the path turns to the left after passing through the gateway, and
-is confined within a long inner barbican, from the end of which a
-gatehouse at right angles gives admission to the interior of the upper
-ward.
-
-The importance attached, from the thirteenth century onwards, to the
-gateway and its approaches, and the prominence of the gatehouse in
-the concentric castle of Edward I.’s reign will now be understood. It
-now remains to speak of the defences of the exposed face of curtain
-between the towers, and of the towers themselves. The progress towards
-effective flanking has been traced already, and the towered curtains at
-Dover (126) or the Tower of London are examples of scientific flanking
-achieved by long experiment. The towers rose above the level of the
-curtain, and were entered on the first floor from the rampart-walk,
-which they commanded. The walk, in fact, passed through the towers, as
-it may still be seen passing through the gatehouses at York. Thus each
-tower was the key to a section of wall; and, as the Crusaders found at
-Antioch, the wall could be taken only by the capture of several towers,
-each of which guarded a separate section.
-
-[Illustration: Outer stair to tower and rampart-walk in town wall]
-
-[Illustration: Carcassonne]
-
-[Illustration: ALNWICK: barbican]
-
-[Illustration: ALNWICK: gatehouse of keep]
-
-[Illustration: Shutter closing opening in wall or parapet]
-
-The rampart-walk between the towers occupied, as from the earliest
-times, the top of the wall, and was defended by battlements upon the
-outer, and sometimes by a low rear-wall on the inner side.[260] The
-chief access to it was by stairs in the towers, but sometimes, as
-at Alnwick, there was a stair from the interior of the castle, built
-at right angles to the wall (241). In the shell-keep on the mount at
-Tamworth, there is a small stair which ascends in the thickness of the
-wall. The principal alterations which took place with regard to the
-rampart-walk were concerned with the treatment of the parapet. The
-division of the parapet into merlons or solid pieces by embrasures
-has been explained already, and it has been seen that, in the first
-instance, the embrasures are pierced at rather long intervals. The
-tendency grows, however, to multiply embrasures and narrow down the
-merlons between them, on the theory that the archer, discharging his
-arrow through the embrasure, can shelter himself and re-string his
-bow behind the merlon. The merlon, however, in works designed with a
-purpose mainly military, is usually broader than the embrasure, and
-is itself pierced with a small arrow-loop, splayed internally. This
-may be seen in the town-walls of Aigues-Mortes (77) and Carcassonne
-(78), where the merlons are of great breadth, and in such triumphs of
-fortification as the castles of Carnarvon (246) and Conway.[261] The
-merlons, however, were not always provided with loops, even in the
-Edwardian period. The barbican at Alnwick (243), a work of the early
-fourteenth century, is battlemented with plain merlons and embrasures.
-In this case, there are two further points which deserve notice. The
-embrasures at Alnwick were defended by wooden shutters, which hung from
-trunnions working in grooves in the adjacent merlons. The shutters
-could be lifted out at pleasure, and the embrasure left free: the
-device may be noticed in some other instances.[262] Also, upon the
-merlons at Alnwick stand stone figures of warriors, sometimes called
-“defenders,” and supposed to be designed to strike terror into the
-enemy. The present figures at Alnwick are comparatively modern; but the
-fashion was not uncommon and was purely ornamental. Similar figures are
-seen on the gatehouse of the neighbouring castle of Bothal, and upon
-the gatehouses of York: among the figures on the merlons at Carnarvon
-was an eagle, which gave its name to the famous Eagle tower. An enemy
-who could be daunted by the illusion of a rather diminutive archer
-or slinger balancing himself on a narrow coping, must have had very
-little experience of warfare. The merlons were treated very plainly in
-many French examples, as at Avignon, Aigues-Mortes, and Carcassonne
-(242), where they are flat-topped and unmoulded, while the embrasures
-have flat sills. In England they were generally finished off by a
-gabled coping, as at Carnarvon, where the top of each is moulded with
-a half-roll to the field (246).[263] The sill of the embrasure has
-also an inner chamfer. It may be noted that the freedom with which
-machicolations were employed in the parapets of French castles and
-town-walls was unusual in England. Machicolated parapets were, as a
-rule, confined to the fronts of gateways, until the later part of the
-fourteenth century, when they began, as at Lancaster and Warwick, to
-show themselves in the towers of the gateway and curtain. They are very
-sparingly used in the Welsh castles, which are our noblest examples
-of military architecture; and an _enceinte_, like the city wall of
-Avignon, in which the whole parapet is machicolated and built out on
-long corbels of considerable projection, is unknown in England.
-
-[Illustration: Carnarvon Castle; Crenellated parapet]
-
-What has just been said of the parapets of walls applies naturally to
-the parapets of towers. Towers on the curtain had, as we have seen, a
-double use. They flanked the wall, so that each pair could rake with
-their shot the entire face of the _enceinte_ contained between them.
-They also commanded the rampart-walk, so that an enemy who scaled the
-wall was still exposed to their fire and confined to a limited area. A
-distinction, however, must be drawn between the closed and open types
-of tower, as they may be called. The ordinary rampart tower was of
-two or three stages, divided into a basement and upper guard-room or
-rooms. The basement was sometimes vaulted, as in the northern tower at
-Pevensey (247) or towers at Alnwick. Fireplaces and garde-robe chambers
-are often found in the upper rooms,[264] the garde-robes being often
-placed at the junction of the tower with the curtain, and corbelled out
-over the outer wall.[265] At Carew, where there was no keep, but the
-castle formed a rectangular enclosure with drum-towers at the angles,
-all the towers were provided with garde-robe chambers, which, with the
-passages leading to them, are roofed by lozenge-shaped slabs, corbelled
-out one above another. In the south-east tower, the first-floor chamber
-has a pointed barrel-vault, and is entered by an outer stair from
-the ward. In the east wall are two garde-robe chambers, entered by
-elbow-shaped passages. Each had a door opening inwards, and was lighted
-by a separate loop. The chambers were so planned that the seats were
-placed on opposite sides of a partition wall, with a common vent.
-
-[Illustration: Pevensey; Vaulting in basement of north tower]
-
-The tower at Carew just mentioned is at earliest of late
-thirteenth-century date, and has several advanced features. Though
-its projection from the curtain is regularly rounded, its inward
-projection is rectangular, so that its plan is actually an oblong
-with a rounded end. It seems to have been intended to have been used
-in connection with the gatehouse: its first and second floors had
-no direct communication with each other, but both communicated with
-the gatehouse, and the ground-floor of the gatehouse had a large
-lateral opening in the direction of the first floor of the tower. The
-corresponding tower at the north-east angle was used in connection
-with the domestic buildings, and had a vaulted chapel (248) upon its
-first floor, from the north wall of which open two rooms for the use
-of the priest, with a garde-robe in the second. One tower, therefore,
-was purely defensive, additional precautions having been taken, no
-doubt, to guard a postern which opens from the basement upon the scarp
-of the ditch; while the other was merely an annexe to one of the two
-dwelling-houses within the enclosure. The use of the eastern and
-south-western towers at Warkworth (49) was equally distinct. We have
-seen that the south-west tower (Cradyfargus) was used in connection
-with the domestic buildings: this may not have been its original
-purpose, but it was certainly thus employed early in the fourteenth
-century. The great feature of the east tower is the huge loop in each
-of its five outer faces, designed for a cross-bow 16 feet long: these
-loops, splayed throughout and fan-tailed at top and bottom, are the
-finest examples of cross-loops left in England, and declare the main
-purpose of the tower at once. In later years, when the cross-bow was
-out of fashion, the interior of the tower was somewhat altered, and a
-fireplace inserted.
-
-[Illustration: Carew; Chapel]
-
-[Illustration: Door of main gatehouse
-
-Chepstow Castle]
-
-[Illustration: Stair to vaulted chamber in outer bailey
-
-Chepstow Castle]
-
-The best examples of curtain-towers, both abroad and in England, form
-complete cylinders, like the angle-towers at Coucy, or polygons, like
-some of the towers at Carnarvon. But room was spared if the cylinder
-or polygon was left incomplete, and its inner face made nearly flush
-with the curtain. The two towers on the curtain of the inner ward
-at Pembroke projected with semicircular curves into the outer ward,
-but were flat at the back: the south tower covered the gateway of
-the inner ward, which was not in the face of the wall, but round an
-angle. The towers of the outer ward, on the other hand, are mostly
-complete cylinders: the stairs were vices contained in rectangular
-turrets on one side, the outer walls of which are curved to meet the
-circumference of the towers (181).[266] Marten’s tower at Chepstow,
-and the towers of the curtain of the fine early fourteenth-century
-castle of Llanstephan, are cases in which the projection of the tower
-is only external. The tower which caps the eastern angle at Llanstephan
-is a half-cylinder, springing, not directly from the curtain, but
-from a broad rectangular projection on its face.[267] The variations
-which might be noticed in the attachment of towers to the curtain are
-manifold: but, as time goes on, the ordinary curtain-tower, where it
-was not placed at an angle of a ward, stood flush with the curtain on
-its inner side (228). Where the tower stood on the curtain by itself,
-unattached to other buildings within the castle, there was usually an
-entrance to the basement direct from the bailey, on one side of which
-a vice in a turret attached to the tower rose to the upper floors and
-roof, communicating on the level of the first floor with the curtain.
-The doorway opening on the curtain was fitted with a strong door, and,
-in Marten’s tower at Chepstow castle, where the tower was of special
-importance, standing as it does at the lowest and most vulnerable point
-of the site, was provided with a portcullis.
-
-[Illustration: Fougères]
-
-There were cases, however, especially in walls of towns, where the
-curtain-tower, although projecting outside and above the wall, and
-covered with a timber roof, was left open at the gorge or neck, where
-it was flush with the curtain, so that it was simply an open tower,
-with a platform on the first floor, level with the rampart-walk, and a
-rampart-walk of its own at the level of its battlements. Such a tower
-could be actively employed in time of war, and had all the advantages
-of the ordinary closed tower in flanking the wall and cutting the
-rampart-walk up into sections. The numerous towers of the walls of
-Avignon, between the gatehouses, were arranged thus.[268] At Conway,
-the semi-cylindrical towers of the town walls, of which there are
-twenty, and the similar towers which flank the gatehouses, are open to
-the town: one tower only, on the south-west side of the town, where
-the wall turns to join the castle, is walled at the gorge. The walls
-of Chepstow provide further examples of open towers. At Carnarvon
-(251), the round towers on the face of the town walls are open, but the
-angle-towers were closed; and that at the north-west angle was entered
-through the town chapel, which was built against the curtain at this
-point. The open tower was not, as a rule, used in castles: even the
-small towers which flank the outer curtain at Beaumaris have a wall
-continued across the gorge.
-
-[Illustration: Carnarvon; Tower of town wall]
-
-Every large castle was provided with a postern or sally-port. This was
-generally a small doorway, preferably in the base of a tower, but often
-in the curtain, opening on the least frequented side of the castle. In
-time of siege, in a castle of the ordinary plan, a postern might easily
-be a source of danger; and its employment in the scheme of defence was
-incompletely understood at first. But it was useful for the conveyance
-of provisions to the castle; and a postern, as at Warkworth, is often
-found in connection with a kitchen or store-room. Where a castle stood
-near a river, a water-gate, communicating with a private wharf was
-made. At Pembroke, where the castle stands between two water-ways,
-there were two water-gates, one in the south side of the outer ward,
-the other, as already mentioned, formed by walling in the mouth of
-the cave below the great hall. For the scientific employment of the
-postern, however, we have to look to the great castles of the later
-part of the thirteenth century, in which the means of defence described
-in this chapter were perfectly co-ordinated; and, with the introduction
-of a new plan, the last signs of a merely passive strength vanished
-from the castle.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER X
-
-THE EDWARDIAN CASTLE AND THE CONCENTRIC PLAN
-
-
-Castles like Carew, enclosing a rectangular area with round towers at
-the angles, were the fruit of the transition in the course of which
-the fortified curtain wall took the place of the passive strength of
-the keep. At Carew the castle was protected upon its most exposed side
-by outer defences of stone; but on all other sides it presented a
-single line of defence, flanked by the four formidable angle-towers. A
-castle thus defended was, like the early stone castles at Richmond and
-elsewhere, a keep in itself; but its wall no longer depended merely
-upon its passive strength, but was calculated to resist attacks on
-which the builders of Richmond and Ludlow had no means of reckoning.
-
-The castle of the latter half of the thirteenth century, the golden
-age of English military architecture, was, then, an enclosure within a
-strong and well-flanked curtain wall. The keep, where the site was new,
-was dispensed with: where an old plan was altered or enlarged, it took
-a secondary position. The castles of this age may be divided into three
-separate classes. First, there are castles without keeps, in which
-the flanked curtain wall forms the sole line of defence. Secondly,
-there are old castles, which, by extension of their site, have adopted
-a concentric plan of defence. And thirdly, there are castles newly
-planned, in which the defences are formed by two or more concentric
-curtain walls.
-
-[Illustration: Carnarvon Castle]
-
-[Illustration: Conway Castle]
-
-I. The grand examples of the first class are the castles of Carnarvon
-(253) and Conway (254). Conway was begun in 1285 by the orders of
-Edward I. Carnarvon, in which more architectural splendour is shown,
-was begun in 1283, and was not finished until 1316-22.[269] Both
-castles were built in connection with walled towns, and occupied an
-angle of the defences; and both stand on a point of land where a river
-meets the sea, so that two faces of the site were defended by water,
-while the base was separated from the town by an artificial ditch.
-Carnarvon, however, is situated on low ground, and commands the town
-only by the height of its curtain and its formidable towers; while the
-promontory on which Conway stands is raised high above the greater part
-of the town and commands the whole (256).
-
-The plan of both castles is very similar. The enclosure, in both cases
-an irregular polygon of an oblong shape, was divided into two wards by
-a cross-wall,[270] built at a point where the curtain is slightly drawn
-in on both sides, and the site is consequently narrowed. At Conway the
-main entrance is in the west or end wall of the lower ward, opposite
-the cross-wall. The lower ward, thus entered, is a hexagon in shape,
-flanked by six cylindrical or drum towers, one at each of the angles,
-and occupies about two-thirds of the enclosure. The remaining third is
-the upper ward, an irregular rectangle flanked by four drum towers, the
-two towers to the west being common to both wards. The whole enclosure
-is thus flanked by eight towers, four at the angles, and two on each of
-the sides.
-
-The two wards at Carnarvon (253) were more nearly equal, the upper
-ward, placed, as in Conway, at the end next the confluence of the river
-and the sea, occupying about two-fifths of the site. The main entrance
-to the lower ward, the King’s gateway, is in the middle of the side
-wall next the town, and the wall of division between the wards crossed
-the enclosure from a point close to the right of the inner entrance.
-The curtain of the lower ward was built in five sections, with a tower
-at each of the projecting angles between them. With these towers must
-be reckoned the two splendid gatehouses, the King’s gatehouse at the
-north-west, and Queen Eleanor’s gatehouse at the east angle of the
-ward. The curtain of the upper ward was built in four pieces, and this
-ward, with its cross-wall, forms an irregular pentagon, at the apex
-of which is the famous Eagle tower, at the point where the town wall
-joins that of the castle. There are nine towers in all, counting the
-two gatehouses, and a turret on each of the north-east and south-east
-sections of the curtain. The towers are polygonal in shape, the
-straight faces being for the most part very broad, and the angles very
-obtuse.[271]
-
-[Illustration: Conway Castle and Town]
-
-Of the two castles, Conway, which stands, as we have seen, on the
-better site, was the more economically defended. The leading features
-of the plan at Carnarvon are the two large gatehouses and the Eagle
-tower at the western angle, which was virtually a strong tower or
-keep. The King’s gatehouse formed the main entrance. Queen Eleanor’s
-gatehouse stands at the highest point of the castle, and is now
-inaccessible from outside: when in use, it must have been approached by
-a steeply rising bridge across the ditch.[272] There is also a postern,
-through which provisions were, no doubt, brought to the kitchen, in the
-basement of the Well tower, which caps the angle of the curtain between
-the King’s gatehouse and Eagle tower. At Conway, there was no separate
-strong tower, nor was there a real gatehouse: the gateway is in a
-narrow end-wall, and the towers on each side are in close connection
-with its machicolated rampart-walk. There is also a second and smaller
-gateway in the wall at the opposite end of the castle, opening on a
-platform at the edge of the rock, from which a stair led to the water.
-
-Where the curtain was so well defended as in these two castles, a
-double entrance was a source of strength rather than weakness. The
-problem for the enemy was how to distribute his forces, so as to keep
-the whole _enceinte_ under observation. To concentrate an attack
-upon one gateway was to run the risk of being outflanked and taken
-in the rear by a sortie from the other. Strong as Château-Gaillard
-and other castles of the transition had been, they had simply met the
-prospect of attack with successive lines of defence. Carnarvon and
-the castles of the Edwardian period generally were not entirely a
-refuge for a besieged garrison: they were shelters which provided a
-base of operations for offensive as well as defensive stratagem. The
-most imposing feature of the defences of Carnarvon castle is the long
-irregular line of the south and south-west wall, fronting the river
-Seiont (258). Here the curtain is pierced by three rows of loops,
-one above another. The lowest open from a gallery in the thickness
-of the wall: the middle row from an upper gallery, which is now open
-internally, constructed on the top of the very massive lower wall;
-while the top row is pierced in the merlons of the battlements (259).
-The wall could be guarded simultaneously by three rows of archers, one
-above another—not an inviting prospect to a besieging force. It is
-obvious that such a castle, large enough to shelter an army, could also
-be held by a relatively small body of men, so excellently was the area
-of defence concentrated, and so readily could every part of the curtain
-be reached from the interior of the fortress.
-
-[Illustration: Carnarvon]
-
-[Illustration: CARNARVON CASTLE: towers and rampart-walk]
-
-[Illustration: CARNARVON CASTLE: interior]
-
-While the actual defences of the curtain at Conway were more simple
-than at Carnarvon, the isolation of the site was greater, and the
-possibility of active movement in and out of the stronghold was less.
-The attack was bound to be concentrated upon the one main entrance; and
-consequently, next to the flanking of the curtain, the chief object
-was the defence of the gateway. The end wall, in which the gateway
-was pierced, is high above the adjacent town, and the level piece of
-ground in front was broken short by a steep edge of cliff, at the
-foot of which was the ditch. The entrance was therefore approached
-by a well-guarded barbican at right angles to the gateway. This
-outwork was reached from the town by passing along a rising causeway
-with a drawbridge at the end, which gave access to the gateway of
-the barbican, standing in advance of the north-west tower. A short
-rising path then led through a doorway closed by a wooden door to the
-platform in front of the gateway, along the west side of which, above
-the ditch, was continued the outer wall of the barbican, flanked by
-three small round towers, open at the gorge. The parapet above the
-gateway was machicolated, and the large corbels still project from the
-wall.[273] Into a narrow barbican like this, only a small detachment of
-an attacking force could venture; indeed, the position is practically
-impregnable. The north-west tower commands every inch of the approach;
-and the drawbridge, the portcullis and upper gateway of the
-barbican, and the oblique entrance to the gateway of the castle, formed
-successive and intimidating obstacles. The main gateway was closed by a
-portcullis, which was worked from a mural chamber, between the crown of
-the arch and the rampart-walk. It may be noted that, while the oblique
-entrance at Conway has some likeness to the ingenious entrances at
-Beaumaris, the works of Conway have at least two points in common with
-Harlech—the corbelling-out of the rampart-walk against the interior
-face of the towers (261), and the carrying up of the stairs of the four
-eastern towers into turrets above the level of the roof. The lofty
-stair-turrets above the roof are also a prominent feature at Carnarvon.
-
-[Illustration: Conway Castle; Rampart-walk]
-
-The arrangements of the rampart-walks at Conway and Carnarvon were of
-the usual type. At Conway, where the cross-wall between the wards is
-still in existence, there is a walk along the top, so that no part of
-the curtain is really distant from another. The domestic buildings
-at Carnarvon unfortunately no longer stand; but the position of the
-hall and kitchen in the inner ward is still known. Probably, as at
-Conway, there was a large hall for the garrison in the outer ward.
-The domestic arrangements at Conway can be easily followed, although
-the kitchen, against the north curtain of the lower ward, is gone. The
-great hall, which is built against the south curtain, and follows the
-obtuse angle formed by it, stands above a cellar, but its floor was on
-a level with the surface of the ward. Its timber roof was built upon
-stone transverse arches, spanning the hall: the east end was screened
-off and formed a chapel. The buildings surrounding the smaller or
-upper ward formed a separate mansion, distinct from the great hall and
-its appendages. The chief features of this set of apartments were the
-smaller hall, against the south curtain, the separate withdrawing-rooms
-called the King’s and Queen’s chambers, and the small chapel or oratory
-in the north-east tower (263). This chapel was entered from the
-main stair of the tower, but a straight stair also led to it in the
-thickness of the east wall from the postern-gate, and communicated with
-a similar stair in the other half of the wall, leading to the King’s
-chamber and the lesser hall. Water at Carnarvon was supplied from a
-well in the tower west of the kitchen: at Conway a cistern was made
-near the south-east corner of the lower ward.
-
-[Illustration: Conway Castle; Fireplace in hall]
-
-[Illustration: Conway Castle; Oratory]
-
-II. There are old castles, however, which were adapted to the new
-form of fortification with an ingenuity equal to that shown on new
-sites at Conway and Carnarvon. In alluding to the lessons learned by
-the Crusaders in the east, we have noticed the concentric form of
-fortification which they saw at Constantinople. The city was girt by
-a triple wall, each ring of which was higher than the one outside it.
-The advantage of this was obvious: while three successive lines of
-defence were provided, the three could also be used simultaneously,
-each row of defenders discharging its missiles over the heads of the
-next. The Crusaders, the variety and ingenuity of whose castle plans
-deserve much admiration, profited by the concentric method of walling
-a stronghold; and none of their fortresses is so remarkable as Le
-Krak des Chevaliers (176), rebuilt early in the thirteenth century,
-where the curtain of the inner ward rises high above the curtain of
-the outer _enceinte_.[274] Approximations to the concentric plan were
-not unknown even in England at an early date. The earthen defences of
-Berkhampstead castle (42) are concentric, although no attempt was made
-to correlate them by giving the inner banks command of the outer.[275]
-In the plan of the cylindrical tower-keep at Launceston, we have a
-striking application of the concentric plan to a small area. In France,
-Château-Gaillard, where the inner ward is nearly surrounded by the
-curtain of the middle ward, was an approach to concentric methods;
-but the leading idea was still the exclusion of an enemy by lines
-of defence arranged upon an elongated plan, with the donjon as the
-culminating point. Even at Coucy, where the defensive provisions are so
-elaborate, the donjon is the great point of interest, and the castle
-is not concentric in plan. In fact, the concentric plan, although long
-known in the east, was not adopted as a basis of planning in the west
-until the thirteenth century was far advanced. The fortifications of
-Carcassonne, where the plan was applied to a town (264), were begun by
-St Louis, and finished by Philip III.: begun earlier than Caerphilly,
-their erection covered most of the time in which our chief concentric
-castles were built.[276]
-
-[Illustration: Carcassonne; Plan]
-
-The concentric plan may be described as follows. The site on which
-the castle was built was surrounded, as usual, by a ditch. The inner
-scarp was crowned, and sometimes partly reveted, by a wall, flanked by
-towers at the angles and, in the largest castles, on the intermediate
-faces. Within this wall, and divided from it by a narrow space of open
-ground, rose a second and much higher wall, also flanked by towers
-at the angles and on the faces. This inner wall enclosed the main
-ward of the castle, the intermediate space forming the outer ward
-or “lists.” There was no keep: here, as in the plan of Conway and
-Carnarvon, reliance was placed on the curtains. The entrances, however,
-were elaborately defended by large gatehouses and by sundry ingenious
-devices, as at Beaumaris, for perplexing a foe; and the castle was
-sometimes reinforced, as at Caerphilly, by special outer defences
-both of earth and stone. An enemy, attacking such a fortress, was
-exposed first to a double fire from the two curtains. If he effected an
-entrance, he had to fight every step of his way into the inner ward;
-while, if he was driven, by determined resistance at the gateway, into
-the narrow space of the outer ward, he was not merely in danger from
-the archers on the inner wall, but also might find his way blocked
-by one of the cross-walls which broke up the space in which he was
-confined.
-
-[Illustration: Kidwelly Castle; Plan]
-
-Such a plan, although it might lack some of the advantages of a plan
-worked out on a new site, could be applied to the new defences of an
-old castle. Both at Dover and the Tower of London during the reign of
-Henry III., additions were made which gave each castle a concentric
-plan.[277] The effect at Dover was to ring the imposing keep about
-with a double wall: the inner circuit, however, is largely of the same
-date as the keep, and the outer is spreading and irregular in plan.
-At London the defences were more closely planned in harmony, and one
-feature of the additions is that, when the buildings are examined close
-at hand, the White tower, originally the most important feature of the
-fortress, becomes comparatively insignificant in the defensive scheme.
-The inner and outer curtains, with their towers, are of more than one
-date, from the end of the twelfth to the sixteenth century; but the
-most important work was done in the reign of Henry III., during which
-the concentric plan of the fortress was developed. The best idea of
-the fortifications can be obtained from the open space before the west
-front. Between the city and the castle lies the formidable ditch, which
-runs round three sides of the fortress, the fourth side being guarded
-by the Thames and a narrower ditch. Dug by the Conqueror’s workmen,
-the ditch was widened and deepened by Richard I.’s chancellor, William
-Longchamp: it originally seems to have admitted water at high tide.
-The entrance to the castle is at the south-west angle. A gatehouse,
-called the Middle tower, which was covered by an outer ditch[278] and
-outwork, stands on the counterscarp of the great ditch, on this side
-120 feet broad, and gives access to a stone bridge. This crossed the
-ditch to the Byward tower, a gatehouse at the south-west angle of the
-outer curtain. This curtain has been much altered, and its angles along
-the north face are capped by bastions which belong to the age when
-the cannon had taken the place of the catapult. Along its south face,
-towards the narrow ditch, the quay, and river beyond, it is flanked by
-towers, the chief of which is St Thomas’ tower, the water-gate of the
-castle, well known by its name of Traitors’ gate, and, like the Byward
-and Middle towers, originally a work of the thirteenth century.[279]
-From the bridge leading to the Byward tower, the curtain of the inner
-ward, flanked by three towers, the Beauchamp tower in the middle, the
-Devereux and Bell towers at the angles,[280] can be seen commanding
-the narrow outer ward. This approach was apparently defended by three
-rows of archers, like the south curtain of Carnarvon. The highest row
-occupied the rampart-walk and towers of the inner curtain. Loops were
-made in the face of the same curtain, below the rampart-walk, for a
-second row, on the raised ground-level of the inner ward; while a third
-row could be stationed behind loops in the outer curtain. The outer
-ward varies in breadth, but the passage to the gateway of the inner
-ward, along the south face of the inner curtain, is very narrow, and is
-flanked by the Bell tower and Wakefield tower.[281] The inner gateway
-is in the ground-floor of the Bloody tower, which joins the Wakefield
-tower; and is immediately opposite the water-gate in St Thomas’ tower.
-At intervals the outer ward was traversed by cross-walls, so that an
-unhindered circuit of it was impossible: one of these crosses it on the
-east side of the Wakefield tower, and is continued across the ditch to
-the river bank.[282] The well-flanked approach from the Byward tower,
-arranged so that the gateway to the inner ward must be entered by
-a right-angled turn, may be compared with the entrances at Conway
-and Beaumaris, or with the earlier approach to the main bailey at
-Conisbrough.
-
-[Illustration: Chepstow; Basement chamber]
-
-In some respects, the alterations undertaken at Chepstow (104) towards
-the end of the thirteenth century give it a place among concentric
-castles. The ridge on which the castle stands, between the town
-ditch and a sheer cliff above the Wye, was too narrow for concentric
-treatment, and the actual plan shows us four wards on end, each
-on higher ground than the last. The first and lowest ward was the
-Edwardian addition. The second ward formed the lower part of the
-bailey of the early castle. The third ward, at a very narrow point in
-the ridge, was almost filled by the great hall, which was virtually
-the great tower or keep of this castle; and there is only a narrow
-passage mounting the slope between the hall and the low curtain above
-the river. The fourth ward, at the highest point, and divided from
-the third ward by a deep rift in the rock, contains a wide gateway,
-which, as at Kidwelly—the nearest parallel—was the back entrance to
-the castle. We have only to imagine the ditch next the town filled up,
-and the outer curtain continued so as to embrace the second ward and
-great hall, and to unite the first and fourth wards; and we have what
-is virtually the plan of Kidwelly (267). Free ingress and egress for
-the garrison, so well studied in concentric plans, was provided by the
-two gateways at Chepstow. The exposed condition, however, of the lower
-ward, at the foot of the ridge, prompted an addition to the plan which
-recalls the Eagle tower at Carnarvon, or the strong towers at the later
-manor-castles of Raglan and Wingfield. Projecting from the lowest angle
-of the curtain, commanding the approach from the town, and covering
-the gateway, is the tower now called the Marten tower, rounded to the
-field and flat at the gorge. This tower, entered from the ground-level
-of the ward, had its own portcullised gateway, and a doorway, also
-portcullised, from the first floor to the rampart-walk of the curtain.
-Its three floors were very amply planned, and, projecting from the
-second floor, and partly built on the battlements of the curtain, is
-a small chapel or oratory, with an east window containing geometrical
-tracery. The Marten tower is a valuable example of the protection of
-a dangerous angle. Its flanking capacities were improved by a spur or
-half-pyramid built against the base: this may be compared with the
-rectangular plinths of the two western angle-towers at Carew, from
-which spurs rise against the rounded surfaces of the towers themselves.
-The first ward at Chepstow contains a lesser hall and other domestic
-buildings on the side next the river: these, with the vaults below them
-(268), contain work of great beauty. All the Edwardian work at Chepstow
-has that simplicity and adequacy of design, admitting here and there of
-beauties of detail, which is found in the best military work of the age
-(249).[283]
-
-[Illustration: Caerphilly Castle; Plan]
-
-III. The castles, however, of the last twenty years of the thirteenth
-century, planned with a system of concentric defences, may be taken,
-with Carnarvon and Conway, as reaching the highest pitch of military
-science attained in medieval England. The earliest of these, Caerphilly
-(270), which was begun before the end of the reign of Henry III., was
-also the most elaborate.[284] The castle proper was placed in the
-middle of a lake, formed by the damming up of two streams; and in
-this respect the situation was not unlike that of Kenilworth, which
-was defended on the south and west by an artificial lake, and was
-irregularly concentric in the ultimate development of its plan.[285]
-The sides of the island were enclosed within strong retaining walls,
-which rose to form the curtain of the outer ward. This curtain was
-low, and was flanked, not by towers, but by curved projections forming
-bastions at the angles. Within this outer defence rose the rectangular
-inner ward, the lofty curtain of which was flanked by drum towers at
-each angle, and by a very large gatehouse with two drum towers in each
-of the east and west sides. The outer ward had also a front and back
-gatehouse, flanked by small drum towers, in its east and west curtains:
-these were directly commanded by the inner gatehouses, and the entrance
-was not oblique. The inner ward was spacious and cheerful. In the
-centre is the well: the great hall (272), the excellent stonework of
-which is sheltered from the weather by a modern roof, was built against
-the south curtain, and the chapel was at right angles to it at its
-east end. The kitchen was contained in a projecting tower south of the
-hall, which blocked the outer ward at this point: beneath the kitchen
-was a postern communicating directly with the lake. The place of the
-rampart-walk in the curtain next the hall was supplied by a gallery
-running in its thickness, and looped to the field. At the east end of
-the hall were apartments, through which the rooms in the first floor of
-the east gatehouse could be reached.
-
-[Illustration: Caerphilly Castle]
-
-This plan, in which the military and domestic elements were so well
-combined, is interesting upon its own account. But more interesting
-still were the outer defences by which the castle was surrounded. The
-whole east face of the castle on the outer edge of the lake was guarded
-by an outer wall, which had in the centre, nearly opposite the inner
-gateways, a large gatehouse, and was returned at the ends into clusters
-of towers, the larger of which, on the south, covered a postern. A
-wet ditch divided this outer line of defence from the village of
-Caerphilly, and in its centre was a pier on which the two sections
-of the drawbridge met. North of the gatehouse, the outer curtain was
-defended simply by the rampart-walk: on the south side, however, there
-was a narrow terrace left in the rear of the curtain, by which access
-was obtained to the castle mill and other offices. These two portions
-of the curtain were separated from each other by the gatehouse and a
-dividing wall, which, in case of the capture of one part of the curtain
-by besiegers, gave the defenders a distinct advantage. The inner lake
-was crossed from the platform in front of the main gatehouse by a
-drawbridge, which probably was worked by a counterpoise from the island
-side.
-
-[Illustration: Caerphilly Castle; Hall]
-
-[Illustration: Harlech Castle]
-
-[Illustration: Harlech Castle; Gatehouse]
-
-[Illustration: Harlech; Inner side of gatehouse]
-
-The lake on the north side of the castle was divided into an inner and
-outer moat by a bank of earth which sprang from the platform of the
-outer gatehouse, and curved round the north side of the island. This
-bank ended at a second and smaller island, the sides of which were
-reveted by a stone wall, covering the west face of the stronghold. This
-horn-work or ravelin was connected by drawbridges across the outer
-and inner moats with the mainland and with the western gatehouses of
-the castle. It is evident that a fortress like this, in which every
-resource of the defenders’ art has been brought into action, gave a
-besieger very few opportunities. Every entry was guarded: if he once
-effected an entrance, defence after defence had to be forced, while the
-resources of the several lines of defence could all be used against him
-at once. Moreover, he had to be careful to cut all communications off
-from the rear entrance and posterns; and this was a difficult matter,
-where the defenders of the castle had so much freedom of movement and
-could assail him from so many different points. It is not surprising to
-learn that the impregnable fortress of Caerphilly is almost without a
-history. Constructed to defend the lower valley of the Rhymney and to
-cover the coast castles round Cardiff from an attack from the Welsh of
-the valleys which slope southwards from the Brecon Beacons, it endured
-no important siege;[286] and it was not until the civil war that its
-military capacity was really tested—and then only in an age which had
-outgrown the methods responsible for its scheme of defence.[287]
-
-Of Edward I.’s castles in North Wales, Harlech (273) and Rhuddlan, with
-lofty inner curtains and cylindrical angle-towers, have much in common
-with each other and with Caerphilly. The general plan of Harlech is
-nearly identical with that of the island defences of Caerphilly. Its
-situation on a lofty rock, however, does not call for elaborate outer
-defences. The rock was isolated from the mainland by a dry ditch cut
-across the east face. A causeway and a drawbridge led to the gatehouse
-of the outer ward, which was flanked by bartizans. The wall of the
-outer ward, like that at Caerphilly, is low, and has no towers: three
-of its angles form bastions, while the other, at the least accessible
-point, is simply curved. The unusually lofty curtain of the inner
-ward, some 40 feet high, towers above the comparatively slight outer
-defences; while the centre of the east side is occupied by the great
-gatehouse (274), projecting far back into the inner ward. The entrance
-is flanked by two semi-cylindrical towers; and in the rear of the
-gatehouse are two round turrets, rising high above the roofs. Rhuddlan,
-which stands on the right bank of the Clwyd, had a fairly broad outer
-ward defended by a deep and wide ditch on the three faces on which the
-site is fairly level. The inner ward had two gatehouses, of equal size
-and importance, placed diagonally to each other at the north-east and
-south-west angles of the curtain. Each of these was flanked by two
-large drum towers; while each of the two remaining angles was capped by
-a single tower.
-
-There were at Harlech a hall and other domestic buildings against the
-curtains; but the gatehouse was also a complete mansion in itself,
-with its own small chapel or oratory above the gateway. There was an
-outer stair to the bailey from the main hall of the gatehouse. Exactly
-the same arrangement occurs at Kidwelly, while the importance of the
-gatehouse as a dwelling reaches its climax in the hall of the northern
-gatehouse at Beaumaris.[288] The dual arrangement of a hall, kitchen,
-etc., for the garrison, and a private dwelling-house for the constable
-or the lord of the castle, has already been noticed at Conway, whilst
-its growth has been traced in connection with the castle of Durham.
-
-Harlech presents two or three important points of interest. (1)
-The outer ward was not blocked at any point, as at Caerphilly, by
-projecting buildings, but was continuous: it was crossed, however, in
-at any rate one place, by a wall which barred an enemy’s progress. (2)
-Owing to the nature of the site, only one gatehouse was built. But a
-small doorway in the centre of the north wall of the inner ward opened
-directly opposite a postern, flanked by half-round bastions, in the
-outer curtain. From this point an extremely steep path, now hardly
-to be traced, followed the edge of the rock, rounded the north-west
-bastion of the outer ward, and passed close beneath the west curtain
-to the south-west angle of the rock. Here, doubling on itself, it
-descended through a gateway into a long passage between the slope of
-the rock and the outer wall, and ended at the water-gateway of the
-castle, at the foot of the great crag and near the present railway
-station. The wall which protected the outer face of this tortuous
-passage, formed an outer curtain to the castle, descending the rock
-from the south-west angle of the outer ward, continuing round the
-foot of the rock on its north side, and climbing it again to meet the
-north-east bastion.[289] (3) The rampart-walk had no machicolations
-and, as at Conway (261), was continued round the inner faces of the
-angle-towers on corbelling. This left the interior of the towers
-free, while their doorways and stairs gave them ready command of
-the rampart-walk. The walls are not only lofty, but very thick. The
-section of the jambs of the hall windows and the small north postern
-points to the fact that the lower part of the walls was thickened,
-probably as an afterthought, when their present height was determined
-upon. The upper part of the walls is homogeneous, and is evidently a
-heightening. (4) Although vices in the angle-towers communicated with
-the rampart-walk, freedom of action was given to the defenders of the
-towers by the provision of a separate stair for those told off to guard
-the intermediate ramparts. This stair is reached through the basement
-doorway of the south-east tower, and, branching off from the internal
-stair a few feet above the entrance, reaches a small external platform.
-Here a narrow outer stair, with a rear-wall, is carried up the face
-of the flat gorge of the tower, and, turning along the south curtain,
-at length reaches the rampart-walk. The planning of this stair, with
-its carefully covered ground-floor entrance, is very interesting and
-curious.
-
-[Illustration: Beaumaris Castle; Plan]
-
-Nowhere, however, can the beauty of the concentric plan be so well
-appreciated as at Beaumaris (278), one of Edward I.’s latest Welsh
-castles.[290] The site is flat and low, on a tongue of land at the
-northern entrance to the Menai straits. There is no attempt at any
-elaborate outer system of defence, such as we see at Caerphilly. The
-defences consisted of a ditch, filled with water at high tide, and an
-inner and outer curtain, the inner curtain, as usual, commanding the
-outer. The inner ward is square: it has a drum tower at each of the
-angles, and another in the centre of each of the east and west sides.
-The north and south curtains are broken by gatehouses, also flanked
-by drum towers.[291] The north gatehouse was the largest, and upon
-its first floor was an imposing hall. The curtain of the outer ward,
-surrounding the inner curtain, was adapted to the projection of the
-intermediate drum towers and the gatehouses of the inner ward by the
-construction of each face with a salient angle in the centre (277).
-There are no traces of any cross-walls barring the passage of the outer
-ward. The outer curtain, which, owing to the flat site, is not the
-mere low bastioned wall of Caerphilly or Harlech, has a drum tower at
-each angle. On each of the north, east, and west curtains, there are
-three smaller drum towers, the central one of which caps the salient.
-The plan is thus of a most symmetrical and uniform kind. The south
-curtain of the outer ward, however, has no intermediate drum towers,
-and its salient is nearly capped by the outer gateway. This gateway,
-however, flanked by rectangular towers,[292] is set obliquely to the
-wall. Entering the outer ward, immediately on our right is the small
-rectangular barbican, pierced with cross-loops, which covers the inner
-gateway, so that two right-angled turns must be made before the inner
-ward is entered (277).
-
-[Illustration: Beaumaris Castle]
-
-This entrance, most carefully protected, shows even higher skill than
-the barbican of Conway and the elaborate passage from the water-gate at
-Harlech. But there are two further remarkable defences in this castle.
-We have seen that, as at Caerphilly, there is a large gatehouse at
-either end of the inner ward. The rear gatehouse, which, as already
-noted, is the more important, has no barbican. The rear gateway of
-the outer ward is set obliquely to it, in the north curtain east of
-the salient, and is simply a large postern in the wall. Outside it,
-however, the wall is reinforced by four buttresses, each of which is
-pierced by a loop; the outer buttresses are looped to the field, the
-inner towards the gateway. The westernmost buttress projects beyond
-the rest, and it is clear that the design was intended to conceal and
-protect the postern from attack, and that the western side, in the
-direction of the interior of Anglesey, was that on which an attack
-was most to be expected. The other defence is the spur-wall, which,
-running almost at right angles to the south wall of the outer ward,
-shut off the main entrance and the beach on which it opened from the
-beach on the eastern side of the castle. The wall is pierced by a
-passage, is looped in both faces, and is flanked by a half-round tower
-on the west face.
-
-Although, at first sight, the towers of Beaumaris, on its absolutely
-level site, look low and unimportant, and present an extraordinary
-contrast to those of Harlech, Carnarvon, or Conway, the area of the
-castle is actually large, and no other Edwardian castle presents
-so perfectly scientific a system of defence. The outer curtain, in
-addition to the rampart-walk, has loops pierced at regular intervals
-in its lower portion; the rampart-walk is partly carried by continuous
-corbelling upon the inner face of the wall. The inner curtain,
-moreover, is pierced, on the level of the first floor of the gatehouses
-and towers, by a continuous vaulted passage, looped to the field. This
-extends round the whole ward, and is broken only at the north-west
-angle, where it meets the northern gatehouse. Everywhere in the walls
-of the castle where a loop could be of use, it was made. Of the points
-noticed, both the entrances are unusual, and the design of the postern
-at the rear seems to be unique. The spur-wall, though less elaborately
-treated, is found covering a main entrance at Kidwelly and elsewhere;
-and the long passages in the thickness of the wall are found in
-portions of the defences at Caerphilly and Carnarvon. The towers at
-Beaumaris are entered by straight stairs from the gorge; and throughout
-the castle, in the gatehouses, great hall, and basements of the
-towers, the method of carrying a wooden roof upon detached stone ribs
-prevailed, which is very noticeable also at Conway and Harlech.
-
-Kidwelly castle[293] (267), another late thirteenth-century building,
-stands on a steep hill, the east side of which slopes abruptly to
-the Gwendraeth Fach river. The castle is on the opposite side of the
-river to the town of Kidwelly, and a long base-court, of which part
-of the gatehouse remains, descended the slope towards the bridge. At
-the head of this ascent a barbican and drawbridge formed the approach
-to a strong gatehouse, flanked by two battering towers, and further
-protected by a spur-wall across the end of the ditch. The gatehouse is
-in the extreme south-east angle of the outer ward, which, describing
-a wide curve, covers three sides of the nearly square inner ward, and
-is separated from the suburb of Kidwelly on this side the river by the
-ditch. The site was narrow, as at Chepstow, and the eastward slope so
-steep that the outer ward was not completed along this side, but its
-curtain was continued by the eastern drum towers and curtain of the
-inner ward. Three half-round towers were made in the curving curtain of
-the outer ward; at the opposite extremity to the gatehouse, near the
-north-east angle, a postern, flanked by small drum towers, gave access
-to a northern earthwork, which may be compared with the horn-work at
-Caerphilly, but had no retaining wall.
-
-Kidwelly, with its outworks in front and rear, at once recalls
-Caerphilly. The irregularly concentric plan, with the inner ward on
-one side of the interior of the outer, is very unusual, but provides
-a link between the concentric plan and the extension of the early
-plan of Chepstow. The provision of both front and rear gateways is a
-feature of Caerphilly, Chepstow, Beaumaris, and Conway; and, as at
-Caerphilly, Rhuddlan, and Beaumaris, the inner ward also has front
-and rear entrances. These, however, at Kidwelly, are mere doorways in
-the wall. The inner ward was small, with very large and perfect drum
-towers at its angles: the domestic buildings arranged on either side
-of it left only a narrow passage through the middle. A tower, of which
-the two upper stories formed the chapel, was built out upon the east
-slope, from the corner of the ward next the south-east drum tower. The
-gatehouse, then, which here, as at Harlech and Beaumaris, contains a
-large hall and other apartments, and, in addition to a vice to the
-upper floors, has an outer stair and landing against its north face,
-was on the outer, not the inner, line of defence, and was protected by
-the ditch, the barbican, and the base-court beyond. There are remains
-of buildings, probably intended for the garrison, in the outer ward.
-The basement of the gatehouse, which is below the level of the ward,
-contains vaulted chambers. In one of these is a lower vault, which has
-had a domed roof, and may have been used for stores or a reservoir: in
-another there appear to be indications of the mouth of a well.
-
-[Illustration: Kidwelly Castle; Tower at south-west angle of inner ward]
-
-The defensive precautions taken at Kidwelly were not so thorough as in
-the other great Welsh castles of the time, and the chief reliance of
-the builders was in the strength of their walls and towers. The outer
-curtain has the peculiarity, rare in English castles of the date, of
-possessing a stair built against it from the level of the ward.[294]
-The inner ward has several curious features. The stair to the curtain
-was a straight flight of steps protected by the west wall of the main
-entrance from the outer ward. A path along the back of the rampart of
-the south curtain led into the south-west drum tower, from the second
-floor of which the rampart-walk was gained. The walk, though much
-overgrown by ivy and other weeds, still keeps its rear-wall, and is
-continued through the towers and round the inner ward. The two western
-drum towers are interesting. The upper part of that on the north, where
-it faces the ward, is not a simple curve, but is broken into two convex
-curves, with a recess between: the reason of this is not apparent.[295]
-The south-west tower (281), standing at an angle from which it commands
-the inner face of the great gatehouse, has the most unusual peculiarity
-of having all its stages covered with vaulting: the vaults themselves
-are shallow domes, rather rudely constructed. It is probable that the
-engineers may have intended to establish a catapult on the tower in
-time of siege. The situation of the tower would have been excellently
-suited for that purpose, but its unusual strength may be due merely
-to its position in the line of attack. The basements of all the towers
-are vaulted, but that of this particular tower, instead of being
-entered from the ward or one of the domestic buildings directly, is
-entered by a long and dark passage in the thickness of the south wall,
-from the left-hand side of the doorway of the inner ward. The unusual
-precautions taken with regard to this tower and its entrances give it a
-prominent position in an account of the castle; and, although it is no
-larger or loftier than the other angle-towers of the inner ward, it has
-something of the special importance of Marten’s tower at Chepstow or
-the Eagle tower at Carnarvon.
-
-[Illustration: Carcassonne]
-
-Although the Edwardian castle in Wales has many points of interest,
-and provides a highly-developed scheme of defence, yet its devices
-are simple when compared with the highest achievements of French
-fortification. The elaborate care bestowed upon the outer defences
-of Caerphilly, and the variety of ingenuity manifested at Beaumaris,
-are exceptions to this general statement; while the general plan of
-Carnarvon is as imposing as that of any castle in Europe. But such
-carefully contrived approaches as the barbican of Conway and the
-long ascent from the water-gate at Harlech take a second place when
-compared with such a work as the outer approach to the castle of
-Carcassonne, as restored with approximate faithfulness in the drawings
-of Viollet-le-Duc (283). The castle stood within the inner wall of
-the town, occupying a rectangular site on the south-west side of this
-masterpiece of concentric planning. The entrance from the town was
-guarded by a semicircular barbican; but the approach which called
-for the most watchful defence was that from the foot of the hill, on
-the edge of which the city stands. Where the hill meets the plain,
-therefore, below the castle, a great barbican was constructed, within
-the outer palisade and ditch of which was a great round tower, not
-unlike the great tower on the mount at Windsor, surrounded by a wet
-ditch. The centre of this _châtelet_ was open to the sky: the walls
-were pierced with two rows of loops below the rampart. This tower
-guarded the entrance to a walled and carefully protected ascent,
-which, after making a right-angled turn, led upwards in a straight
-passage,[296] commanded by the rampart of the outer curtain of the
-town. Where it met the curtain, it turned to the right, along the foot
-of the wall, and so reached a gateway into the outer ward or “lists” of
-the town. But here the passage, passing through a covered vestibule,
-turned back on its own course, and entered an inner barbican, with two
-upper stages. Not until this was passed, were the lists entered, and
-the chief gateway of the castle, in the inner curtain, reached. As we
-trace this passage, we recall the ascent at Harlech and the traps set
-for an enemy at Beaumaris; but their combination here is on a scale
-undreamed of in those fortresses, minutely calculated though their
-planning was.
-
-[Illustration: Domfront; Casemates]
-
-The wall-galleries, again, at Carnarvon and Beaumaris, are a device
-of great utility, unusual in English castles, and are planned at
-Carnarvon with exceptional skill; while, at Caerphilly, the gallery in
-the south wall, between the hall and the moat, is a solution of the
-defence of a point which the somewhat crowded plan of the domestic
-buildings threatened to leave unguarded. But the covered gallery
-below the ramparts was not a prominent feature of medieval defence in
-England. On the other hand, it was used freely in France. Two examples
-of the defensive use of covered galleries may be given here. One is
-from Domfront, where, as at Coucy, the castle was separated from the
-walled town by a very formidable ditch. On the side next the castle,
-the rock was covered by a retaining wall flanked by two round towers at
-the ends, and a polygonal tower near the centre. At some time in the
-middle ages, probably late in the thirteenth century, the rock behind
-the wall was pierced by a long gallery, communicating with all three
-towers, and by stairs at intervals with the upper ward above. Loops
-were made in the retaining wall, so that the approach upon this side
-was thus provided with a line of defence below the level of the towers
-and curtain. The gallery is not on one level throughout, but forms a
-series of separate vaulted casemates, connected with one another by
-short flights of stairs[297] (284).
-
-In the second case, at Coucy, we have a case of a closed gallery,
-without loops, which was designed as a counter-mine against the efforts
-of the sappers of an attacking force. Remains of such galleries exist
-in more than one part of the castle, forming a remarkable addition to
-defences which, by themselves, were strong enough to discourage attack.
-Towards the end of the fourteenth century, the curtain of the donjon,
-the strongest tower in Europe, was thickened by the addition of a talus
-or battering base, which was pierced by a passage. The main object of
-this work was to cover in a spring which had its source in the ditch at
-the foot of the curtain: the passage communicated at one end with an
-earlier and well-guarded passage leading from the domestic buildings to
-a postern in the wall which crossed the west end of the ditch, while,
-at the other, it communicated by a stair with the rampart-walk of the
-curtain and gatehouse of the inner ward. But it did not merely form a
-convenient means of access to the spring. It afforded an opportunity
-to the defenders of counteracting the miners of the enemy; while, if
-the miners pierced their way through the talus, they would be met by
-the thick curtain on the other side of the passage. The passage itself,
-well protected at both ends, would be commanded by the defence; while
-the spring in the middle, to those not acquainted with the geography of
-the place, would form a dangerous barrier in the darkness.
-
-To such finished achievements of military art as these, which have
-been quoted as specimen examples, our English castles can afford no
-exact parallel. In the military, as in the ecclesiastical architecture
-of France, principles were worked out with a logical precision and
-completeness, which, in its practical effect, provokes our wonder.
-The effort manifested in the Edwardian castle is more humble; the
-achievement more limited. This, however, is true rather of the scale
-of the castle and the details of its defence than of the general idea.
-The main object, of flanking the curtain effectually and completely,
-is as fully realised as in any foreign example; while it may be safely
-said that in no country were the advantages of concentric lines of
-defence better exhibited than in the Welsh castles, whose main features
-have been indicated in this chapter. The walls of Carcassonne may
-provide us with the concentric plan on its largest scale; but the
-Welsh castles show at least an equal understanding of the value of
-concentric fortifications. The difference lies in the fact that the
-French engineer proceeded to strengthen his defences by the addition of
-intricate refinements and subtle devices; while the Englishman stopped
-short at this point, and was satisfied when his aim of providing and
-combining adequate towers and walls of defence was achieved.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER XI
-
-MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES: FORTIFIED TOWNS AND
-CASTLES
-
-
-The strengthening of the curtain of the castle was perfected in the
-concentric plan, in which also was established, for the time being, the
-superiority of defence to attack. But the very fact that the castle had
-reached a point at which further development in the existing condition
-of things was impossible, was fatal to its continued existence as
-a stronghold. A castle like Caerphilly did not put an end to local
-warfare: it merely warned an enemy off a forbidden track. Its own
-safety was secured, because its almost impregnable defences made any
-attempt at a siege ridiculous. Other circumstances, however, combined
-to render the castle obsolete. The rise of towns and the growth of
-a wealthy mercantile class hastened the decline of feudalism. The
-feudal baron was no longer the representative of an all-important
-class, and his fortress was of minor importance compared with the
-walled boroughs which were symbolical of the real strength of the
-country. But, in addition to this social transition, there took place
-a change in warfare which had a far-reaching influence upon castle
-and walled town alike. Fire-arms came into general use in the early
-part of the fourteenth century.[298] Missiles, for which hitherto the
-only available machines had been those involving discharge by torsion,
-tension, or counterpoise, could now be delivered by the new method
-of detonation. This produced an artillery which could be worked with
-greater economy of labour, and discharged the missiles themselves with
-greater force. Not merely can a ball of stone or iron be projected
-with greater impetus than can be given by the older methods; but
-the direction which it takes is more nearly horizontal than that
-given to it by the mangonel and kindred machines. It is true that, at
-first, the power of cannon remained relatively weak; but their gradual
-improvement made the old systems of defence useless. Lofty walls, which
-could resist the catapults of the past, were easily dismantled by
-cannon-shot (288). Harlech, with its lofty curtains and angle-towers,
-was an ideal stronghold, as long as explosives were not employed for
-attack and defence. But, when cannon are directed against such defences
-(273), and the surface of the walls is pounded with shot, the height
-of the fortifications becomes a danger; and, in order to plant the
-cannon of the defence on the walls, those walls have to be as solid as
-possible to avoid the constant vibration arising from the discharge,
-and as low as possible to increase their stability and to place the
-enemy within range. The change is obvious, if we contrast the lofty
-and comparatively slender towers of Carcassonne or Aigues-Mortes with
-the massive drum towers of the French castles or walled towns of the
-fifteenth century, like those of the castle of Alençon (289) or of
-the town of Saint-Malo (290). Later still, the flanking of the walls
-of towns and castles shows a transition from the round tower to the
-bastion; and we find massive projections like the Tour Gabriel at
-Mont-Saint-Michel (291), which rise little, if at all, above the level
-of the adjacent wall. The ultimate outcome of this transition is the
-bastion pure and simple, flanking the low and solid earthen bank
-with its reveting wall, as at Saint-Paul-du-Var, or, later, at our
-own Berwick-on-Tweed.[299] A step further brings us to the scientific
-fortification of the seventeenth century, to Lille and Arras, and those
-magnificent fortresses which the progress of the nineteenth century has
-already made of historical, rather than practical, interest.[300]
-
-[Illustration: Gatehouse, Barbican, and Curtain wall of Town battered
-by cannon-shot]
-
-[Illustration: Alençon]
-
-[Illustration: Saint-Malo; Grande porte]
-
-[Illustration: Mont-St-Michel; Tour Gabriel]
-
-With these modern developments we have no concern in this book; and in
-these two concluding chapters we can trace merely the later history,
-from a defensive point of view, of that type of fortification whose
-advance we have hitherto pursued, and of the gradual amalgamation
-of the medieval castle with the medieval dwelling-house. The old
-distinction between the castle and the _burh_ still asserted itself.
-During the greater part of the middle ages, from the Norman conquest to
-the fourteenth century, the castle, the stronghold of the individual
-lord, was the highest type of fortification, and the town, as at
-Berwick in the reign of Edward I., or at Conway or Carnarvon, was, when
-walled, little more than an appendage or outer ward to the castle. With
-the introduction of fire-arms, the town began once more to take its
-place in the van of the defence. Warfare, from the time of the wars
-of Edward III. in France, and even earlier, ceased to be an affair
-of sieges of castles. Battles were fought more and more in the open
-field, and the reduction of the fortified town, not of strongholds
-of individuals, became the chief object of campaigns. The castle,
-relegated to a secondary place, developed more and more on the lines of
-the dwelling-house; and, finally, as the castle disappeared, the town
-with its citadel became all-important as the object of attack and the
-base of operations. In brief, the steps in the history of fortification
-after the Conquest are these. The timber defences of the Saxon _burh_
-became of secondary importance to the timber defences of the Norman
-castle. These were subordinated to the keep, the symbol of the dominion
-of the feudal lord. The keep reached its climax in the stone tower. At
-this point the revulsion began. The strengthening of the stone curtain
-made the keep obsolete; and, finally, the perfection of the curtain
-of the castle once attained, military science applied itself to the
-strengthening of the wall of the town, until, aided by social changes
-and scientific improvements, the castle itself became altogether
-unnecessary.
-
-[Illustration: NEWCASTLE: town wall]
-
-[Illustration: SOUTHAMPTON: town wall]
-
-The principles of defence of the walled town are those of the castle;
-and hitherto we have drawn illustrations from both with little
-discrimination. In both cases the same methods of attack are provided
-against by the use of the same means. But it must be remembered that
-the area of the town is larger than that of the castle, and that
-while, in the castle, the bailey is the common muster-ground from
-which every part of the curtain can be easily reached, there can be
-no such open space enclosed by the walls of a large inhabited town or
-city. Thus, while the market-place, in or near the centre of the town,
-would serve as a general rallying-ground,[301] it was necessary also
-to keep a clear space at the foot of the inner side of the walls, so
-that free communication between every part might be preserved. From the
-continuous lane which was thus formed between the wall and the houses
-of the town, and was crossed at intervals by the main thoroughfares
-leading to the gates, access was gained to the rear of the flanking
-towers, and to the stairs by which, from time to time, the rampart-walk
-was reached. Most towns which have been walled retain traces of this
-arrangement. At Southampton the _pomerium_,[302] as this clear space
-is called in medieval documents, survives on the east side of the
-town in the lane still known as “Back of the Walls.” At Carnarvon it
-is nearly entire, except on the west side of the town. At Newcastle
-(293) it remains in a very perfect state on the north-west side of the
-enclosure, where the walls and their intermediate turrets are also
-fairly perfect; and it can be traced in a paved lane on the west side,
-where the walls are gone.[303] Nearly the whole extent of the inner
-city walls of Bristol, of which little remains, can be easily traced
-by the survival of the _pomerium_ in a series of curved lanes. The line
-of the east wall of Northampton can be recovered in the same way; and
-although, as at York, modern encroachments have in many places removed
-the _pomerium_, it usually survived to mark the site of town walls,
-even long after those walls had been destroyed.
-
-[Illustration: Conway; Porth Isaf]
-
-During the epoch at which fortification reached its highest point, the
-wall of a town was systematically flanked by towers, which, as we have
-seen at Conway and Avignon, were left open upon the side next the town.
-Gates were made in the wall, where main roads approached the place.
-Thus the gates of Coucy were three, admitting the roads from Laon,
-Soissons, and Chauny. At Conway (256) there were three gates; but of
-these one communicated merely with a quay, while another gave access to
-the castle mill: the third or north-western gate alone was the direct
-entrance to the promontory on which the town and castle were built. At
-Chepstow, where the town also formed a _cul-de-sac_, there was only one
-main gateway, at the north-west end of the town. The main gateway of
-Carnarvon was on the east side of the town; while, opposite to it, in
-the west wall, was a smaller gateway opening, like the Porth Isaf[304]
-(295) at Conway, upon the quay. Not all towns, however, occupied
-positions like Chepstow, Conway, and Carnarvon, where water takes so
-large a share in the defence. Great centres of commerce like London and
-York, towards which a number of roads converged, had many gates, not
-counting the posterns in their walls. Four of the gates of York remain,
-Micklegate bar on the south-west, through which the road from Tadcaster
-entered the city, Walmgate bar on the south-east, admitting the road
-from Beverley and Hull, Monk bar on the east, through which passed
-the road from Scarborough, Bootham bar on the north, which was the
-entrance from the direction of Thirsk and Easingwold. The gatehouses
-are all rectangular structures, the plan and lower portions of which
-are of the twelfth century, and recall the stone gatehouses of early
-castles: the upper stages, however, are of the fourteenth century,
-and have tall bartizans at the outer angles. The great Bargate at
-Southampton, through which the road from the north entered the circuit
-of the walls, is similarly a rectangular Norman gatehouse, enlarged and
-supplied with flanking towers in the fourteenth century: the outer face
-was further strengthened, within a century of these additions, by a
-half-octagonal projection, the battlements of which were machicolated.
-There was another gate on the east side of Southampton, which now has
-disappeared. In the west wall the rectangular water-gate and a postern
-remain; while, on the quay at the south-eastern angle of the walls,
-there is another gate, covered by a long spur-work which projects
-from the wall at this point and crossed the town-ditch. For smaller
-gatehouses like the western gatehouses of Carnarvon and Southampton,
-the old rectangular form was sufficient; but the principal entries of
-towns needed effective flanking. As a rule, town gatehouses of the
-Edwardian period and the fourteenth century generally were flanked
-by round towers at the outer angles, like those at Conway (295),
-Winchelsea, or the West gate at Canterbury. In the fifteenth century,
-the warlike character of the defences of English towns was considerably
-lessened. The Stonebow or southern gatehouse at Lincoln, a long
-rectangular building with slender angle turrets of no great projection,
-had no special provisions for defence beyond the gates by which it was
-closed. Here and there, when the need of military defence ceased to
-exist, churches were built upon the walls and gateways of towns. Thus
-above the St John’s gate of Bristol, on the south side of the city,
-rise the tower and spire which were common to the churches of St John
-the Baptist and St Lawrence; while churches were built close to or
-immediately above the east and west gates of Warwick.
-
-[Illustration: Monmouth; Gatehouse on Monnow bridge]
-
-Where one of the main approaches to a town crossed a river, the defence
-of the passage was of course necessary. In the case of the St John’s
-gate of Bristol, already mentioned, the course of the narrow river
-Frome, on which it opened, was defended by an additional wall on the
-other side of the stream; and in this wall, covering St John’s gate,
-was the strongly fortified Frome gate. The case of York, where the
-river nearly bisects the walled enclosure, is most unusual. In other
-instances, the town was confined to one side of the stream, and the
-approach from the river was protected by a barbican, which could take
-the form either of an outer defence to the gateway itself, or of a
-_tête-du-pont_ on the opposite side of the stream, or of a fortified
-passage across the bridge. Of barbicans in general much has been
-said already; and we have seen at York and Tenby something of town
-barbicans, while in the Porte de Laon at Coucy, we have had an instance
-of a barbican acting as a _tête-du-pont_ on the further side of a town
-ditch. The arrangement of the south-western approach to Kenilworth
-castle is a good instance of the combination, in castle fortification,
-of _tête-du-pont_, fortified causeway, and gatehouse with barbican.
-Fortified bridges were not uncommon in the middle ages, but those which
-remain are few. The finest example of all is the fourteenth-century
-Pont Valentré at Cahors (Lot), a noble bridge of six lofty pointed
-arches, divided by piers which are supplied with the usual triangular
-spurs or cut-waters. At each end of the bridge is a massive rectangular
-gateway tower, battlemented, with pyramidal roofs, and machicolated
-galleries below the battlements; while in the middle of the passage is
-a third tower, the ground-floor of which was gated and portcullised.
-The brick bridge, called the Pont des Consuls, at Montauban
-(Tarn-et-Garonne), was somewhat similarly defended. Examples from
-other countries are the thirteenth-century covered bridge at Tournai,
-the bridge of Alcantarà at Toledo, and the bridge of Prague, which
-was defended about the middle of the fourteenth century with a tall
-rectangular gate-tower at one end, and a gateway, flanked by towers of
-unequal size, at the other. In England two small examples of fortified
-bridges remain. Upon the bridge at Monmouth (297) is a gatehouse with a
-machicolated battlement and a gateway which was closed by a portcullis:
-this stood well in advance of the Bridge gate of the town, which was
-at a little distance from the stream. At Warkworth, on the side of the
-bridge next the town, is a plain rectangular gatehouse, the arch and
-ground-floor of which remain intact. The triangular patch of land,
-south of the Coquet, on which Warkworth is built, was well defended on
-two sides by the river, and on the third side by the castle, and the
-gatehouse at the bridge was its only stone fortification.
-
-[Illustration: WELLS: gatehouse of bishop’s palace]
-
-The progress of the art of defence under Edward I. was accompanied
-by the enclosure within defensive walls of areas and houses not
-originally intended for military purposes. Disputes between the
-cathedral priory and the citizens of Norwich led to the enclosure of
-the monastery within a fortified precinct:[305] the royal licence for
-the construction of the water-gate bears date 27th July 1276.[306] On
-8th May 1285, the dean and chapter of Lincoln obtained their first
-licence for the enclosure of their precinct with a wall 12 feet
-high;[307] and ten days later a similar licence was issued to the
-dean and chapter of York.[308] On 10th June the dean and chapter of
-St Paul’s,[309] and on 1st January following the dean and chapter of
-Exeter,[310] had letters patent to the same effect. Bishop Burnell
-had licence to wall and crenellate the churchyard and close of Wells,
-15th March 1285-6,[311] while he was busy building his strong house
-at Acton Burnell. Licence to crenellate the priory of Tynemouth,
-on its exposed site, was granted 5th September 1295.[312] Bishop
-Walter Langton had licence to wall the close of Lichfield, 18th
-April 1299.[313] Licence to the abbot and convent of Peterborough to
-crenellate the gate of the abbey and two chambers lying between the
-gate and the church was granted 18th July 1309.[314] At Lincoln, where
-a large portion of the close walls may still be seen, there was some
-delay in building. Two licences, confirming the letters patent of
-1285, were granted by Edward II. in one year.[315] On 6th December
-1318, the licence was again renewed: the wall might be raised to a
-greater height than 12 feet, and might be crenellated and provided
-with crenellated turrets.[316] Further, on 28th September 1329, Bishop
-Burghersh received letters patent, permitting him, in the most liberal
-terms, to “repair, raise, crenellate, and turrellate” the walls of the
-bishop’s palace.[317] Thus, in the reign of Edward III., there were no
-less than three fortified enclosures within the circuit of the walls
-of Lincoln—the castle, the close round the cathedral, and the bishop’s
-palace. To-day, as we stand in the open space at the head of the Steep
-Hill, to our left is the gatehouse of the castle; while to our right
-is the Exchequer gate, the inner gatehouse of the close. This is a
-lofty oblong building of three stages, with a large central archway,
-and a smaller archway on each side for pedestrians. On the west or
-outer side the face is plain, but on the eastern side it is broken by
-two half-octagon turrets, containing vices. There was also an outer
-gatehouse, some yards to the west.[318] The south-eastern gatehouse of
-the close, known as Pottergate, still remains, a rectangular building
-with an upper stage. At Wells, Salisbury,[319] and Norwich, the
-_enceinte_ of the close may still easily be traced; while at Wells,
-close by the gatehouse of the close, is the outer gatehouse of the
-bishop’s palace. The palace itself retains its wet moat, and is still
-approached by its drawbridge and through a formidable inner gatehouse,
-which is flanked by two half-octagon towers (300).
-
-[Illustration: Thornton Abbey; Gatehouse]
-
-[Illustration: Thornton Abbey; Plan of gatehouse]
-
-Of gatehouses of abbeys and priories, many still remain, some of which,
-like those at Bridlington, Tewkesbury, and Whalley,[320] are of
-great size, and were capable of offering defence, if necessary. But
-by far the most important of monastic gatehouses is that at Thornton
-abbey in Lincolnshire, a magnificent building of brick with stone
-dressings (302). The licence to the abbot and convent to “build and
-crenellate a new house over and beside their abbey gate” bears date
-6th August 1382.[321] The gatehouse is an oblong of three lofty stages
-with half-octagon turrets at the angles. The single archway on the
-ground-floor is approached through a narrow barbican, set obliquely to
-the building (331). On each side of the entrance is a bold half-octagon
-buttress. The inner face of the entrance is flanked by half-octagon
-turrets, in the southern of which is the vice which gives access to the
-upper floors. There are no straight side-passages as in the Exchequer
-gate at Lincoln, where the porters’ lodges are between the main and
-lateral entrances; but at Thornton an archway was built in the south
-wall of the central passage, and a diagonal side entrance constructed,
-with a wide inner archway. The outer entrance (303) was protected by
-a portcullis, and the lodges and turrets on either side had loops to
-the field. On the first floor of the gatehouse is a spacious room,
-which communicates by mural passages with the first floor of the
-angle-turrets and with galleries in the adjacent walls. These are
-all provided with loops, so that the approach to the monastery was
-effectually commanded. This gatehouse is nearly contemporary with the
-West gate of the city of Canterbury, which was begun by Archbishop
-Sudbury about 1379;[322] but the Canterbury gateway takes the orthodox
-form of a central passage recessed between two round towers, which are
-bold projections from a rectangular plan, and its architecture cannot
-compare with the moulded archways, elaborate ribbed vaulting, and
-canopied niches of Thornton.[323]
-
-[Illustration: STOKESAY: hall]
-
-[Illustration: STOKESAY CASTLE from south-west]
-
-Fortified closes, abbeys, and bishop’s palaces bring us back to the
-castle, in the history of which is the epitome of the art of defence.
-The concentric plan displayed the resources of the defenders in their
-most scientific form, but the concentric plan, as we have seen, is
-not very common, and its systematic use in English architecture was
-practically confined to a single period. The site, as at Kidwelly,
-did not always allow of the full extension of the outer ward, so as
-completely to encircle the inner. As a rule, we find that the English
-castle of the fourteenth century consists, like Richmond and Ludlow in
-their earliest form, or like Carew or Manorbier, of a single bailey
-without a keep. This enclosure is flanked by towers at adequate
-intervals, and is entered through an imposing gatehouse between two
-drum towers. No English castle of this type can compare with the
-fourteenth-century castle of Saint-André at Villeneuve d’Avignon (307),
-which kept watch upon the castle of the popes on the opposite bank of
-the Rhône, or with the Breton castles of Fougères (250) and Vitré. The
-castle of Caerlaverock (364), near Dumfries, not the famous castle
-besieged by Edward I., but a castle founded in 1333 on a new site, is
-a good instance of a simple plan, in which a single ward is surrounded
-by a flanked curtain. The castle stands on low and marshy ground near
-the Solway firth. An island, surrounded by a broad wet ditch, which,
-in the rear of the castle, assumes the proportions of a small lake, is
-enclosed by three sections of curtain forming an equilateral triangle.
-A drum tower, low and of rather slender proportions, covered each angle
-of the base;[324] while at the apex was a lofty gatehouse, flanked
-by drum towers, and approached by a drawbridge. The interior of the
-castle is somewhat confined, and the older domestic buildings were
-much enlarged in the sixteenth century by a mansion, somewhat in the
-style of the French Renaissance, which was built against the curtain to
-the left hand of the entrance. The old hall occupied the base of the
-triangle, while the kitchen offices were against the right-hand curtain.
-
-[Illustration: Villeneuve d’Avignon]
-
-Licences to crenellate mansions are common in the Patent rolls of the
-Edwards and Richard II. In this way, many private dwelling-houses
-reached the rank of castles, while still retaining strongly marked
-features of their domestic object. The fortified house of Stokesay
-(306) in Shropshire, which Lawrence of Ludlow had licence to
-crenellate, 19th October 1290,[325] is a case in point, where the
-moated manor-house, with its strong tower, well deserves the name
-of castle. At the same time, many of the houses for which licences
-of crenellation were granted were never more than manor-houses to
-which were added fortifications of a limited kind. This was the case
-with Henry Percy’s houses of Spofforth, Leconfield, and Petworth,
-the licence for which bears date 14th October 1308.[326] Markenfield
-hall in Yorkshire, for which a licence was granted 28th February
-1309-10,[327] is still one of our most valuable examples of domestic,
-as distinct from military, architecture. Such fortifications as these
-houses had or still have were not designed to stand a siege, but to
-ensure privacy and keep off casual marauders. Even in the sixteenth
-century, dwelling-houses like Compton Wyniates in Warwickshire or
-Tolleshunt Major in Essex were surrounded by a moat or simply by a wall.
-
-Against these minor fortifications, however, we must put the cases
-in which the process of crenellation definitely meant conversion
-into a castle. Dunstanburgh, which Thomas of Lancaster had licence
-to crenellate in 1315,[328] is a military stronghold of the most
-pronounced type. Its exposed position upon the Northumbrian coast was
-one reason of its strength: coast castles needed strong defences, and
-we find that, during the period of the wars with France and later,
-the fortification of castles like Dover was a constant method of
-precaution against invasion.[329] Dunstanburgh has much in common with
-the ordinary strong dwelling-houses of Northumberland. Its base-court
-is a very large enclosure, occupying most of the area of the promontory
-on which the castle is situated; while the actual castle consists of a
-small and gloomy bailey. A wall, flanked at each end by a rectangular
-tower, shut off the enclosed space from the mainland. In the wall
-between the two towers rose the great gatehouse, which, standing in the
-front of attack, gave access to the smaller ward, and contained upon
-its upper floors the chief domestic apartments. Strongly defended as
-this gatehouse was, with two drum towers of great size flanking the
-entrance, the immediate access which it gave to the heart of the castle
-was evidently a source of danger. At a later date, the entrance was
-walled up, and a new gateway made in the curtain at a point near by.
-The gatehouse thus was practically turned into a keep, and the process
-which had taken place at Richmond towards the end of the twelfth
-century was virtually repeated, with this exception, that the actual
-fabric of the gatehouse remained, and was not superseded by a new form
-of strong tower. Precisely the same thing happened at Llanstephan
-in Carmarthenshire. This castle, one of the most imposing of Welsh
-strongholds, stands on a steep and almost isolated hill, where the Towy
-enters the Bristol Channel. It is divided by a cross-wall into a large
-outer ward and an inner ward which occupies the top of the sloping
-summit of the hill. The chief buildings were in the outer ward, and the
-finest of them was the great gatehouse, situated at the head of the
-landward slope of the hill, and concealed from the river by the convex
-curve of the curtain and by a large tower at the eastern angle of the
-enclosure. This gatehouse is of trapezoidal form: the gateway and its
-drum towers front the field, but the building spreads inwards, and has
-two much smaller round towers at its inner angles. It was undesirable,
-however, that the gatehouse, which, from the military and domestic
-point of view alike, was the principal building in the castle, should
-be the point on which the besiegers could concentrate all their force.
-Consequently, the gateway was blocked not long after it was built, and
-a new entrance was made beside it in the curtain. The way into the
-higher ward at Llanstephan was closed by a small rectangular gatehouse,
-built near one end of the dividing curtain.
-
-Thus at Dunstanburgh and Llanstephan, castles in which the system of
-defence was not founded upon the concentric plan, but relied upon
-the strength of an adequately flanked curtain, gatehouses which are
-worthy of Caerphilly and Harlech, and stand upon the outer line of
-defence,[330] reverted to the condition of keeps. The possible use of
-a keep as an ultimate refuge never ceased altogether to have weight
-with castle-builders. The Percys, after their purchase of Alnwick early
-in the fourteenth century,[331] although there was ample room for a
-large mansion in one or other of the wards, built their dwelling as
-a cluster of walls and towers round a courtyard on the mount between
-the two wards. Some part of the substructure, the gatehouse with its
-octagonal flanking towers, and the curious triple-arched recess at
-the head of the well (310), are the most that remains to us of the
-early fourteenth-century mansion; but with these is incorporated
-twelfth-century work, which shows that the Percys built their house
-upon the lines of an older house upon the mount.[332] Thus the
-dwelling-house at Alnwick is in reality a keep of unusual form, a
-large building with flanking towers built upon a mount which has been
-considerably levelled to allow of more room for the house and its
-internal courtyard (115).
-
-[Illustration: Alnwick Castle; Well-head]
-
-[Illustration: RABY CASTLE, DURHAM
-
-GROUND PLAN.]
-
-The strong tower, representing the survival of the keep, is found in
-another great northern castle of the fourteenth century, Raby, the
-castle of the Nevilles, where in other respects the domestic element
-is very prominent (311).[333] Raby, like Alnwick, is occupied to-day,
-but no such drastic changes as have converted the house on the mount
-at Alnwick into a comfortable modern residence were necessary here.
-There is an outer gatehouse slightly in advance of the north angle of
-the castle, which was surrounded by a moat and is nearly rectangular.
-The buildings are clustered round a main courtyard, the entrance to
-which is a gatehouse with a long vaulted passage behind it in the west
-block of buildings. At either end of the west front are two massive
-rectangular towers: Clifford’s tower, at the north end, is almost
-detached, and covers the north angle immediately opposite the gateway.
-The remaining tower, known as Bulmer’s tower, projects on five sides
-from the south angle of the building, and is the strong tower or keep
-of the castle. The kitchen, in the north block, is also contained
-within a strong tower, which does not project, however, from the rest
-of the buildings. But it was in the north of England that the keep
-survived most persistently. Middleham castle received much alteration
-at the hands of its Neville owners in the fourteenth century; but
-the twelfth-century keep was retained as the central feature of the
-enclosure. The rectangular keep of Knaresborough is entirely of the
-fourteenth century: it stood between an outer and inner ward, and its
-great peculiarity is that the only passage from one to the other was
-through the first floor of the keep.[334]
-
-[Illustration: BELSAY CASTLE]
-
-The tradition of the rectangular tower, however, was systematically
-preserved in the buildings known as pele-towers. These formed the
-chief defensive structures of enclosures called “peles,” a word
-derived from the Latin _pilum_ (a stake). The twelfth-century tower
-of Bowes, a large and important rectangular tower which guarded the
-pass over Stainmoor from the valley of the Eden to that of the Tees,
-is an early instance of the pele-tower; and probably a large palisaded
-enclosure or “barmkin” was attached to it. In the fourteenth century
-we find large pele-towers like those at Belsay (313) or Chipchase,
-or the great tower-house of East Gilling, the proportions of which
-recall the rectangular keeps of a century and a half earlier. Belsay,
-with its traceried two-light openings on the first floor, and large
-bartizans corbelled out at the angles of its battlements, is the most
-handsome building of its kind in the north of England. The ordinary
-pele-tower, however, is of a rather later date, and the large majority
-of Northumbrian examples are of the fifteenth, and now and then of
-the sixteenth century.[335] Halton tower, near Aydon castle, and the
-small tower in the corner of the churchyard at Corbridge,[336] are
-well-known examples; while one of the most imposing specimens is the
-oblong tower of the manor-house of the archbishops of York at Hexham.
-The normal elevation was of three stories. The ground-floor, in which
-was the doorway, was vaulted as a protection against fire; it may have
-been used as a stable, and certainly was used as a store-room. The door
-was of wood, but its outer face was protected by a heavy framework
-of iron. The first floor, reached by a mural stair, was the main
-living-room. The second floor was a sleeping-room; and the battlements
-at the top were generally machicolated. Garde-robes are usually found
-in these towers; but they can hardly be called comfortable residences,
-and had all the disadvantages of the twelfth-century tower-keep,
-without its roominess. They are found, not only in Northumberland, but
-throughout the northern counties and the south of Scotland, while, in
-the hill country of Derbyshire, the pele seems to have been a favourite
-form of stronghold. The twelfth-century tower of Peak castle is one of
-those examples which allies the pele-tower to the normal tower-keep;
-while Haddon hall gradually developed from an enclosure which was
-neither more nor less than a pele with a tower at one angle.[337]
-
-In this connection a word should be said about the fortification of
-churches. Ewenny priory church in Glamorgan, with its crenellated
-central tower and transept, is our only important example of
-fortified religious buildings such as were common in the centre and
-south of France—the cathedral of Albi (Tarn), the churches of Royat
-(Puy-de-Dôme) or Les-Saintes-Maries-sur-la-Mer (Bouches-du-Rhône).[338]
-None of our abbeys is protected by a donjon, like that of Montmajour,
-near Arles. There are, however, a certain number of churches, in
-districts exposed to constant warfare, the architecture of which,
-if not exactly military, was yet possibly constructed with a view
-to defence. The massive structure of some twelfth-century towers,
-like Melsonby in north Yorkshire, is probably due to the idea that
-they could be converted into strongholds, in case of a raid from
-the Scottish border. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
-when Scotland was dreaded as a constant foe, the habit of giving
-additional security to the church towers in this district was common.
-Some otherwise simple church towers, as at Bolton-on-Swale and Danby
-Wiske in north Yorkshire, have their lowest stage vaulted, probably
-to minimise the danger of fire. The doorway to the tower-stair at
-Bedale was defended by a portcullis, and there are a fireplace
-and garde-robe upon the first floor. At Spennithorne, in the same
-neighbourhood, the battlements of the tower borrowed an ornament from
-military architecture, and are crowned with figures of “defenders.”
-In border districts it is not unusual to find the ground-floor of the
-tower roofed with a pointed barrel-vault, as at Whickham in county
-Durham, where the church stands on a high hill near the confluence of
-the Tyne and Derwent. This is a very general custom in South Wales,
-where the towers are usually massive and unbuttressed, and stand upon
-a battering plinth.[339] In Pembrokeshire a more slender type of tower
-prevails, which usually batters upwards through its whole height: the
-ground-floor is vaulted, and in many cases the whole church, or, at any
-rate, the nave, is ceiled with a barrel-vault. It does not follow that
-the object of this form of construction is defensive: lack of timber,
-and the consequent employment of local stone for rubble vaulting, is
-partly responsible for it. But in no part of the country are military
-and ecclesiastical forms of architecture so closely allied. The
-barrel-vaults of Monkton priory church and St Mary’s at Pembroke are
-similar to those of the chapel and its substructure which occupy the
-north-west corner of the inner ward of Pembroke castle: those of the
-church at Manorbier have their counterparts in the vaults of the castle
-chapel and the large room on its ground-floor.
-
-If the pele-tower may be regarded as a direct survival of the
-rectangular keep in a simplified form, it is probable that the
-rectangular keep, with its angle turrets, also had a share in the
-origin of a type of castle or strong house, which became common,
-especially in the north of England, during the fourteenth and fifteenth
-centuries.[340] The plan of this species of castle is a rectangle,
-which, in the largest examples, as at Bolton in Wensleydale, has an
-open courtyard in the centre; but its distinguishing feature is the
-provision of four towers, each at an angle of the structure. Such
-keeps as those of Colchester and Kenilworth, where the turrets are of
-considerable size and projection, suggest this plan; and some of the
-earliest examples, like Haughton on the north Tyne, the oldest parts of
-which are of the thirteenth century, have little to distinguish them
-from the ordinary rectangular keep. The angle-towers at Haughton are
-of no great prominence; but, in the early fourteenth-century castle
-of Langley, to the west of Hexham, they are a striking feature of the
-building, and one is entirely devoted to a series of garde-robes,
-arranged in three stories, with a common pit in the basement. A
-building with a somewhat similar plan to these northern castles is the
-manor-house or castle which Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells,
-and chancellor of England under Edward I., built at Acton Burnell,
-in Shropshire.[341] Here, however, the building is of a thoroughly
-domestic type, with large two-light window-openings of great beauty,
-which at once remove any suspicion as to its military character. The
-castle of the Scropes at Bolton and that of the Nevilles at Sheriff
-Hutton represent the highest development of this quadrangular plan.
-The licence to crenellate Bolton was granted in 1379:[342] the licence
-for Sheriff Hutton bears date 1382.[343] Both castles are large
-buildings with a central courtyard, and in both the military ideal
-was uppermost. Sheriff Hutton is now in a complete state of ruin, but
-Bolton is fairly perfect; and from its structure one important fact
-may be deduced. While the usual precautions for defence were carefully
-preserved, and the outer openings in the walls interfered little with
-the general solidity of structure, the domestic buildings round the
-courtyard formed part and parcel of the fabric itself. They were not
-merely built up against or within the curtain, but the curtain was
-actually their outer wall, and not simply their defensive covering. In
-fact, the manor-house in these cases was not a separate building within
-the enclosure of the castle; but the castle was also the manor-house.
-The same combination of military with domestic aims is noticeable in
-the contemporary castle of Raby (1378), of which the plan, already
-described, approximates irregularly to the type.[344] Castles akin
-to Bolton and Sheriff Hutton are Lumley, the licence for which was
-granted in 1392,[345] and Chillingham, the angle-towers of which are
-of a much earlier date than is usual in castles of this plan.[346]
-At Chillingham the medieval work is somewhat obscured by alterations
-made in the seventeenth century, but the original plan is retained.
-Survivals of the quadrangular plan may be traced in some of the great
-manor-houses of the early Renaissance period. It is not difficult to
-detect in the plan of Hardwick hall (1587), while the ground-plan
-of Wollaton hall (1580) is probably derived from a similar source.
-Smaller houses like Barlborough hall, near Sheffield, or Wootton lodge,
-near Ashbourne, have a kinship with it, although in these cases, and
-especially in the first, the elevation is more tower-like than is usual
-in medieval buildings of the type. It is needless to say that these
-Renaissance buildings are without any military character.
-
-The traditional form of the rectangular keep was also responsible, no
-doubt, for the great tower-house which formed the principal feature,
-and is now the only portion left, of the castle of Tattershall in
-Lincolnshire. The discussion of this building belongs more properly
-to the last chapter of this book, for its general construction and
-architectural features are those of an age in which the military
-architecture of the middle ages was already little more than a
-survival. This age of transition begins in the last quarter of the
-fourteenth century; and, as already pointed out, castles like Bolton
-and Raby clearly show its influence. During the later half of the
-fourteenth and the fifteenth century, outside the north of England, it
-is rare to find a castle which actually deserves the name. The large
-private residence, with a certain amount of defensive precautions,
-became increasingly common; and, where alterations were made to
-existing castles, they were generally entirely in the direction of
-domestic comfort.
-
-[Illustration: WARWICK: Guy’s tower]
-
-[Illustration: Warwick Castle; Cæsar’s tower]
-
-There are, however, a few striking exceptions which belong to the later
-part of the fourteenth century. The two polygonal towers, Guy’s tower
-(319) and Cæsar’s tower (321), which cover the angles of the eastern
-curtain at Warwick and flank the gatehouse with its barbican, are cases
-in point. Few castles show features of the military architecture of
-all periods to such advantage. The plan is that of an early Norman
-mount-and-bailey castle, which has in course of time been surrounded
-with a stone curtain;[347] while a magnificent residence, in the
-main a building of the fourteenth century, has grown up on the south
-side of the bailey next the river.[348] The most commanding military
-features, however, are the towers just mentioned, 128 and 147 feet high
-respectively. The whole character of these towers is French rather
-than English. Their great height may be contrasted with that of the
-contemporary rectangular towers at Raby, the loftiest of which is only
-81 feet high, and depends for its defence almost entirely upon the
-thickness of its walls. The nearest parallel to the Warwick towers, on
-the other hand, is such a building as the fifteenth-century Tour Talbot
-at Falaise, a lofty cylindrical tower built at an angle of the donjon,
-as is generally stated, during the English occupation of northern
-France.[349] The chief characteristics of the towers at Warwick are the
-bold corbelling out of their parapets, with a row of machicolations,
-and the provision of a central turret, rising some distance above the
-level of the rampart-walk—a feature common in France, but most unusual
-in England.[350] The vaulting of both towers throughout is also a
-French feature; and in every respect they bear traces of an influence
-which, beginning in the cylindrical donjons of Philip Augustus’ castles
-and of Coucy, survived to a late date in France, and may have affected
-English military work in that country, but had little result in England
-itself. While, throughout the fifteenth century, the French castle
-maintained its character as a stronghold, and even kept that character
-when Renaissance influence was strong in that country, the military
-character of the English castle steadily diminished. The wars of the
-Roses were a succession of battles in open field, in which castles and
-walled towns played very little part. And while the military character
-of Warwick continued to be emphasised during the period of transition,
-the neighbouring castle of Kenilworth, in common with most English
-castles, was transformed, during the same period, from a stronghold
-into a palace.
-
-[Illustration: HURSTMONCEAUX: gatehouse]
-
-[Illustration: BODIAM: north front and gatehouse]
-
-The most imposing of our later castles, which may be considered
-primarily as military buildings, is Bodiam in Sussex (323). On 21st
-October 1385, Sir Edward Dalyngrugge had licence to crenellate his
-manor of Bodiam “by the sea,” and “to make a castle thereof in defence
-of the adjacent country against the king’s enemies.”[351] The main
-object of this licence was evidently to provide against a French
-attack upon the ports of Rye and Winchelsea, at the mouth of the
-Rother: in the following March, Sir Edward was named first upon the
-commission appointed by letters patent to fortify and wall the town of
-Rye.[352] Bodiam stands upon the left bank of the Rother, some miles
-above Rye, and commands from its site, at some little height above the
-valley, a long stretch of marsh in the direction of the mouth of the
-river. The walls of the castle descend sheer into a lake, formed by the
-damming up of a stream. The castle is simply a rectangular enclosure
-surrounded by a lofty curtain. Each angle is capped by a cylindrical
-tower, and in the middle of each face is a rectangular tower: the great
-gatehouse, however, in the north face, has two rectangular towers, one
-on each side of the entrance. The tower in the centre of the opposite
-face is the lesser gatehouse of the castle. The plan bears a striking
-analogy to that of the castle of Villandraut (Gironde), built about
-1250: Nunney in Somerset (1373) and Shirburn in Oxfordshire (1377)
-are coeval English examples. The interior is surrounded by domestic
-buildings. Against the south curtain were the hall and kitchen: the
-screens at the west end of the hall formed a passage to the lesser
-gateway. The wall dividing the screens from the kitchen still remains,
-with the three doorways which gave access to the kitchen, pantry,
-and buttery (326). The private apartments were returned along the
-east curtain, and at their north end was the chapel, which had the
-usual arrangement of a western gallery, entered from the chambers on
-the first floor of this range of building. Servants’ quarters and
-barracks occupied the west side of the enclosure. All the buildings
-were plentifully supplied with garde-robes in the towers; and the upper
-portion of the south-west tower was arranged as a pigeon-house.
-
-In spite of the ample space given to the domestic buildings, the
-defensive nature of the works at Bodiam is very clearly apparent, not
-only in the strength of the walls, the height of which (40 feet) is
-equal to the height of the walls at Harlech, but in the provision made
-for the defence of the approaches. The main gateway was protected by
-a barbican, which occupied a small island in the lake, some 54 feet
-in front of the gatehouse. A causeway, which is in part, at any rate,
-original, connected the gateway with the barbican; but it is probable
-that this had a bridge at one or both ends. A bridge, spanning a gap
-of 6 feet, connected the outer end of the barbican with an octagonal
-island in the middle of the broad moat. The straight causeway by which
-this island is now reached from the mainland does not represent the
-original approach; but a longer and more tortuous approach was planned
-from a pier set against the west bank of the moat and joined, probably
-by a double drawbridge, to the octagonal island, which thus stood at
-a point where the road, commanded throughout by the curtain and its
-flanking towers, turned at a right angle towards the north gatehouse
-of the castle. The approach to the smaller or south gate has now
-disappeared; but two walls project into the moat on each side of the
-entrance, and against the south bank of the moat remains the pier on
-which the outer drawbridge dropped.
-
-[Illustration: Bodiam Castle; Courtyard]
-
-The labour and pains which were taken to strengthen this castle are
-shown by the revetting of the earthwork, not only of the main island,
-but also of the lesser islands in the moat, and of portions of the
-causeways of approach. The isolation of the castle in the middle of a
-lake may have been suggested by the plan adopted, at a much earlier
-date, at Leeds in Kent. The great barbican of Leeds, however, divided
-by wet ditches into three separate parts, forms the approach to the
-main bridge across the moat. It is, in fact, the _tête-du-pont_ of the
-castle, and does not occupy a separate island, as at Bodiam, between
-the mainland and the gateway.
-
-The gatehouse of Bodiam is an imposing building, and the
-castle-builders, from the days of Edward I. onwards, paid an attention
-to their gatehouses almost equal to that which the late Norman builders
-had given to their tower-keeps.[353] To the same twenty-five years
-within which Bodiam was built and the two great towers at Warwick
-were completed, belongs the greatest of English gatehouses, that of
-the castle of Lancaster. It is known to have been built as late as
-about 1405; for the arms of Henry V. as prince of Wales appear on a
-shield above the gateway. It is therefore one of the latest military
-works in the castles of the duchy, and the last of the series of
-gatehouses which owed their origin to lords of the house of Lancaster,
-and includes the noble structures at Dunstanburgh, Tutbury, and the
-great tower between the wards at Knaresborough. The castle to which
-it was added was surrounded by a curtain, largely of twelfth-century
-date,[354] and contained a tower-keep and domestic buildings which
-appear to have been in the main of the thirteenth century. Situated
-at the head of a very steep hill, and flanked by two huge octagonal
-towers, this gatehouse is the perfection of the type which is seen,
-with more slender flanking towers, at Bothal and in the keep of
-Alnwick. The window openings towards the field are few and small: the
-battlements are boldly corbelled out, and machicolations of large size
-are left between them and the wall. In a corner of each of the flanking
-towers rises a turret, the interior of which apparently served as a
-magazine for ammunition. The interior of this gatehouse, although the
-space is ample, is fully in keeping with its sombre exterior. Each of
-the two upper floors contains three rooms, one in the central block of
-the gatehouse, the others in the towers at the sides. These rooms are
-large and lofty, and their original wooden ceilings still retain traces
-of colour; but they are gloomy and ill-lighted to the last degree. The
-apartments on the first floor communicate directly with one another,
-but those on the second floor are entered from an outer passage, which
-passes between them and the inner or west wall of the gatehouse. The
-guard-rooms on the ground-floor are approached in the usual way, by
-doorways near the inner entrance. The main stair is a vice in the
-south-west corner of building.
-
-In the important additions made to the castle of Warkworth about 1400,
-the compromise attained between the requirements of defence and comfort
-is very striking. The plan of this castle, throughout its history, like
-the plan of Warwick, remained that of the original mount-and-bailey
-fortress. We have noticed already the addition of the stone curtain to
-the bailey, and the building of a large mansion against its western
-and southern faces. It is probable that a shell-keep was added to the
-mount, when the stone curtain was made; for the foundations of the
-present strong house on the mount are of masonry of an earlier and
-rougher character than the elaborately dressed stonework of the house
-itself. This house (221), which combines the features of keep and
-private residence in a most unusual way, appears to have been built
-by the first earl of Northumberland, who died in 1407.[355] The shape
-is that of a square with chamfered angles; but from the centre of
-each face projects a bold half-octagon, so that the ground-plan is a
-Greek cross with short arms and a large central block. The elevation
-consists of a basement and three floors. The basement contains tanks
-and a vault with a corbelled roof, which was certainly a prison, and
-bears a strong likeness to a similar vault in the inner gatehouse at
-Alnwick. There is no basement stair, communication with the vaults
-being through trap-doors in the floor above. On this floor are a number
-of dark vaulted store-rooms, one of which was the wine-cellar, and
-has its own stair to the daïs end of the hall on the floor above. The
-two upper floors are comparatively cheerful and well lighted: a shaft
-in the centre of the building gave light to the inner passage between
-the hall and kitchen. The main stair is in the south half-octagon,
-the chief doorway being in the west face of this projection, on the
-first floor. From the lobby on the second floor, at the head of the
-stair, two doorways open. That on the right leads into the hall, which
-occupies the south-east angle of the central block, and is of the
-full height of the two upper floors. That on the left leads to the
-servants’ quarters and the kitchens, which occupied the western part
-of the second floor, and communicated by separate doorways with the
-hall and chapel. The great kitchen filled the north-west angle of the
-central block, and, like the hall, was two stories in height. The north
-half-octagon and the north-east angle of the main block adjacent to it,
-were divided into two floors. The lower room in the half-octagon was
-probably the private room of the master of the house, communicating
-with the lower room in the main block, which was probably the common
-room of his immediate retinue. Similarly, upon the upper floor were a
-ladies’ bower and a separate room for the countess of Northumberland’s
-own use. Between the private apartments and the hall, occupying the
-centre of the east side of the main block and the half-octagon beyond,
-was the chapel. The chancel, in the half-octagon, was the height of
-both floors; but the western part of the chapel was in two floors, the
-upper forming a gallery, with a doorway from the ladies’ bower. From
-the south-east corner of this gallery, another doorway opened upon a
-narrow stone gallery, formed by the internal thickening of the lower
-part of the east wall of the hall: this may have served the purpose of
-a minstrels’ gallery, or may have been used by the ladies of the house,
-when they wished to watch the festivities below. The wall beneath this
-gallery is pierced by a long vestry or priest’s chamber, opening out
-of the south wall of the chapel, and built with a rising floor, in
-order to give head-way to the stair from the wine-cellar below. The
-ground-floor of the chapel also communicated with the hall and the
-men’s apartments. In addition to the rooms already mentioned, there
-were third-floor rooms in the south-west angle of the main block and
-in the western half-octagon, which communicated with the gallery of
-the chapel. The area covered is not large, but the ingenuity of the
-plan is remarkable; and the disposition of the various apartments must
-have required an amount of thought and skill, which no other medieval
-dwelling-house shows in so high a degree.
-
-[Illustration: RAGLAN CASTLE]
-
-[Illustration: THORNTON ABBEY: gatehouse and barbican]
-
-While the lower portions of the walls of the strong house at Warkworth
-are of great solidity and strength, the upper floors are lighted by
-large traceried window-openings, and the tall oblong windows of the
-hall, and those of the chancel of the chapel, convey no idea of the
-military purpose of the building. It is a curious fact that, in spite
-of the pains which were evidently expended upon this tower-house, the
-period of its employment as a residence seems to have been unusually
-short. The various lords of Warkworth were never satisfied with one
-residence for any length of time; and there is evidence that when
-John, duke of Bedford, was sent by his father, Henry IV., to pacify
-the north after Northumberland’s rebellion, he took up his quarters at
-Warkworth in the gatehouse. Later in the fifteenth century, the old
-mansion, already described, in the bailey, was restored and altered:
-a porch-tower was made at the north-east end of the hall, and a
-stair-turret intruded in the south-east angle. The dwelling-house,
-which had been built within the castle about 1200, was converted,
-in fact, into a stately mansion; and the house on the mount was
-practically abandoned. No better instance could be found of the gradual
-weakening of the military ideal in favour of domestic comfort. All the
-castles of the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are examples
-of this in some degree. At Warwick the domestic buildings are at
-least of equal importance with the defences. The dwelling-house at
-Ludlow gradually increased in size and splendour, while nothing was
-added to its military defences. Even the outer walls of Bolton, a
-strong and well-guarded castle, are pierced with windows which admit
-a considerable amount of light. Bodiam and Raglan (331), relying on
-the great breadth of their moats, have large outward window openings.
-In all these instances, however, the dwelling-house, even at Raglan,
-is still regarded as a house within a castle. In the planning of the
-tower house at Warkworth the military and domestic ideals were both
-present to the minds of the builders. Neither can be said to prevail:
-the building was equally useful as house and castle. The hall at
-Warkworth, on the other hand, when it was rebuilt, was treated with
-an architectural splendour quite apart from any idea of its position
-within the walls of a place of defence. Those walls had become
-obsolete, and the house was the one object present to the aims of the
-restorers. A step further was taken at Hurstmonceaux (323), where the
-great brick house has the semblance of a castle, but little of its
-reality. At Carew in Pembrokeshire, three stages in the development
-of the domestic ideal as applied to military architecture can be
-studied in close proximity. On the east side of the ward are the
-earlier domestic apartments, somewhat cramped and gloomy, with outer
-windows which, wherever they occur, as in the chapel (248) and adjacent
-rooms, admit daylight very faintly. On the west side is the great hall
-built in the fifteenth century by Rhys ap Thomas, with its imposing
-porch-tower and entrance stair, a large and amply lighted room. On the
-north are the additions made in the sixteenth century by Sir John
-Perrott. The eastern rooms are those of a house within a castle: the
-western hall is that of a house which, although military considerations
-have had no part in its planning, is still confined within an earlier
-curtain. On the north side, however, the curtain has been broken
-through, and a series of apartments has been built out beyond its
-limits, proclaiming, with their long mullioned windows piercing the
-walls from floor to roof, that the day of castles is over, and that the
-dwelling-house has the field to itself.
-
-
-
-
-CHAPTER XII
-
-THE AGE OF TRANSITION: THE FORTIFIED DWELLING-HOUSE
-
-
-Some account has now been given of the change which came over the
-English castle in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The life
-of the feudal warrior in his stronghold gradually became the life of
-the country gentleman in a house whose fortification, such as it was,
-was of a merely precautionary character. It now remains for us to say
-something of those domestic buildings which are the principal feature
-of the English castles of the later middle ages, and of those houses
-which, while preserving the name and to some extent the appearance of
-castles, were designed primarily as dwelling-houses. In these examples
-the main lines of the normal dwelling-house plan, which have already
-been described, were preserved. The hall still formed the nucleus of
-the buildings and the centre of the life of the household: the kitchen,
-buttery, and pantry still took their place at the end of the hall next
-the screens, while the two-storied block, with the great chamber on
-the first floor, was found at the other end behind the dais. But, with
-the increase of comfort and splendour, came the desire for more space
-and greater privacy. The great hall at Ludlow (96), reconstructed in
-the early part of the fourteenth century, had a first-floor chamber
-at either end of the hall; and the additions made to these domestic
-buildings in the fifteenth century considerably increased the number
-of private apartments in a house which was already of great size. At
-Manorbier (208) the whole dwelling-house was enlarged and the number
-of rooms increased by a reconstruction in the second half of the
-thirteenth century. The dwelling-house in the inner ward of Conway,
-the hall and its adjacent rooms at Caerphilly, were planned on a more
-liberal scale than had been thought necessary in the castles of the
-eleventh and twelfth centuries. The essentially military character,
-however, of the Edwardian castle cramped the free development of
-domestic buildings within the precinct; and it was not until the middle
-of the fourteenth century that the plan of the dwelling-house in the
-castle had reached the stage at which it began to be considered for its
-own sake, apart from the curtain wall which protected it.
-
-The development of the private mansion within the castle is well
-illustrated at Porchester. The outer defences of the castle, the
-twelfth-century great tower, the curtain of the inner ward, the
-fourteenth-century barbican, were all kept under repair; for the French
-wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries made the defence of
-Portsmouth harbour a desirable factor in English strategy, and the
-considerations which prompted the building of Bodiam also demanded that
-the military character of Porchester castle should be preserved. The
-barbican, however, was the last important addition to the defences. The
-later work included the remodelling of the twelfth-century hall against
-the south curtain.[356] This was in great part rebuilt, the hall on the
-first floor being supplied with large traceried windows towards the
-interior of the bailey: late in the fifteenth century, a porch with
-an upper floor was added at the end next the screens. Along the west
-side of the inner ward, between the great hall and the keep, a smaller
-hall was added late in the fourteenth century, the towers upon the east
-curtain were converted to domestic purposes, and a range of buildings
-was eventually added upon this side of the bailey (97).
-
-[Illustration: Carew Castle; Entrance to great hall]
-
-Externally, Porchester castle is simply a fortress: internally, the
-domestic buildings rivet the attention, and only the imposing mass of
-the keep (131) reminds us of the military origin of the stronghold.
-Similarly, in the Cornish castle of Restormel, where the one ward
-is nearly circular in shape, and is surrounded by a deep ditch, the
-whole interior face of the curtain is covered by a series of domestic
-buildings, with partition walls radiating from the centre of the plan.
-The position of the hall, kitchen, and great chamber can easily be
-traced: the chapel was on the east side of the ward, separated from the
-hall by the great chamber, and the chancel, with a substructure, formed
-a rectangular projection from the curtain at this point. Here, too,
-as at Porchester, Ludlow, or Manorbier, the dwelling-house was masked
-by the fortress. But there are also castles in which the importance
-of the dwelling-house, as time went on, began to overshadow its
-military surroundings. At Tutbury the strong position of the castle, an
-entrenched stronghold which was probably ditched about for the first
-time long before the Conquest, the high mound raised by the Norman
-founder of the castle, and the fine fourteenth-century gatehouse[357]
-(237), approached by an ascent which was commanded by the whole length
-of the eastern curtain, strike the visitor far less than the remains of
-the great hall and its adjacent chambers. This beautiful work, often
-attributed, like so much else in castles of the duchy of Lancaster,
-to John of Gaunt, is probably of the middle of the fifteenth century:
-there is a remarkable similarity between the details of the stonework
-here and at Wingfield, a house the date of which is well known to be
-somewhat later than 1441. As a whole, the castles which, like Tutbury,
-became merged in the possessions of the house of Lancaster, and came
-to the Crown on the accession of Henry IV., furnish us with some of
-the best examples of castle dwelling-houses on a palatial scale. At
-Pontefract, for example, a range of buildings, known later as John
-of Gaunt’s buildings, rose upon the site of the eastern mound. The
-drawings of Pontefract and of Melbourne in Derbyshire, preserved
-among the duchy records, show us castles which have utterly changed
-their aspect, and have become palaces. Nowhere, however, is this more
-noticeable to-day than at Kenilworth, where the erection of the great
-hall may be fairly attributed to John of Gaunt.[358] The whole of the
-north and part of the west side of the inner ward, on the summit of
-the raised ground on which the castle stands, are covered by a splendid
-series of late fourteenth-century buildings, chief among them the hall,
-probably the finest apartment of its date in England, Westminster hall
-alone excepted (337). Later still, just as at Carew, the transformation
-of the stronghold was completed by the addition, in Henry VIII.’s time,
-of apartments, which have now disappeared, along the south side of the
-ward; and, in the reign of Elizabeth, the south-west angle was filled
-by a tall block of buildings erected by the earl of Leicester.
-
-[Illustration: Kenilworth Castle; Entrance to hall]
-
-One may compare the growth of the domestic element at Kenilworth
-with that of the French château of Blois, where the military aspect
-of the building was obliterated by degrees. To the great hall in the
-north-east corner of the castle bailey[359] were added, first, the
-buildings of Charles of Orléans (1440-65) on the west face.[360] Then
-came the late Gothic work, on the east, of Louis XII. (1498-1502). In
-the sixteenth century the hall was joined to Charles of Orléans’ block
-by the Renaissance pile of building raised under Francis I. and Henry
-II. The castle by this time had become a palace, and the transformation
-was completed in the seventeenth century (1635) by the erection of the
-tall range of Palladian buildings in the north-west angle, which is the
-most prominent feature in the northern view of the château.[361] A
-similar work of transformation took place at Amboise under Louis XII.
-and Francis I. In both these instances, however, the chief changes
-were made at a period when the Renaissance was exercising a powerful
-influence on French life and thought. As a rule, French castles of
-the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, while increasing in
-splendour, preserved much of the character of the feudal stronghold.
-The two splendid halls and the northern range of buildings at Coucy,
-built by Enguerrand VII., lord of Coucy, in the last quarter of the
-fourteenth century, were added without detriment to the strength of
-the fortress; and to this same period belongs the talus covering the
-spring at the foot of the donjon curtain, a work of purely military
-character.[362] In the châteaux of Méhun-sur-Yèvre (Cher), built by
-John, duke of Berry, between 1370 and 1385, and Pierrefonds (Oise),
-built by Louis, duke of Orléans, between 1390 and 1420, the splendour
-of the palace was equally balanced by the strength of the fortress.
-
-In tracing the development of the castle until it is merged in the
-manor-house, we must not forget that the fortified dwelling-house was
-not merely the creation of an age which was ceasing to build castles.
-Many of the strongholds to which allusion has been made, especially
-in the north and west of England, were dwelling-houses rather than
-castles. Acton Burnell, Aydon, Markenfield, Haughton, or those
-houses which, like Mortham in Yorkshire or Yanwath in Westmorland,
-have pele-towers attached to them, whether as part of their original
-equipment or as a later addition, are all fabrics in which military
-precautions had to be taken, but the everyday needs of the occupants
-were first considered. A castle is a military post which may include
-one or more dwelling-houses within its walls: the house which may
-be turned into a castle, when occasion requires, is on a different
-footing. Bishops’ palaces, such as Auckland, Cawood, Wells, or Lincoln,
-are examples of the large manor-house in which fortification was
-merely a measure of precaution. The splendid houses of the bishops of
-St David’s are not the least remarkable of the remains of medieval
-architecture, half-domestic, half-military, which are common in
-south-west Wales. Bishop Henry Gower (1328-47) developed at Swansea
-castle, and at his manor-houses of Lamphey and St David’s, a type of
-architecture which deserves mention on account of its originality. The
-three houses mentioned are somewhat different from each other.
-
-[Illustration: HADDON: upper courtyard and tower]
-
-[Illustration: Lamphey Palace]
-
-Swansea castle is a large block of building, obviously military in
-character, and in general appearance not unlike the earlier castle
-which so nobly commands the town of Haverfordwest. Bishop Gower’s
-hall at Lamphey is a plain building, the chief architectural feature
-of which is the great cellar on the ground-floor: this was covered by
-a pointed barrel-vault, originally strengthened by heavy transverse
-ribs, most of which have fallen away. The vast palace of St David’s,
-on the other hand, displays in all its details, and especially in the
-ogee-headed doorway of the porch of its larger hall, a sumptuousness
-of decoration which is not often found in the domestic architecture of
-the time. The great hall on the west side of the courtyard, the smaller
-hall and private apartments on the south side, the vaulted cellars
-which occupy the whole of the basement in each range, are planned upon
-a scale equal to that of a castle of first-rate size. But, although
-these buildings differ so much in general character, they have a common
-feature in the parapet, pierced with a row of wide pointed arches,
-and corbelled out above the top of the walls. Comparatively rough and
-coarse at Swansea and Lamphey (341), this parapet at St David’s is
-treated with much delicacy, and the jambs of the arches are furnished
-with slender shafting. Whether there was any thought of its employment
-in war is a doubtful point; although it might be useful in such a
-case, it was probably intended in the first instance merely as an
-ornament. The corbelling is very slight, without machicolation. The
-whole design of the parapet is a curious feature which deserves special
-notice. There is another and later hall at Lamphey, west of the earlier
-building; and adjoining this on the north is the handsome chapel, built
-by Bishop Vaughan early in the sixteenth century. The gatehouse at
-Llawhaden, another manor of the bishops of St David’s, appears to be
-of the fifteenth century, and, with its flanking towers, rounded to
-the field, has a more distinctly warlike appearance than anything at
-Lamphey or St David’s.
-
-[Illustration: HADDON: chapel]
-
-We may now take a few typical examples which illustrate the change
-from the fortified residence to the large dwelling-house, which
-was accomplished by the beginning of the sixteenth century. At a
-comparatively early date, a divorce between military and domestic
-architecture is manifest in such a house as Stokesay (306). Here the
-hall and its adjacent buildings are those of a private house pure
-and simple; and the defensive portion of the plan is confined to the
-polygonal tower at the south end of the range of buildings, which,
-in time of war, could be used as a separate stronghold, and was
-ingeniously planned and well lighted.[363] But at Stokesay (207) the
-tower appears to be a somewhat later addition to a thirteenth-century
-dwelling-house. Defensive precautions are added. Of the opposite case,
-in which they disappear, Haddon hall (340), the most attractive and
-most thoroughly preserved of English medieval houses, is the best
-example. In its earliest state, it appears to have been a mere pele,
-occupying a portion of its present site, with a tower at its north-east
-and highest corner. The chapel (343), in which large portions of
-twelfth-century work still remain, was probably built outside the
-palisade, as the parochial chapel of the hamlet of Nether Haddon.
-As time went on, the fortified enclosure enlarged its boundaries. A
-wall was built round it, and the chapel was taken into the line of
-circumference.[364] In the fourteenth century the present hall was
-built between the upper and lower courts.[365] At its north end were
-the screens, forming the communication between the two courts, with
-the pantry, buttery, and passage to the kitchen leading directly out
-of them. At the south end, behind the dais, was the cellar with the
-great chamber above. Later on, a porch with an upper chamber was built
-at the entry to the screens. During the fifteenth century, the upper
-courtyard was gradually surrounded by buildings; a new chancel and
-octagonal bell-turret were built to the chapel; and, at the end of this
-period, the old curtain wall, between the chapel and the great chamber,
-was covered by an outer wall on either side, and reduced to the state
-of a mere partition wall on which wooden upper buildings were carried.
-Wide windows were opened in the west walls of the cellar and the great
-chamber, and the cellar was turned into a private dining-room at the
-back of the hall. Early in the sixteenth century, the buildings round
-the entrance court were completed, and the timber stage east of the
-chapel was rebuilt in stone. Finally, in the reign of Elizabeth, came
-the addition which marks the last stage in this transition from pele
-to dwelling-house, when, on the south side of the upper courtyard,
-was built the long gallery, with its row of wide mullioned windows,
-and deep bays projecting towards the garden. While the manor-house at
-Wingfield, not many miles distant, is practically all of one period,
-and illustrates a definite compromise between war and peace, Haddon is
-a growth of from four to five centuries, and from an early date showed
-a tendency to rid itself of its military character.
-
-[Illustration: Wingfield Manor; Plan]
-
-Wingfield manor is probably the most striking example of a later
-English manor-house with certain defensive features. It was begun by
-Ralph, Lord Cromwell, between 1441 and 1455. Its position is naturally
-strong. From an almost isolated hill, with steep slopes to the east,
-north, and west, it commands the valley in which it stands, but is
-itself commanded by the much higher hills which separate it from the
-Derwent valley on the west.[366] The buildings are arranged round two
-courtyards (346). The outer and larger court, which is entered by
-a wide gateway, with a postern on one side, at the south end of the
-east wall, contained store-houses and farm-buildings, with a large
-barn on the south side. This base-court, like the “barmkin” of a
-fortified house in the north of England, would be useful in time of war
-for the protection of tenants and their flocks and herds, who had no
-other means of defence. A gatehouse in the north wall gives admission
-to the second court, which was surrounded by buildings on all sides
-but the east. The whole length of the north side was covered by a
-magnificent block of buildings, which included the hall, kitchen, and
-chief private apartments (349). These buildings have not received the
-full attention which they deserve, but they obviously belong to two
-periods of work, the great kitchen block at the west end being added
-as an afterthought.[367] The plan is curious and unusual. The hall
-occupies the eastern extremity of the block. Although the roof and a
-large part of the south wall are entirely gone, and the north wall was
-mutilated by the later partition of the hall into two floors and a
-number of rooms, the porch, with its upper chamber, and the bay-window,
-at opposite ends of the south wall, are still fairly perfect. The hall
-was the full height of the block, and had a high-pitched roof, with
-large window openings in the gables: it is not certain whether the
-fireplace was in the centre of the room, with a louvre in the roof for
-the smoke, or in the south wall. The porch led into screens at the
-west end, over which was probably a minstrels’ gallery. At the north
-end of the screens was a lobby, from which a vice led to the upper
-floor of the building dividing the hall from the kitchen; while a wide
-and well-moulded doorway opened upon a stair which descended into the
-garden behind the hall. On this side the slope of the ground is very
-abrupt, and the hall is built upon a very large and handsome cellar
-(348), divided into two longitudinal halves by a row of five columns.
-The aisles thus formed are vaulted in oblong compartments upon broad
-four-centred ribs. The bold wave-mouldings of the ribs and the carving
-of the bosses at their junction are carved with a masculine vigour of
-design which gives this cellar a place among the chief architectural
-masterpieces of its age. There is a short vice with broad steps at
-each corner of the cellar: those at the north-east and south-east
-corners communicated directly with the dais and sideboard of the hall,
-the entrance to the south-east stair being a lobby opening on the
-bay-window. The south-west vice was entered from the courtyard, while
-the north-west stair opened into a room on one side of the passage from
-the hall to the kitchen.
-
-[Illustration: Wingfield Manor; Cellar of hall]
-
-[Illustration: WINGFIELD: bay-window of hall]
-
-The kitchen and its offices were not entered in the usual way,
-directly from the screens. A block of buildings, with its main axis
-at right angles to that of the hall, intervenes. There are, however,
-three doorways, as usual, in the west wall of the hall. Of these,
-the middle and largest was that of a central passage leading to the
-kitchen. A smaller doorway, on either side of this, gave access to two
-ground-floor rooms, beneath which were cellars. The whole floor above
-these, entered by a vice from the large lobby at the garden end of the
-screens, was the great chamber, which had a high-pitched roof, and
-was lighted, towards the courtyard, by a large window-opening of four
-lights, with good rectilinear tracery and transoms, beneath a segmental
-arch. It need hardly be said that the position of the great chamber,
-at the entrance end of the hall, is most unusual. The best parallel
-example is found in connection with the hall of the thirteenth-century
-bishop’s palace at Lincoln. Here the slope at the north end of the hall
-prevented the construction of a large block of buildings on that side.
-At the south end the ground fell away almost vertically, and here, upon
-a vaulted substructure, was built a block of two stories, the lower
-of which contained the pantry, buttery, and passage to the kitchens,
-while the upper was the great chamber. The kitchen was contained in a
-detached tower, between which and the intermediate block was a bridge,
-with a covered passage on the first floor. The two-storied block has
-now been converted into the bishop’s chapel, of which the windows of
-the great chamber form the clerestory; while the passage across the
-kitchen bridge has been turned into a vestry.
-
-At Wingfield the great chamber was evidently placed at the entrance end
-of the hall to avoid the type of construction which had been adopted
-as a _pis aller_ at Lincoln, and the side of the hall was chosen where
-the ground was comparatively level. Nevertheless, at the dais end of
-the hall, where there is a fall of several feet in the ground, there
-are considerable remains of buildings on the lower level; and it is
-possible that the first kitchen buildings may have been planned at
-this end. The position, with easy access to the large cellar, and,
-by a stair which still partly remains, to the hall, would not have
-been inconvenient, and expense in building would have been saved by
-this reversal of the usual arrangement, which placed the more costly
-great chamber block on level foundations, although at the far end of
-the hall. The four stairs of the cellar made it easy, whatever the
-position of the kitchen might be, to serve food directly to the dais,
-or through the screens to the lower end of the hall. However, whether
-this was the original arrangement or not, the kitchen block west of
-the great chamber was an addition made probably a few years after the
-original planning of the house.[368] The central passage below the
-great chamber was continued to the kitchen, passing between a large
-pantry and buttery. Its south wall, next the buttery, is pierced by
-two broad arched openings, forming a buttery hatch upon a magnificent
-scale, through which drink would be served. There were upper floors to
-the buttery and pantry; but the kitchen itself, which contained three
-fireplaces, filled the whole west end of the block. Its floor is sloped
-and grooved, to facilitate drainage: the floor-drains were emptied
-through spouts in the west wall.
-
-The use of the buildings on the south side of the inner courtyard,
-on either hand of the gateway, cannot be determined with certainty;
-but the west side of the court is covered by an important range of
-buildings, between the kitchen on the north and the high tower at the
-south-west corner of the enclosure. Of these buildings, which belong
-to the original fifteenth-century work, little remains but the west
-and the foundations of the east wall, in which were two bay-windows.
-They were probably a suite of private rooms, containing a smaller hall
-or private dining-room, such as is found at Conway and Porchester, and
-in most of our castles from the later thirteenth century onwards.[369]
-At the south end of this block stands the one distinctively military
-feature of the manor-house, the tall tower of four stories, which,
-containing comfortable apartments in time of peace, could be isolated
-and converted into a stronghold in time of war.[370]
-
-[Illustration: WINGFIELD: strong tower]
-
-This provisional arrangement for defence is characteristic of the
-age. The primary object of the house at Wingfield was comfort and
-pleasure; and its type is as far removed from the military perfection
-of Caerphilly or Harlech as it can possibly be. The need of a
-perpetual garrison was not felt; for, in case of war, siege would
-be only the last resort of an attacking force. Consequently, the
-defences of the house, apart from the accommodation for barracks and
-the safety of refugees in the base-court, and from ordinary strength
-of the gateways,[371] were restricted to the provision of a tower as
-a last resource. The house, however, which the builder of Wingfield
-constructed at Tattershall in Lincolnshire between 1433 and 1443, on
-the site of an earlier stronghold, took the shape of a brick tower
-of four stages, with a basement half below the ground (356). There
-is an octagonal turret at each angle, the vice which leads from the
-ground-floor to the roof being contained in the south-east turret
-(357). The walls are of considerable thickness throughout, but are
-pierced above the basement with large two-light windows, two in each
-stage of the west wall. In the east wall are the chimneys of the
-fireplaces on the ground-floor and first floor; but behind these the
-wall is pierced by mural passages, lighted to the field. The north
-wall on the first and third floor also is pierced by passages. These
-communicated with chambers in the turrets and with garde-robes. The
-internal features, the vaulted stairs and passages in the thickness
-of the walls, and the stone fireplaces on the upper floors, with
-rectangular mantels ornamented with shields of arms,[372] are elaborate
-and sumptuous; but the tower is a shell, and the floors above the
-vaulted basement are gone. A peculiar feature of the tower, however, is
-the covered gallery which is corbelled out on stone arches above each
-wall of the building between the turrets: the floor is machicolated
-between the corbels, and the gallery has rectangular windows opening to
-the field. Such a gallery is seen in French military architecture, as,
-for example, in the Pont Valentré at Cahors, but appears to be unique
-in England.[373] In the same part of Lincolnshire, and about the same
-period, towers of the type of Tattershall are not uncommon. Kyme tower,
-in the fens north-east of Sleaford, Hussey tower, on the north-east
-side of Boston, and the Tower on the Moor, between Tattershall and
-Horncastle, are cases in point: none of these, however, can compare
-with Tattershall in beauty and size, or can show anything like the same
-union of defensive with purely domestic arrangements.
-
-[Illustration: Tattershall Castle]
-
-[Illustration: BASEMENT
-
-GROUND FLOOR
-
-FIRST FLOOR
-
-SECOND FLOOR
-
-THIRD FLOOR
-
-FOURTH FLOOR
-
-Tattershall Castle; Plan]
-
-Brick-work was employed in all these Lincolnshire towers: they lie in
-a district where stone was not abundant, and where brick-making on the
-spot was a more simple process than the conveyance of building-stone
-from Ancaster or Lincoln. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
-brick was very freely used for domestic architecture in the eastern
-counties; and houses like Oxburgh in Norfolk or the rectory at Hadleigh
-in Suffolk, with their gatehouse towers, are prominent examples
-of late fifteenth-century work.[374] The old hall at Gainsborough
-in Lincolnshire is a large mansion of the fifteenth and sixteenth
-centuries. This again is chiefly of brick, but with a considerable
-amount of timber and plaster employed in the hall and one of the wings;
-while the bay-window of the hall is of the grey Yorkshire limestone in
-large blocks, which was much used in the churches of the lower Trent
-valley. At one corner, however, is a polygonal tower entirely of brick,
-with cross-loops in the walls of the ground-floor, and battlements
-at the top. These battlements are corbelled out, so as to give an
-impression of machicolation: there is, however, no machicolation at
-all, and the spaces between the corbels are arched and filled with
-simple tracery. The principle here is the same as that at Wingfield
-and Tattershall: the residence is provided with its strong tower,
-which, at Tattershall, as at Warkworth, is identical with the residence
-itself. But while, at Warkworth, considerations of safety and comfort
-were fairly balanced, with perhaps a slight inclination of the scales
-to safety, at Tattershall, in spite of the covered gallery with its
-machicolated floor, the balance is on the side of comfort. Both at
-Tattershall and Wingfield the splendid residence is studied in the
-first instance, while the defensive stronghold is a secondary idea. The
-tower at Gainsborough is simply an imitation of the strong towers of
-the past, conceived in admiration of their strength and conservative
-love of their beauty, but with no serious idea of practical
-utility.[375]
-
-The fine manor-house of Compton, in a secluded Devonshire valley a few
-miles west of Torquay, was probably built about 1420 by one of the
-family of Gilbert. The main entrance, in the centre of the east front,
-beneath a tall archway including the ground-floor and first floor in
-its height, is flanked by bold rectangular projections finishing in
-corbels some feet above the ground. It does not lead, however, into a
-vaulted passage barred by portcullises and flanked by guard-rooms, but
-into one giving direct access to the hall. This no longer exists, and
-a modern building covers part of the site, but the weathering of the
-high-pitched roof still remains, and at its south end we can still see
-the entrances of the kitchen and buttery, and the stair-door of the
-minstrels’ gallery. The courtyard and domestic buildings are enclosed
-by a wall with a continuous rampart-walk, from the parapet of which
-are corbelled out at intervals machicolated projections which are so
-arranged as to be directly above doorways and windows, and thus to
-protect the most vulnerable points of the house, such as the large
-four-light east window of the chapel, north of the hall. The house
-was not surrounded by a ditch; but the space between it and the road
-probably formed a base-court, although any remains of fortification
-have disappeared. The whole building is a good example of the reversal
-of the usual process. The dwelling-house has not grown up within a
-castle, but has been converted by a very thorough process of walling
-and crenellation into a fortified post to which the name of castle may
-well be applied. The situation is anything but commanding, but the
-house lying hidden in its valley, might be a formidable obstacle, like
-the neighbouring castle of Berry Pomeroy, to marauders pushing their
-way inland from Tor Bay.
-
-[Illustration: Hurstmonceaux Castle; Chapel]
-
-The character of house first, and castle afterwards, which is
-remarkable at Wingfield, is also prominent in two of the great
-Yorkshire residences of the house of Percy, Spofforth and Wressell,
-princely manor-houses dignified by the name of castle. But perhaps the
-best example in England of a castle which is one only in name is the
-brick house of Hurstmonceaux in Sussex. This splendid building was
-begun about 1446 by Sir Roger Fiennes. Its position, in a sheltered
-hollow at the head of a small valley, has no military advantages: it
-may be compared with the secluded site of Compton Wyniates, or with
-the low sites, within easy reach of water, which the builders of
-Elizabethan houses were fond of choosing. The house was surrounded by
-a wet ditch—a feature shared by Compton Wyniates, Kentwell, and other
-Tudor houses.[376] The imposing gatehouse is in the centre of the south
-front, a rectangular building flanked by tall towers,[377] with its
-portal and the room above recessed beneath a tall arch which at once
-recalls the machicolated archways that guard the entrance to castles
-like Chepstow and Tutbury. The gatehouse has certain military features:
-its rampart and that of the towers is machicolated, and the entrance
-was closed by a portcullis (323). If cannon had made the curtain of
-comparatively little importance, it was still advisable to defend the
-gatehouse. There was no base-court, like that at Wingfield, in advance
-of the main buildings. The castle was simply a collection of buildings
-arranged round a series of courtyards, none of which was of any great
-size, or corresponded to that distinctive feature of the military
-stronghold—the open ward or bailey, which served as the muster-ground
-for the garrison. The hall was in its usual position, on the side
-of the first court opposite the main entrance. Most of the private
-apartments were against the east wall, from which the chancel of the
-chapel (359) projected in a half-octagonal apse.
-
-An unrivalled opportunity for studying the progress of the castle
-in England is provided by a comparison of Hurstmonceaux with its
-neighbours at Pevensey and Bodiam. Pevensey, taking us back, in its
-outer circuit, to the Roman era, is, so far as the actual castle
-area is concerned, a Norman mount-and-bailey stronghold, with stone
-fortifications chiefly of the thirteenth century. Bodiam represents
-one of the last and highest efforts of perfected castle building in
-England. Hurstmonceaux is a house designed for ease and comfort,
-but keeping something of the outer semblance of the stronghold of
-an English landowner. A further step was taken at Cowdray, near
-Midhurst. Here the house, nominally a castle, was built about 1530 by
-Sir William Fitzwilliam: the battlements of the great hall and its
-beautiful porch-tower are the only relic of military architecture
-which it retains; and these are really no more military in character
-than the battlements of a church tower or clerestory. The comparison
-and contrast between these Sussex buildings may be further extended
-by including in the list the early fortresses of Lewes and Hastings,
-and the episcopal castle of Amberley.[378] In these, with what remains
-of the early castle of Arundel, we have as perfect an epitome of the
-history of the rise and decline of castle architecture in England as
-any county can afford.
-
-Castle building, after the fitful examples of later Plantagenet times,
-ceased altogether under the powerful monarchy of the Tudors, when
-prominent subjects were made to feel the reality of the influence of
-the Crown. Only once again, during the civil wars of the seventeenth
-century, were castles generally resorted to as strongholds. The three
-sieges of Pontefract, the operations of the royal troops in the Trent
-valley, between the castles of Newark and Belvoir and the fortified
-house of Wiverton, the defence of Denbigh, Rockingham, and Scarborough,
-show that the private fortress could still be used on occasion; while
-such a mansion as Basing house proved itself capable of stubborn
-resistance. To this belated castle warfare we owe much destruction: it
-was followed by the “slighting” of defences, and the general reduction
-of castles to their present state of picturesque ruin. In concluding
-this account of military architecture, it may be useful to gather, from
-some of the surveys drawn up in the reign of Henry VIII., the state
-of some of our principal castles at a period when medieval ideas were
-disappearing. The coloured drawings, already mentioned, of castles
-among the duchy of Lancaster records, which probably belong to the
-early part of the reign of Elizabeth, may owe something to fancy. But
-of the general accuracy of these verbal surveys, apart from inadequate
-measurements, there can be less doubt. They all show clearly that
-castles, as military strongholds, were obsolete, and that not merely
-their defences, but even their domestic buildings, were allowed to
-go to decay in time of peace. A survey of Carlisle castle, returned
-22nd September 1529, is eloquent of the neglect of the fortress by
-its constable, Lord Dacre. The wooden doors of the gatehouse of the
-base-court had rotted away: the lead of the roof had been cut away,
-probably with an eye to business, so that the rain soaked through the
-timber below, and had leaked through the vault into the basement, which
-was at this time used as the county gaol. The gatehouse of the inner
-ward was in a not much better state; but the gates were of iron and
-offered more resistance to the weather. The domestic buildings, on the
-east side of the inner ward, had been roofed with stone slates: the
-roof of the great chamber had fallen in, and the gallery or passage
-between the great chamber and hall was “clean gone down.” The chapel
-and a closet adjoining were partly unroofed: the closet chimney had
-fallen, and the parlour beneath was in a ruinous state. The hall itself
-was “like to fall”: the kitchen and some of its offices had fallen, and
-the bakehouse and pantry were on the point of falling, while rain had
-gone through the pantry floor into the buttery, which in this case was
-apparently on a lower level. The great tower, “called the Dungeon,”
-was, through the decay of the leaden roof, open to rain, and the floors
-of its three “houses” or stages were gradually rotting. The castle
-was supplied with artillery, but this was of “small effect and little
-value.” It included twenty-three iron serpentines or small cannon, six
-of which were provided with iron axletree pins or trunnions for use
-on gun-carriages; a small brass serpentine, a foot long; nine other
-serpentines; forty-five chambers; one iron sling for discharging stone
-shot; four “hagbushes” (arquebuses or hand-guns); and two bombards or
-mortar-shaped cannon. The ammunition for the serpentines and arquebuses
-consisted of 560 leaden bullets: there was also some stone shot and
-gunpowder. Some gun-stocks, bows, and arrows complete the list of
-artillery.[379]
-
-Sheriff Hutton castle in Yorkshire, surveyed during the same year, was
-better off as regards its dwelling-house; for this, as we know from
-contemporary history, had been occupied with little intermission from
-the end of the fourteenth century onwards. There were three wards,
-the outermost being evidently a large base-court, and the middle ward
-probably, as at Carew, a small court in advance of the inner gatehouse.
-The hall, kitchen, buttery, pantry, bakehouse, chapel, and lodgings for
-the lord were in the inner ward. In the base-court were the brew-house
-and horse-mills, with stables, barns, and granaries. The lead on the
-roofs was in a generally bad state, and the gutters and spouts wanted
-mending; but the timber of the inner roofs was still fairly good. The
-walls and towers of the inner ward, the plan of which, as we have seen,
-was akin to that of the contemporary Bolton castle, were “strong and
-high, but must be mended with lime and sand.” Three tons of iron were
-required to mend the gate of the inner ward. The “mantlewall” of the
-middle ward was defective and partly in ruin; while the base-court was
-“all open,” its walls decayed, and its gates gone. In the inner ward
-was a well, and ponds “for baking and brewing” were near the outer
-walls. The artillery included “six brass falcons with their carts” and
-twenty-one arquebuses, for which six barrels of powder and ten score
-iron shots were provided, bows, bowstrings, and arrows, and two bullet
-moulds.[380]
-
-[Illustration: CAERLAVEROCK CASTLE]
-
-[Illustration: MAXSTOKE CASTLE]
-
-After the attainder and execution of the third duke of Buckingham in
-1521, two royal escheators took a survey of his lands and houses.
-Their return, contained in a book of eighty-eight pages,[381] supplies
-details as to eleven manor-houses and castles. Of these, Caus castle,
-in west Shropshire, was a mere ruin. Huntingdon castle was decayed,
-but a tower was reserved for prisoners. The description of Oakham
-castle might be repeated at the present day. It was “all ruinous, being
-a large ground within the mantell wall.” The hall, however, was in
-excellent repair, “and of an old fashion”: the escheators recommended
-its preservation, because the courts were held there. The three
-towers of the castle of Newport next the Usk are mentioned, with the
-water-gate below the middle tower, “to receive into the said castle a
-good vessel”: the hall and other lodgings were decayed, especially in
-timber, but the stone could be renewed with a quantity of freestone
-and rubble stored in the castle. Here, as at Carlisle, Launceston, and
-elsewhere, the basement of the gatehouse was used as a prison; and its
-maintenance is therefore insisted upon. The hall at Brecon castle had
-a new and costly roof with pendants: it was “set on height,” with
-windows at either end, and none upon the sides. As a matter of fact,
-the remains of this hall stand above a twelfth-century substructure,
-which was vaulted from a central row of columns: the south side wall
-still remains, and is pierced with a row of lancet windows, so that
-the statement of the survey may refer to a newer hall which has
-disappeared. There was a new hall in the inner ward at Kimbolton, which
-had been built some sixty years before by the duke’s great-grandmother.
-The old curtain against which it stood was in a bad way, and threatened
-to ruin the hall. Round the inner ward was a moat: the base-court on
-the outer edge was overgrown with grass, but the barn and stables were
-in good condition.
-
-“The strongest fortress and most like unto a castle of any other
-that the Duke had” was the castle of Tonbridge, a mount-and-bailey
-stronghold whose shell-keep is still one of the finest examples of the
-type. The keep or “dungeon”—no mention of the mount is made—was at this
-time covered with a lead roof, half of which was gone. Otherwise, the
-castle and its curtain were in good repair, the rampart-walk keeping
-its battlemented outer parapet and rear-wall. The gatehouse, on the
-north side of the castle, was “as strong a fortress as few be in
-England”: on the east curtain was a square tower called the Stafford
-tower, and at the south-east corner, next the Medway, was the octagonal
-Water tower. The river constituted the chief southern defence of the
-castle, and there was no south curtain: the substructure of the hall
-and lodgings, 26 feet high and built of ashlar, was on this side, but
-the buildings themselves had never been finished.
-
-Castles of a later type were Stafford, and Maxstoke (364) in
-Warwickshire. Stafford castle at this time consisted of a single block
-of lodgings with two towers at either end and another in the middle
-of the south front. The hall was in the centre of the block, with the
-kitchen, larder, buttery, and pantry beneath it: at one end of the
-hall was the great chamber with a cellar below, and at the other was a
-“surveying chamber,” or service-room, to which dishes would be brought
-from the kitchen. Each of the five towers contained three rooms, in
-each of which was a fireplace. The towers were machicolated, “the
-enbatelling being trussed forth upon corbelles.” Outside the house
-were the chapel, gatehouse, and another kitchen; but this front court
-was apparently without defensive walls. Maxstoke, originally a castle
-of the Clintons, which was built and fortified in or after 1345,[382]
-had been largely repaired by the duchess Anne, the builder of the
-hall at Kimbolton. There was a base-court with a gatehouse, stables,
-and barns, which were walled with stone and covered with slate. Round
-the castle, “a right proper thing after the old building,” was a moat.
-The house, with a tower at each corner, was built round a quadrangle,
-and in the side next the bridge over the moat was a gatehouse tower,
-with a vaulted entry. The hall, the chapel, the great chamber, and
-the lodgings generally were in good condition, although they were not
-entirely finished and much glazing was still necessary. The provision
-of fireplaces is specially mentioned, as well as a point in the
-planning of the house—the convenient access to the chapel, or, rather,
-to its gallery or galleries, from the various first-floor rooms at “the
-over end” of the hall and great chamber.
-
-The moated manor-house of Writtle in Essex can hardly be counted among
-castles: it was a timber building round a cloistered quadrangle. There
-was no hall, but “a goodly and large parlour instead.” Thornbury castle
-in Gloucestershire, however, which was in great part of the duke’s own
-building, was one of those houses in which some semblance of military
-architecture was kept. There was no moat, but a base-court and an inner
-ward. The buildings of the base-court itself had been set out, but
-were in a very incomplete state, and little had been finished beyond
-the foundations of the north and west sides. The entrance to the inner
-ward was in the west face of the quadrangle; but of the west and north
-blocks only the lower story had been completed. This was of ashlar,
-while in the base-court ashlar had been used only for the window
-openings, doorways, and quoins. The hall and kitchen offices formed the
-east block, “all of the old building, and of a homely fashion”; but
-the south block, of the newer work, was “fully finished with curious
-works and stately lodgings,” and from it a gallery of timber cased with
-stone, with an upper and lower passage, crossed the south garden to the
-parish church and the duke’s chapel therein. A magnificent feature of
-this house, which became more and more characteristic of the palaces of
-noblemen of the age, were the great parks to the east of the castle,
-and the gardens on its east and south side. Between the east garden
-and the New park was the orchard, “in which are many alleys to walk
-in openly,” and round about the orchard were other alleys on a good
-height, with “roosting places,” covered with white thorn and hazel.
-
-Thornbury castle had reached this degree of unfinished splendour only
-a few years before the survey was made. The gateway of the outer ward
-still bears an inscription with the date 1511, while at the base
-of the moulded brick chimneys of the south block is the date 1514.
-Remains may still be seen of most of the buildings mentioned in these
-surveys. Thornbury and Maxstoke are still occupied, and of Thornbury
-in particular the details of the survey still hold good. The great
-value of these descriptions is the fact that they tell us something,
-on the eve of the Renaissance period, of the state of a series of
-fortresses which represented almost every type of an architecture
-that had grown up under the influence of conditions rapidly becoming
-obsolete. At Tonbridge we see the mount-and-bailey fortress of early
-Norman times, built to meet needs which were purely military, and
-strengthened with a stone keep and walls and towers of stone as those
-needs became more pressing. At Carlisle we have the fortress with its
-compact inner ward and great tower, approached through the spacious
-base-court which served the needs of the garrison and might shelter
-flocks and herds in time of war. No castle of the most perfect type,
-planned in the golden age of military architecture, is represented. At
-Brecon, however, we can study the growing importance of the domestic
-buildings of the castle. At Sheriff Hutton we have the quadrangular
-castle of the fourteenth century with its angle-towers, and its walled
-base-court serving the purposes of a farm-yard. Stafford castle, the
-plan of which has been imitated in the modern house on the site, is
-a fortified residence built in a single block, to which some of the
-strong houses of the north of England are analogous. The moated house
-of Maxstoke preserves the quadrangular plan, and has its provisions for
-defence; but its domestic character was the first aim of its builders,
-and its walls and towers are without the formidable height and strength
-of Sheriff Hutton and Bolton. Here and at Thornbury the base-court
-was still retained; but at Thornbury the energy of the builders was
-concentrated in the beautiful mansion, and the idea of the defensive
-stronghold had almost departed. The day of the castle and the walled
-town was over, and, in the face of methods of attack of which the
-builders of Norman castles had never dreamed, military engineers were
-beginning to move along new lines to which architectural considerations
-were no longer a matter of great importance. An architecture which,
-developed from earthwork in the beginning, reproduced in stone, at
-its height, the disposition of the concentric earthworks of primeval
-times, gave place in its turn to a science in which the employment of
-earthwork and the natural resources of a defensive position played an
-increasingly prominent part.
-
-
-
-
-FOOTNOTES:
-
-
-[1] Plan in Allcroft, _Earthwork of England_, 1908, p. 647. The
-same feature is well seen in the fine camp of Bury Ditches (6) in
-Shropshire, between Clun and Bishops Castle.
-
-[2] The defences of Old Sarum are now in process of excavation, and the
-plan of the medieval castle, in the centre of the early camp, has been
-recovered. See _Proceedings Soc. Antiquaries_, 2nd series, vol. xxiii.,
-pp. 190-200 and 501-18.
-
-[3] It is well seen at Bury ditches (6), where the diagonal entrance is
-also a feature of the south-west side of the camp, and on the west side
-of Caer Caradoc, between Clun and Knighton.
-
-[4] The effect of similar conditions on the construction of early
-Norman castles will be noticed in a later chapter.
-
-[5] Plan in Allcroft, _op. cit._, p. 686; the camp is described fully
-pp. 682-97.
-
-[6] See Bruce, _Hand-Book to the Roman Wall_, 5th ed., 1907 (ed. R.
-Blair), pp. 19-21.
-
-[7] The list from the _Notitia Dignitatum_ is given, _ibid._, pp. 11,
-12.
-
-[8] The bank is, strictly speaking, the _agger_, the _vallum_ being the
-rampart on the top of the bank.
-
-[9] The large villas of Romano-British landowners, as at Bignor
-(Sussex), Chedworth (Gloucestershire), Horkstow (Lincolnshire), were
-within easy reach of the military roads, but were not directly upon
-them.
-
-[10] The topography of Roman Lincoln is described by Dr E. M. Sympson,
-_Lincoln_ (Ancient Cities), 1906, chapter I.
-
-[11] See _Archæologia_, vol. liii., pp. 539-73.
-
-[12] See below as to the blocking of the main gateways at Cilurnum
-after the building of the great wall. The small single gateways at
-Cilurnum are on the south side of the wall. At Amboglanna both gateways
-were south of the wall.
-
-[13] Borcovicus is described by Bruce, _u.s._, pp. 140-60.
-
-[14] Plan in Besnier, _Autun Pittoresque_, 1888. The north-west and
-north-east gateways of the Roman city remain, but the centre of the
-city was shifted in the middle ages.
-
-[15] Plan in Allcroft, _u.s._, p. 322. As Burgh Castle had the sea on
-its west side, it possibly had no west wall. Another tower, on the east
-side of the north gateway, has fallen away from the wall.
-
-[16] At Pevensey the foundation of the wall is of chalk and flint,
-covered in one part by an upper layer of concrete, composed of flints
-bedded in mortar. Below the foundation is a layer of puddled clay,
-in which oak stakes were fixed vertically at intervals. See L. F.
-Salzmann, F.S.A., _Excavations at Pevensey_, 1906-7, in _Sussex
-Archæol. Collections_, vol. li.
-
-[17] Cilurnum is described by Bruce, _u.s._, pp. 86-119, with plan. See
-also the description and plan in _An Account of the Roman Antiquities
-Preserved in the Museum at Chesters_, 1903, pp. 87-120.
-
-[18] This was not invariable. At Cilurnum the main street was from east
-to west, and this was also the case at Corstopitum (Corbridge-on-Tyne).
-
-[19] In this case, the first cohort of the Tungri.
-
-[20] The tenth cohort of the legion had its quarters here: hence the
-name.
-
-[21] Or the east and west gateways, as already noted, at Cilurnum. The
-_forum_ occupied the centre of Cilurnum, the _praetorium_ forming a
-block of buildings east of the centre. The first wing or squadron of
-the Astures was stationed at Cilurnum.
-
-[22] Prof. Haverfield holds the view that this southern extension is
-post-Roman. See _Archæol. Journal_, lxvi. 350.
-
-[23] The same thing happened at Lincoln, where the eastern wall of
-the city followed a line now covered by the eastern transept of the
-cathedral.
-
-[24] Wat’s dyke, of which remains can be traced south of Wrexham and
-near Oswestry, was to the east of Offa’s dyke.
-
-[25] _A.-S. Chron._, anno 547.
-
-[26] Bede, _Hist. Ecc._, iii. 16.
-
-[27] It may be noted that not all names in “borough” and “bury” are
-derived from _burh_ and _byrig_. Some are merely derived from _beorh_
-or _beorg_ = a hill (dative _beorge_).
-
-[28] See Oman, _Art of War_, p. 120.
-
-[29] In Germany the word _burg_ is also applied to the citadel of a
-town or to a castle. In England and France more careful discrimination
-was made between the two types of stronghold.
-
-[30] References to _burhs_ wrought by Edward and his sister Æthelflæd
-will be found in _A.-S. Chron_. under the dates mentioned in the text.
-There is some variety of opinion with regard to the exact accuracy of
-these dates.
-
-[31] _A.-S. Chron._, sub anno.
-
-[32] _A.-S. Chron._, sub anno. The true date seems to be 837 or 838.
-
-[33] The chief authority for the early invasions of the Northmen in
-France is the _Annales Bertinenses_, of which the portion from 836 to
-861 is attributed to Prudentius, bishop of Troyes.
-
-[34] _Timbrian_ is the ordinary Anglo-Saxon word for “to build,” but it
-indicates the prevalent material used for building.
-
-[35] This is the main contention of the theory so attractively
-enunciated by the late G. T. Clark, and endorsed by the authority of
-Professor Freeman.
-
-[36] Nottingham castle is, in fact, considerably to the west of the
-probable site of the Saxon _burh_, which was more or less identical
-with the “English borough” of the middle ages, the western part of
-Nottingham being known as the “French borough.”
-
-[37] The Danes were again at Tempsford in 1010, and, if the earthwork
-is of pre-Conquest date, it is more likely to have been thrown up
-during the earlier than during the later visit.
-
-[38] The story (_A.S. Chron._, sub an. 755) of the murder of Cynewulf
-and its consequences, mentions the _burh_ or _burg_ of Merton with its
-gate: the house in which the king was murdered within the _burh_ is
-called _bur_ (_i.e._, bower, private chamber).
-
-[39] Dr J. H. Round, _Feudal England_, 1909, p. 324, points to the
-phrase _hoc castellum refirmaverat_ in the Domesday notice of Ewias,
-as indicative of the existence of the castle before the Conquest, and
-gives other reasons for the identification.
-
-[40] Domesday, i., f. 23; “Castrum Harundel Tempore Regis Edwardi
-reddebat de quodam molino xl solidos,” etc. “Castrum Harundel,”
-however, applies to the town, not the castle; and it does not follow
-that the name was given to the town before the Conquest.
-
-[41] Ord. Vit., _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 14; “id castellum situm est in
-acutissima rupe mari contigua.” The phrase may be used generally to
-describe a site which, in Ordericus’ own day, had become famous for its
-castle.
-
-[42] Ord. Vit., _Hist. Eccl._ iv. 4.
-
-[43] The Tower of London was outside the east wall of the medieval
-city. Baynard’s castle was at the point where the west wall approached
-the Thames.
-
-[44] Ord. Vit., _op. cit._, iv. 4; “pinnas ac turres ... in
-munimentis addebant vel restaurabant ... Portæ offirmatæ erant,
-densæque turbæ in propugnaculis et per totum muri ambitum prostabant.”
-
-[45] The foundation of these castles is noted by Ord. Vit., iv. 4, 5.
-
-[46] The word “bailey” (_ballium_) literally means a palisaded
-enclosure. The synonym “ward,” applied to the various enclosed
-divisions of a medieval castle, means a guarded enclosure. The term
-“base-court” (_basse-cour_) is also applied to the bailey.
-
-[47] It should be noted that at York there were not two distinct
-_burhs_ or fortified towns, such as are found in the earlier cases. The
-river passed through and bisected the _burh_, which was surrounded by
-an earthen bank, save at the point where the Foss formed the boundary
-of the city.
-
-[48] Domesday, i. 248 _b_.
-
-[49] An example of this is the fine earthwork at Lilbourne, in
-Northamptonshire. There are many other instances, and the lesser bailey
-at Clun partakes of this character.
-
-[50] There are cases, of course, which give rise to perplexity. Thus
-at Earls Barton, in Northamptonshire, the famous pre-Conquest church
-tower stands on a site which appears to be within the original limit
-of the ditch of the adjacent castle mount. It is doubtful, however,
-whether the mount was ever ditched on this side; and the church does
-not encroach upon the mount.
-
-[51] Cæsar, _De Bell. Gall._, vii. 73; “huic [vallo] loricam pinnasque
-adiecit, grandibus cervis eminentibus ad commissuras pluteorum atque
-aggeris, qui ascensum hostium tardarent.” See p. 60 below.
-
-[52] See Enlart, ii. 494.
-
-[53] Domfront, however, on its rocky site, may, like Richmond, have
-been surrounded by a stone wall from the first.
-
-[54] L. Blanchetière, _Le Donjon ou Château féodal de Domfront (Orne)_,
-1893, pp. 29, 30.
-
-[55] See note above, p. 45.
-
-[56] Ord. Vit., iii. 5.
-
-[57] The essential portions of these texts are quoted by Enlart, ii.
-497-9.
-
-[58] The “lesser donjon” at Falaise, which contained the great chamber,
-is a rectangular projection of two stories from the great donjon.
-
-[59] Mrs Armitage in _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 443-7.
-
-[60] Ord. Vit., viii. 12; “fossis et densis sepibus.”
-
-[61] _Ibid._, viii. 24; “Hic machinas construxit, contra munimentum
-hostile super rotulas egit, ingentia saxa in oppidum et oppidanos
-projecit, bellatores assultus dare docuit, quibus vallum et sepes
-circumcingentes diruit, et culmina domorum super inhabitantes dejecit.”
-
-[62] Ord. Vit., viii. 13; “Callidi enim obsessores in fabrili fornace,
-quæ in promptu structa fuerat, ferrum missilium callefaciebant,
-subitoque super tectum principalis aulæ in munimentis jaciebant, et
-sic ferrum candens sagittarum atque pilorum in arida veterum lanugine
-imbricum totis nisibus figebant.”
-
-[63] See J. H Round, _Castles of the Conquest_ (_Archæologia_, lviii.
-333).
-
-[64] _Adulterinus_ = spurious, counterfeit.
-
-[65] Cæsar, _Bell. Gall._, vii. 68 _seq._ Alesia, near the modern
-village of Alise-la-Reine, is in the Côte d’Or department, some 36
-miles N.W. of Dijon.
-
-[66] Cæsar, _De Bell. Civ._, ii. 1 _seq._
-
-[67] A detailed account of this siege is given by Oman, _Art of War_,
-pp. 140-7.
-
-[68] Enlart, ii. 413, 414.
-
-[69] Ord. Vit., vii. 10.
-
-[70] _Ibid._ “Rex itaque quoddam municipium in valle Beugici construxit
-ibique magnam militum copiam ad arcendum hostem constituit.”
-
-[71] _Ibid._, viii. 2.
-
-[72] _Ibid._, viii. 23; Roger of Wendover.
-
-[73] Thus Henry I., in his wars with Louis VI., conducted one blockade
-by building two castles, which the enemy called derisively Malassis and
-Gête-aux-Lièvres (Ord. Vit., xii. 1). So also (_ibid._, xii. 22) his
-castle of Mäte-Putain near Rouen. Many other instances might be named.
-
-[74] Oman, _Art of War_, pp. 135, 139: his authority is Guy of Amiens,
-whose poetical rhetoric, however, may not be altogether accurate in
-description.
-
-[75] Ord. Vit., viii. 24. _Cf._ viii. 16, where Robert of Normandy,
-another great Crusader, besieging Courcy-sur-Dives in 1091, caused
-a great wooden tower or belfry (_berfredum_) to be built, which was
-burned by the defenders. Robert of Bellême was also present at this
-siege.
-
-[76] See below, p. 99.
-
-[77] Suger, _Gesta Ludovici Grossi_ (ed. Molinier, pp. 63-66).
-
-[78] Pent-houses were sometimes elaborately defended. Thus Joinville
-describes the large “cats” made by St Louis’ engineers to protect
-the soldiers who were making a causeway across an arm of the Nile
-near Mansurah (1249-50). These had towers at either end, with covered
-guard-houses behind the towers, and were called _chats-châteaux_.
-
-[79] See the account of the sieges of Boves and Château-Gaillard
-by Guillaume le Breton, _Philippis_, books ii. and vii. At the
-siege of Zara in the fourth Crusade, after five days of fruitless
-stone-throwing, the Crusaders began to undermine a tower which led to
-the surrender of the city (Villehardouin).
-
-[80] Abbo: see the account of the siege of Paris above.
-
-[81] Ord. Vit., ix. 15: “Machinam, quam ligneum possumus vocitare
-castellum.” It was strictly a belfry (see below).
-
-[82] _Ibid._
-
-[83] _Cf._ the account of the operations at the siege of Marseilles
-(Cæsar, _De Bell. Civ._, ii. 11): “Musculus ex turri latericia a
-nostris telis tormentisque defenditur.”
-
-[84] The _porte-coulis_ is literally a sliding door. Its outer bars
-fitted into grooves in the walls on either side. See pp. 227, 229.
-
-[85] Vitruvius, _De Architectura_, x. 13, § 3, mentions among Roman
-scaling-machines, an inclined plane, “ascendentem machinam qua ad murum
-plano pede transitus esse posset.”
-
-[86] Guillaume le Breton, _Philippis_, book vii. This poem is an
-important source of information for the wars of Philip Augustus, and
-for the siege of Château-Gaillard in particular.
-
-[87] Ord. Vit., ix. 13.
-
-[88] _Ibid._, ix. 11.
-
-[89] _Ibid._, xii. 36.
-
-[90] This is the usual distinction. But the use of the names varies.
-In Vitruvius (_op. cit._, x. 10, 11) the _catapulta_ or _scorpio_ is a
-machine for shooting arrows, while the _ballista_ is used for throwing
-stones. The pointed stakes at the siege of Marseilles (Cæsar, _De Bell.
-Civ._, ii. 2) were shot from _ballistae_. Vitruvius indicates several
-methods of working the _ballista_ by torsion: “aliae enim vectibus et
-suculis (levers and winches), nonnullae polyspastis (pulleys), aliae
-ergatis (windlasses), quaedam etiam tympanorum (wheels) torquentur
-rationibus.”
-
-[91] For the injuries inflicted by stone-throwing machines, see
-Villehardouin’s mention of the wounding of Guillaume de Champlitte at
-Constantinople, and of Pierre de Bracieux at Adrianople.
-
-[92] Oman, _op. cit._, 139, quotes Anna Comnena to this effect.
-
-[93] Stone-throwing engines and _ballistae_ alike were employed by
-the Saracens at Mansurah (1250), for hurling Greek fire at the towers
-constructed by St Louis to protect his causeway-makers (Joinville).
-
-[94] Thus, in the first siege of Constantinople by the Crusaders
-(1203), Villehardouin emphasises the number of siege-machines used by
-the besiegers upon shipboard and on land, but gives no account of their
-use by the defenders. They were employed, however, by the defence, as
-we have seen at Marseilles; see also Chapter I. above, for possible
-traces of their use in the stations of the Roman wall. A special
-platform might in some cases be constructed for them and wheeled to the
-back of the rampart-walk.
-
-[95] Such crenellations are indicated even in the timber defences at
-Alesia and Trebonius’ second rampart at Marseilles. They are familiar
-features of oriental fortification, _e.g._, of the great wall of China
-or the walls and gates of Delhi.
-
-[96] This roof was sometimes gabled, the timbers, as in the donjon at
-Coucy, following and resting on the slope of the coping of the parapet.
-
-[97] Sometimes, as at Constantinople in 1204 (Villehardouin), towers
-were heightened by the addition of one or more stages of wood. _Cf._
-the heightening of the unfinished _tête-du-pont_ at Paris in 885-6.
-
-[98] Clark, i. 68-120, gives an elaborate list of castles in England
-and Wales at this date. A large number, however, of those which he
-mentions, had been already destroyed; and many were of later foundation.
-
-[99] Accounts of this rebellion are given by Benedict of Peterborough
-and Roger of Hoveden.
-
-[100] Nottingham was a foundation of the Conqueror: Newark was not
-founded until after 1123.
-
-[101] Ord. Vit., xi. 2, mentions the capture of the castle of Blyth
-(Blida castrum) by Henry I. from Robert de Bellême. By this Tickhill is
-probably meant. It is four miles from Blyth, where was a Benedictine
-priory founded by Roger de Busli, the first Norman lord of Tickhill,
-and granted by him to the priory of Ste-Trinité-du-Mont at Rouen.
-Ordericus, who, as a monk of a Norman abbey, was familiar with the name
-of Blyth priory, may have supposed the castle of Roger de Busli to have
-been at Blyth.
-
-[102] See Rymer, _Fœdera_ (Rec. Com., 1816), vol. i. pt. i. p. 429:
-“castrum de Pontefracto, quod est quasi clavis in comitatu Eborum.”
-
-[103] The remains are chiefly of the second quarter of the fifteenth
-century; but it was a residence of the archbishops as early as the
-twelfth century.
-
-[104] A. Harvey, _Bristol_ (Ancient Cities), pp. 35, 116.
-
-[105] Rob. de Monte, quoted by Stubbs, _Select Charters_, 8th ed.,
-1905, p. 128: “Rex Henricus coepit revocare in jus proprium urbes,
-castella, villas, quae ad coronam regni pertinebant, castella noviter
-facta destruendo.”
-
-[106] The curtain (Lat. _cortina_, Fr. _courtine_) is a general name
-for the wall enclosing a courtyard, and is thus applied to the wall
-round the castle enclosure.
-
-[107] Martène, _Thesaurus Anecdotorum_, iv. 47, quoted by Enlart, ii.
-418. From _alatorium_ is derived the word _allure_, often employed as a
-technical term for a rampart-walk.
-
-[108] Ord. Vit., v. 19: “Lapideam munitionem, qua prudens Ansoldus
-domum suam cinxerat, cum ipsa domo dejecit.” In this case the wall
-seems to have been built, not round an open courtyard, but round a
-house or tower. The French term for a fortified wall, forming the outer
-defence of a single building, is _chemise_. Thus, in a mount-and-bailey
-castle, the palisade round the tower on the mount was, strictly
-speaking, a _chemise_, while that round the bailey was a curtain.
-
-[109] Ord. Vit., vii. 10.
-
-[110] _Ibid._, viii. 23.
-
-[111] _Ibid._, viii. 5. Robert, son of Giroie, “castellum Sancti
-Cerenici ... muris et vallis speculisque munivit.”
-
-[112] “Herring-bone” masonry consists of courses of rubble bedded
-diagonally in mortar, alternating with horizontal courses of thin
-stones, the whole arrangement resembling the disposition of the bones
-in the back of a fish. The horizontal courses are frequently omitted,
-and their place is taken by thick layers of mortar.
-
-[113] See _Yorks. Archæol. Journal_, xx. 132, where the evidence quoted
-points to the conclusion “that the doorway was not erected later than
-about 1075.” Harvey, _Castles and Walled Towns_, p. 85, assumes that
-the doorway was cut through the south wall of the tower at a later
-date: the evidence of the masonry is decisively against this idea.
-
-[114] The architectural history of Ludlow castle has been thoroughly
-examined by Mr W. H. St John Hope in an invaluable paper in
-_Archæologia_, lxi. 258-328.
-
-[115] The original design probably included an upper chamber of
-moderate height. There was, however, a considerable interval between
-the completion of the gateway and the building of the upper stage.
-
-[116] The large outer bailey at Ludlow was an addition to the original
-castle, late in the twelfth century, and is contemporary with the
-blocking of the gatehouse entrance. Originally the castle consisted
-merely of the present inner ward. The outer bailey or base-court gave
-enlarged accommodation for the garrison, and contained stables, barns,
-and other offices for which there was no room in the inner ward.
-
-[117] The explanation of this passage through the wall was long a
-mystery. Clark, ii. 278, recognised that it led from an outer to an
-inner “room,” but was puzzled by the bar-holes which showed that the
-doors had been carefully defended.
-
-[118] Mr Hope thinks that it was originally intended to cover the
-gateway with a semicircular barrel-vault. The lower stage of the keep
-at Richmond has a ribbed vault with central column. This, however,
-with the vice, now blocked, in the south-west corner, was inserted
-many years after the building of the great tower on the site of the
-gatehouse.
-
-[119] The string-courses of the upper stages of the tower, and the
-windows of the southern chamber, which was of the full height of the
-two upper stories, and probably formed the chapel of the castle, have
-further enrichment; but the detail is nowhere elaborate. See T. M.
-Blagg, F.S.A., _A Guide to Newark, &c._, 2nd ed., pp. 19-22.
-
-[120] Harvey, _op. cit._, p. 98, says that Newark castle “has now no
-trace of a keep, and possibly never possessed one.” The gatehouse,
-however, may fairly be considered as belonging to the category of
-tower-keeps, and has one characteristic of that type of building—viz.,
-the cross-wall which divides the upper stages, and is borne by an
-archway in the centre of the gateway passage.
-
-[121] The churches of Upton, near Gainsborough, Burghwallis, near
-Doncaster, and Lois Weedon in Northamptonshire, are examples of this
-type. “Herring-bone” work occurs at Brixworth, in a portion of the
-tower to which a pre-Conquest date cannot safely be attributed. At
-Marton, near Gainsborough, it occurs in a tower of “Saxon” type, which
-was probably not built until after the Conquest. It is found twice at
-York, but the date of the so-called Saxon work in the crypt of the
-minster is very doubtful; while the tower of St Mary Bishophill Junior,
-although Saxon in type, is more likely to be Norman in date. Examples
-of “herring-bone” work in the churches of Normandy are found, _e.g._,
-at Périers and in the apse at Cérisy-la-Forêt (Calvados).
-
-[122] The donjon of Falaise belongs to the early part of the twelfth
-century, and is therefore a late example of “herring-bone” work. The
-“herring-bone” work in the keep at Guildford is probably still later,
-and that in the curtain wall at Lincoln, raised on the top of earthen
-banks, can hardly be attributed to a very early date.
-
-[123] It has also been noted in the tower of Marton church, near
-Gainsborough.
-
-[124] The lodge which now occupies its site was built in 1815, while
-the present main entrance to the castle, south-west of the mount, was
-made in 1810, and is quite outside the original _enceinte_.
-
-[125] See note 122 on p. 100.
-
-[126] A curtain is said to be flanked when its line is broken at
-intervals by projections, so near one another that the whole face of
-the piece of curtain between them can be covered by the fire of the
-defenders stationed in them.
-
-[127] Much of the curtain of Lancaster castle is of fairly early date.
-For the supposed Roman origin of the castle and its probable history,
-see note 354 on p. 327 below.
-
-[128] These additions have given rise to the common theory that this
-hall is a work of late twelfth century date.
-
-[129] Other examples of early stone halls will be mentioned in a later
-chapter.
-
-[130] This is very noticeable in Shropshire, where a large number of
-parish churches, to which rectors were presented and instituted in the
-ordinary way, are described as free chapels in the registers of the
-bishops of Lichfield and Hereford during the thirteenth and fourteenth
-centuries.
-
-[131] See Pat. Rolls, 18 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 28; 3 Hen. IV., pt. 1, m.
-6.
-
-[132] Pat. 2 Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 4. The walls of this chapel,
-dedicated to St Peter, remain. In the fifteenth century it was enlarged
-as far as the west curtain by a western annexe, and in the sixteenth
-century it was divided into two floors, the upper floor being the
-court-house, and the lower floor the record-room of the court of the
-Marches.
-
-[133] Pat. 2 Edw. II., pt. 2, m. 24.
-
-[134] The word _keep_ is a comparatively modern term, unknown to
-medieval castle-builders, to whom this part of the castle was the
-_donjon_ or _dungeon_, or the _great tower_.
-
-[135] Other important shell keeps of the normal type are at Arundel,
-Cardiff (114), Carisbrooke (111), Farnham, Lewes, Pickering, Totnes,
-and Tonbridge—the last one of the most considerable and finest examples.
-
-[136] Clifford’s tower at York is sometimes quoted as a shell keep. It
-was actually a tower with a forebuilding.
-
-[137] See Enlart, ii. 500, 676: Anthyme Saint-Paul, _Histoire
-Monumentale_, p. 168, gives the date 993, with an expression of doubt.
-Fulk the Black was count of Anjou 987-1039.
-
-[138] Enlart, ii. 685, says “début du xiiᵉ siècle.”
-
-[139] Ord. Vit., xii. 14.
-
-[140] _Ibid._, viii. 19.
-
-[141] _Ibid._, x. 18.
-
-[142] _Ibid._, xi. 20: _adulterina castella_ is the phrase used.
-
-[143] Enlart, ii. 710. Blanchetière, _op. cit._, 83, mentions Henry’s
-operations in 1123, but believes in an earlier date for the donjon.
-
-[144] Rad. de Diceto, _Abbrev. Chron._, sub anno.
-
-[145] _Pipe Roll Soc._, vol. i., pp. 13, 14; iv. 23.
-
-[146] _Ibid._, i. 27.
-
-[147] _Ibid._, i. 29, 30, 31; ii. 14; iv. 36; v. 50; vi. 57, 58; vii.
-11, 12; xii. 79; xiii. 31.
-
-[148] _Ibid._, ii. 12; v. 49.
-
-[149] _Ibid._, iv. 35.
-
-[150] _Ibid._, iv. 39.
-
-[151] _Ibid._, iv. 40.
-
-[152] _Ibid._, viii. 89; ix. 59, etc.
-
-[153] _Ibid._, xiii. 107, 108; xv. 132; xvi. 32.
-
-[154] _E.g._, _ibid._, xiii. 140.
-
-[155] _Ibid._, xvi. 32; xviii. 110.
-
-[156] _Ibid._, xviii. 110.
-
-[157] _Ibid._, xiii. 161.
-
-[158] _Ibid._, v. 35.
-
-[159] _Ibid._, xix. 53.
-
-[160] Charles Dawson, _Hastings Castle_, ii. 524.
-
-[161] _Pipe Roll Soc._, ix. 17; xi. 18; xii. 15; xiii. 95; xv. 2; xvi.
-2.
-
-[162] _Ibid._, xviii. 16; xix. 68.
-
-[163] _Ibid._, xix. 167; xxi. 77; see also xvi. 92.
-
-[164] _Pipe Roll Soc._, xvi. 118, 119.
-
-[165] _Ibid._, xvi. 141.
-
-[166] _Ibid._, xvi. 137.
-
-[167] _Ibid._, xix. 81.
-
-[168] _Ibid._, xviii. 7; xix. 173.
-
-[169] _Ibid._, xviii. 66; xix. 110; xxii. 183. Malcolm, king of Scots,
-yielded Bamburgh, Carlisle, and Newcastle to Henry II. in 1157; and the
-towers at all three places were begun within a few years of this event.
-That at Bamburgh is mentioned in 1164.
-
-[170] _Ibid._, xix. 2.
-
-[171] See evidence brought by Mrs Armitage, _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xix.
-443-7.
-
-[172] Ord. Vit., iv. 1. He calls these strongholds _firmamenta quaedam_.
-
-[173] _A.S. Chron._, sub anno.
-
-[174] Such cross-walls, found in the larger towers, were not merely
-useful as partitions between the rooms. They enabled the builders to
-lay their floors more conveniently, as timber of sufficient scantling
-for so large an undivided space was obtainable with difficulty. In case
-of the great tower being taken by storm, the cross-wall on each floor
-formed a barrier to the besiegers, shutting off the tower as it did
-into two halves. This is well seen, for example, at Porchester.
-
-[175] At Norham and Kenilworth the towers are at an angle of the inner
-ward where the two wards are adjacent. At Porchester it is at an outer
-angle of the inner ward, so that two of its sides are on the outer
-curtain of the castle.
-
-[176] At Hedingham and Rochester there are mural galleries above the
-level of the second floor, the height of which therefore corresponds
-to that of two external stories. Both towers are exceptionally lofty,
-Rochester being 113, Hedingham 100 feet high.
-
-[177] We know from the Pipe Roll for 1173-4 that work was being done at
-Guildford in that year (_Pipe Roll Soc._, xxi. 3).
-
-[178] This points to two separate dates for the structure. The earlier
-masonry has been attributed to Bishop Flambard, who founded the castle
-in 1121; the later to Bishop Pudsey, who made additions to the castle
-about 1157. If this is so, the history of the tower is parallel to that
-of Porchester—a low stone tower, possibly of the reign of Henry I.,
-heightened in the reign of Henry II.
-
-[179] Porchester, in spite of its great size, is a tower which was
-apparently built for exclusively military purposes. The floors are
-feebly lighted, and there is no fireplace in the building.
-
-[180] Both these castles belong to the class of cliff strongholds which
-were walled from their earliest foundation.
-
-[181] Further alterations were made in the fifteenth century, when a
-new stair was inserted in the north-east angle, and the outer stair
-against the west wall was removed.
-
-[182] For the reason, see note 174 on pp. 121, 122.
-
-[183] Legends about the cruelties practised on prisoners, often
-connected with these basement chambers, need not be believed too
-readily. Specially constructed prison chambers in castles usually
-belong to a period later than the twelfth century. On the origin of the
-word “dungeon” see Chapter III.
-
-[184] See the description of the tower at Ardres in Chapter III. Such
-upper floors were probably divided into rooms by wooden partitions.
-
-[185] It was thus impossible to reach the roof from the first floor
-without passing through the second-floor chamber—a precaution which was
-adopted also in the cylindrical tower at Conisbrough.
-
-[186] Here the basement was probably used as a prison. The upper part
-of the original stair still remains.
-
-[187] There are indications, however, of a second chapel in the keep
-itself, occupying the south-east angle of the third floor.
-
-[188] The recently excavated chapel of the great tower of Old Sarum was
-a vaulted building occupying the south-eastern part of the basement of
-the tower itself. It was entered directly from the bailey, and had no
-direct communication with the first floor of the tower.
-
-[189] Such as the so-called oratories in the fore-buildings of Dover
-and Newcastle.
-
-[190] At Old Sarum, the room in the basement, west of the chapel, was
-probably the kitchen.
-
-[191] _Cf._ the employment of one of the angle towers at the later
-castle of Langley in Northumberland as a garde-robe tower. Some of the
-late medieval pele-towers of the north of England, _e.g._, Chipchase
-and Corbridge, provide excellent examples of mural garde-robes with
-corbelled-out seats.
-
-[192] Roger of Wendover, ann. 1215.
-
-[193] See the description of the fortifications of Antioch in Oman,
-_Art of War_, pp. 527-9; plan facing p. 283.
-
-[194] _Ibid._, 526-7.
-
-[195] Enlart, ii. 504.
-
-[196] _Ibid._, ii. 508: it is attributed to Amaury, count of Evreux
-(1105-37): the masonry (_ibid._, 461) is of coursed rubble with
-bonding-courses of ashlar.
-
-[197] See note 161, p. 119. The keep of Orford is described at some
-length by Harvey, _Castles and Walled Towns_, pp. 106-111.
-
-[198] Enlart, ii. 505.
-
-[199] Possibly there was a trap-door in the centre of each floor: see
-below. All the floors are gone above the entrance stage.
-
-[200] An embrasure is the splay or inner opening of a window. The word
-is also applied to the openings between the _merlons_ or solid pieces
-of a crenellated parapet.
-
-[201] See pp. 217, 230, 233.
-
-[202] It may also be noted that the practice of placing windows
-immediately above one another would be naturally avoided, as tending to
-weaken the masonry of the whole wall at these points. This is well seen
-in the irregular position of the numerous loops which light the vice of
-the donjon at Coucy.
-
-[203] Enlart, ii. 735, gives the date of the donjon (Tour Guinette) at
-Etampes as about 1140.
-
-[204] Enlart, ii. 674, gives the date of completion at Issoudun as 1202.
-
-[205] Or _mâchecoulis_. _Coulis_ = a groove. The first part of the word
-is probably derived from _mâcher_ = to break or crush, and implies the
-purpose effected by missiles sent through those openings.
-
-[206] Drawing in Enlart, ii. 504. Here there are two rectangular
-towers, with rounded angle-turrets, connected by a lofty intermediate
-building.
-
-[207] The same cause undoubtedly led, at an earlier date, to the
-covering of Syrian churches with roofs of stone.
-
-[208] Château-Gaillard was on the French side of the Seine, in
-territory purchased by Richard I. from the archbishop of Rouen.
-
-[209] E. Lefèvre-Pontalis, _Le Château de Coucy_, pp. 48, 49, shows
-that the donjon forms part of the latest work undertaken by Enguerrand
-III., lord of Coucy, the founder of the present castle, who died in
-1242: it was evidently completed about 1240.
-
-[210] The town walls appear to be rather earlier than the castle
-(_ibid._, 34).
-
-[211] On the third floor, these niches are divided into two stages
-and connected by an upper gallery which pierces the abutments of the
-vault, and surrounds the whole apartment. The method of vaulting this
-gallery behind the abutments, so as to give additional resistance to
-the masonry of the tower, is described by Lefèvre-Pontalis, _op. cit._
-94: see plan _ibid._, p. 93.
-
-[212] In the angle-towers at Coucy, however, the stairs take the form
-of vices, and do not curve with the wall, although ceasing at each
-floor.
-
-[213] The gabled coping of the parapet formed the central support
-for the sloping roof of the outer gallery and of the corresponding
-_coursière_ on the inner side.
-
-[214] It stands on a promontory between two creeks at the head of the
-inlet known as the Pembroke river.
-
-[215] The domestic buildings may be in part earlier, but were largely
-reconstructed in the thirteenth century.
-
-[216] The tower is sometimes described as being of five stages: the
-dome, however, was merely a vault, and did not form a separate stage.
-
-[217] An account of Flint castle is given by Harvey, _Castles and
-Walled Towns_, p. 123 _seq._ Speed’s map of Flintshire, made _c._ 1604,
-shows that the tower was joined to the adjacent curtain by a wall, the
-rampart-walk of which probably gave access to the entrance on the first
-floor of the tower.
-
-[218] In 1277 the castle of Flint was a timber structure, so that the
-present work cannot be earlier than the end of the thirteenth century.
-The masonry is composed of large blocks of yellow sandstone, decayed
-where they are exposed to the tide. There was an outer bailey, the
-platform of which alone remains, with a ditch between it and the castle
-proper.
-
-[219] These holes do not, however, surround the tower, so that the
-passage may have been only partially roofed.
-
-[220] The keep of Launceston was probably built about the close of the
-twelfth century: that at Flint later, as already noted.
-
-[221] Reproduced in _Memorials of Old Yorkshire_, 1909, opposite p. 256.
-
-[222] _I.e._, retaining walls used to face (_revêtir_) a sloping
-surface.
-
-[223] A bartizan is a small turret or lookout corbelled out at an
-angle of a tower or on the surface of a wall. The word is connected
-with “brattice” (_bretèche_); and such turrets, like the machicolated
-parapet, are the stone counterpart of the bratticing and hoarding of
-timber applied to fortresses at an earlier date.
-
-[224] Ventress’s model of the castle, made in 1852, shows the great
-hall near the north-east corner of the outer ward, its west end being
-nearly opposite the main entrance of the castle. The outer ward nearly
-surrounded the small inner ward, which contained the keep.
-
-[225] At Richmond the hall and its adjacent buildings were unusually
-complete for their date, and the tower-keep was not planned as a
-dwelling-house. None of our tower-keeps, Porchester excepted, are so
-purely military in character.
-
-[226] The origin of this term is doubtful; some think it to be a
-corruption of “barbican”—a work covering the entrance to the house
-or castle proper. Large outer baileys, as at Ludlow (96) and Coucy,
-correspond to the “barmkins” of the north of England.
-
-[227] At Arundel, Cardiff, and Warwick, mount-and-bailey castles which
-are still inhabited, the present great halls stand on sites which
-were doubtless occupied by the original halls built by the founders.
-All three were largely rebuilt at a later date, and have been further
-restored in modern times. Warwick was one of the Conqueror’s earliest
-castles; Arundel was founded before 1086, Cardiff about 1093. A large
-portion of the _enceinte_ at Cardiff follows the line of the curtain of
-the Roman station (see _Archæologia_, lvii. pp. 335-52).
-
-[228] At Boothby Pagnell there is a cylindrical chimney-shaft very
-similar to that of the hall at Christchurch.
-
-[229] The usual arrangement even in small cottages: _cf._ Chaucer,
-_Cant. Tales_, B. 4022 (the house of the dairy-woman in the Nonne
-Preestes Tale), “Ful sooty was hir bour, and eek hir halle.”
-
-[230] The word “solar” or “soller” (_solarium_ = a terrace exposed to
-the sun) was used indiscriminately of any room, gallery, or loft above
-the ground-level of a building: _e.g._, the loft or gallery above a
-chancel-screen was commonly known as a “solar,” and the same word
-should be applied to the chamber, inaccurately called a “parvise,” on
-the first floor of a church porch. The word, however, is sometimes
-applied to a well-lighted parlour facing south, without respect to
-the floor on which it stands, _e.g._, the abbot’s solar at Haughmond
-(_Archæol. Journal_, lxvi. 307) and at Jervaulx (_Yorks. Archæol.
-Journal_, xxi. 337).
-
-[231] Ord. Vit., iv. 19: “Super solarium ... tesseris ludere ceperunt.”
-The word “solarium” may be used, of course, in this passage with
-reference merely to the site of the house—_i.e._, it may mean “the
-first floor above the ground.” In this case William and Henry may have
-been playing dice in the hall itself, which, as at Christchurch, may
-have occupied the whole “solarium.” Robert was evidently outside the
-house.
-
-[232] Bates, _Border Holds of Northumberland_ attributes the walling,
-etc., of Warkworth castle “on its present general lines” to Robert,
-son of Roger (1169-1214), who obtained in 1199, for 300 marks, a
-confirmation of the grant of the castle and manor from John.
-
-[233] So called in Clarkson’s survey, made in 1567. One explanation of
-the name is that the tower was similar to one in Carrickfergus castle,
-on Belfast Lough. Clarkson describes its polygonal form as “round of
-divers squares.”
-
-[234] This entrance has been blocked, and the modern entrance has been
-cut through a window-opening, in the adjoining bay to the west.
-
-[235] The aisle-walls are low and the whole building is covered by a
-single high-pitched roof, so that there is no clerestory.
-
-[236] The same feature occurs at the west end of the great hall at
-Auckland, where the daïs was placed: there are regular responds at the
-east end, but the eastern bay was made somewhat wider than the rest, to
-give room for the screens.
-
-[237] Bishop Bek (1284-1311) probably heightened the aisle-walls and
-inserted traceried windows. Cosin (1660-72) rebuilt the greater part
-of the outer walls, renewed Bek’s windows, and added the present
-clerestory and roof: the splendid screen, which divides the chapel from
-the ante-chapel, was also part of his work.
-
-[238] The work of this late period is attributed to Bishop Tunstall
-(1530-59). Cosin at a later date made additions to the chapel.
-
-[239] At the fortified manor-house of Drayton, some fourteen miles
-south-east of Rockingham, the great hall is a fabric of the later half
-of the thirteenth century, although the date has been obscured by later
-alterations. The vaulted cellar at the east end of the hall (_c._ 1270)
-is almost intact; but the great chamber above was rebuilt about the end
-of the seventeenth century.
-
-[240] As at Penshurst. The hearth-stone remains at Stokesay. At Haddon
-the great fireplace in the west wall was inserted several years after
-the hall was built.
-
-[241] At Harlech the kitchen was at right angles to the hall, against
-the south curtain.
-
-[242] The words “horn-work,” “demilune,” or “ravelin,” were applied in
-later fortification to flanked outworks which presented a salient angle
-to the field, _i.e._, on the side of attack. To such defences in the
-middle ages the general name of “barbican” seems to have been given.
-
-[243] The mining operations, so successful at Château-Gaillard, were
-not without their own danger to the miners. In the siege of Coucy by
-the count of Saint-Pol in 1411, the traditional method was used to
-undermine one of the towers of the base-court. A party of the besiegers
-descended to admire the preparations. The wooden stays, however, were
-not strong enough to support the weight of the tower, which fell
-unexpectedly, and buried the men in the mine. Their remains have never
-come to light.
-
-[244] These are additions to the wall, probably made soon after the
-building of the great cylindrical tower. The wall seems to be of the
-earlier part of the twelfth century, and may have enclosed the bailey
-from the first. No traces of a mount remain.
-
-[245] The position of Appleby town and castle, within a great sweep of
-the Eden, is somewhat similar.
-
-[246] Apartments, known as the Constable’s lodging, were on the first
-floor of the gatehouse: the portcullis probably descended through the
-thickness of the south wall of this floor, which was not pierced for a
-window.
-
-[247] The common idea that molten lead was poured through these holes
-on the besiegers is a mere legend. This valuable material would hardly
-have been employed for this purpose. Powdered quick-lime, however, may
-have been used, with even more deadly effect.
-
-[248] This applies, of course, to almost all vaulted towers which
-are cylindrical in plan, and not to gatehouse towers alone: _e.g._,
-the towers of the inner ward of Coucy. But, even where there is
-no vaulting, the interior plan of cylindrical towers is sometimes
-polygonal—_e.g._, in the western angle-towers at Harlech, on all floors
-as well as in the basement. In the eastern angle-towers of the same
-castle, the interior of the basements is cylindrical. Clark, ii. 73,
-describes these angle-towers inaccurately.
-
-[249] The entrances to such guard-rooms, where great thickness was
-given to the outer wall, took the form of narrow elbow-shaped lobbies,
-which would be a source of difficulty and deception to an attacking
-force.
-
-[250] The Black gate was built in 1247: the entrance was protected by
-an outer barbican in 1358.
-
-[251] Holes in the masonry for the beam to which the pulley was fixed
-may be seen, _e.g._, in the gateways at Conway and Rhuddlan.
-
-[252] At Sandal (86) there was a barbican guarding the entrance to a
-shell-keep.
-
-[253] Conisbrough is virtually a castle of one ward set on an isolated
-hill, not unlike Restormel in Cornwall.
-
-[254] The entrance may be compared to the more perfect plan of the
-barbican and platform at Conway (254).
-
-[255] The wall of _enceinte_ at Scarborough is probably in great part
-the wall which defended the castle from its foundation.
-
-[256] They appear to have been a feature of the keep at Pontefract;
-_cf._ also Micklegate, Monk, and Bootham bars at York, which have
-bartizans at the outer angles. At Lincoln the wall of the upper floor
-of the gatehouse, between the bartizans, presents an obtuse angle to
-the field.
-
-[257] The main gatehouse (Belle-Chaise) was built under abbot Tustin
-(1236-64); the _châtelet_ was added under Pierre Le Roy in 1393.
-
-[258] The fortifications of Coucy were built in the thirteenth century:
-the round tower in front of the Porte de Laon was superseded in 1551
-by a bastion of pentagonal form. The southern gate of Coucy (Porte
-de Soissons) was made in a re-entering angle of the town wall: the
-southern gate at Conway (Porth-y-Felin) shows the same disposition. The
-walls of Tenby were originally built early in the reign of Edward III.:
-letters patent, granting murage for seven years to the men of Tenby for
-the construction of their walls, were issued 6th March 1327-28 (Pat. 2
-Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 22).
-
-[259] Plan in Oman, _Art of War_, opposite p. 530.
-
-[260] The northern rampart-walk at Coucy was widened by the building
-of an arcade of thirteen pointed arches against the inner face of the
-wall, connecting a series of internal buttresses. Part of the western
-wall of the town of Southampton was widened, some time later than the
-actual building of the wall, by the addition of eighteen arches upon
-the outer face (293). The soffits of the arches were pierced by long
-machicolations—a necessary precaution in so exceptional an arrangement.
-
-[261] In the battlement of the donjon of Coucy, each piece of solid
-wall between the arched embrasures is pierced by an arrow-loop (177).
-
-[262] Viollet-le-Duc, _La Cité de Carcassonne_, p. 27, has a drawing
-of a similar device with an upper and lower shutter (245): the upper
-shutter is propped open by iron guards: while the lower is hung in iron
-hooks fixed in the face of the wall.
-
-[263] _Cf._ sections of church parapets in Bond, _Gothic Architecture
-in England_, pp. 385-8.
-
-[264] At Kenilworth the Water tower, on the south curtain of the
-base-court, has a fireplace in the basement.
-
-[265] Garde-robes built upon arches across re-entering angles of a wall
-occur on each side of a large buttress in the west wall of Southampton.
-A similar feature occurs at the junction of the north curtain of
-Porchester castle with one of the Roman towers. In both cases the
-addition was probably made in the fourteenth century.
-
-[266] These towers appear to be of the fourteenth century, and are
-therefore much later in date than the towers of the inner curtain.
-
-[267] At Flint, Rhuddlan, and several other castles, the angle-towers
-were three-quarter circles, the face towards the bailey being a flat
-wall, on which, at Rhuddlan as at Harlech, the rampart-walk was
-corbelled out.
-
-[268] These walls, pierced by seven gates and flanked by thirty-nine
-rectangular towers, were begun under Pope Clement VI. in 1345, and
-finished _c._ 1380. The rampart is reached by stairs set against the
-inner face of the walls. The walls of Aigues-Mortes, built 1272-5, and
-of Carcassonne, begun earlier and completed later than Aigues-Mortes,
-belong to an earlier period of fortification, corresponding to that of
-our Edwardian castles. Of other well-known French examples, the walls
-of Mont-Saint-Michel are of various dates from the thirteenth to the
-fifteenth century: those of Domfront are partly of the thirteenth,
-those of Fougères (250) of the fifteenth century, and those of
-Saint-Malo chiefly of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The
-thirteenth-century _enceinte_ of Coucy has already been referred to. A
-list of the numerous remains of town walls in France will be found in
-Enlart, ii. 623 _seq._, under the name of each department.
-
-[269] Clark, i. 460, 312, 314.
-
-[270] The cross-wall at Carnarvon is gone.
-
-[271] The polygonal towers which flank the great gatehouse at Denbigh
-had the same characteristic of obtuse angles, as can be still seen
-where the masonry has not been stripped from the rubble core.
-
-[272] The threshold of the gateway was from 35 to 40 feet above the
-bottom of the ditch.
-
-[273] The eastern gateway was defended in the same way.
-
-[274] Le Krak (Kala’at-el-Hosn) was rebuilt in 1202, and held by the
-Franks till 1271 (Enlart, ii. 536). It was a frontier fortress of the
-county of Tripoli in Syria, commanding the mountain country to the
-east, and must be distinguished from the great castle of Kerak in Moab,
-near the Dead sea, built about 1140, and surrendered in 1188, “the
-eastern bulwark of the kingdom of Jerusalem” (Oman, _Art of War_, 541).
-The entrance to the castle of Kerak has been described above, pp. 240,
-241.
-
-[275] One feature of the defences of Berkhampstead is the series of
-earthen bastions, applied to the outer bank on the north side of the
-castle, probably at a date long after the foundation of the stronghold.
-
-[276] The breadth of the “lists” or intermediate defence of
-the town-walls at Carcassonne varies. On the steep western and
-south-western sides they are very narrow, and in one place are covered
-by the rectangular Bishop’s tower. The ground-floor of this was a
-gateway, which could be used to shut off one part of the lists from
-each other. Of the castle and its defences more will be said later.
-
-[277] At Newcastle the plan was nearly concentric; but the curtains
-of the outer and inner ward met at one point, and the outer ward was
-a large space, containing the domestic buildings, while the inner was
-nearly filled by the keep. The concentric scheme was therefore almost
-accidental, and no simultaneous use of both lines of defence was
-possible.
-
-[278] _Cf._ the outer ditch constructed to cover the barbican at
-Alnwick, where there was possibly a further outwork next the town.
-
-[279] All these gatehouses, like the gatehouse at Rockingham and others
-of the same period, have a central passage, flanked by round towers
-towards the field. Traitors’ gate, however, has an entrance of great
-breadth, wide enough to admit a boat from the river; and the interior
-is an oblong pool, without flanking guard-rooms. The round towers cap
-the outer angles, but are of relatively small importance in the plan.
-The interior pool is actually part of the ditch between the outer ward
-and the Thames, and the gateway is “a barbican ... placed astride upon
-the ditch” (Clark, ii. 242).
-
-[280] These angle-towers appear to belong in great part to the end of
-the twelfth century: the Beauchamp tower is generally attributed to the
-reign of Edward III.
-
-[281] These and the adjacent curtain are largely of the twelfth
-century: the Bloody tower was added in the fourteenth century.
-
-[282] Thus protecting the quay outside Traitors’ gate. _Cf._ the
-spur-wall at Beaumaris.
-
-[283] The thirteenth-century work in the great hall (103) of Chepstow
-castle is unusually elaborate for military work of the period: nowhere
-in English castles have we such splendour and beauty of detail as that
-of which there remain many indications at Coucy.
-
-[284] It was begun about 1267 by Gilbert de Clare, eighth earl of
-Gloucester and seventh earl of Hertford (d. 1295).
-
-[285] The inner ward at Kenilworth lay at all points within an outer
-line of defence. The outer ward, narrow on the south and west, was
-very broad on the east and north, and its western half was cut up into
-sections by cross-walls: it was also crossed by a ditch in front of the
-inner ward. The lake did not surround the castle, and on the north its
-outer defence was a very deep dry ditch.
-
-[286] The partisans of the Despensers held Caerphilly against Queen
-Isabel in 1326: its defenders were granted a general pardon, from which
-Hugh, son of Hugh le Despenser the younger, was excepted, 15th February
-1326-7 (Pat. 1 Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 29). One of the defenders, John
-Cole, received a special pardon on 20th February (_ibid._, m. 32).
-There is no record of a definite siege.
-
-[287] The earthwork or redoubt on the north-west side of the castle is
-probably of this period: no definite details of the destruction of the
-castle are preserved.
-
-[288] The inner buildings at Rhuddlan have entirely disappeared: traces
-of one or two fireplaces are left in the curtain.
-
-[289] At Rhuddlan a passage, protected by an outer wall ending in a
-square tower, descended the river-bank to the water-gate.
-
-[290] Clark (i. 217) places the date of foundation about 1295.
-
-[291] The outer drum towers are large and imposing, though low: the
-inner angles are capped by smaller towers, which bear much the same
-relation to the gatehouses as the outer round towers to Traitors’ gate
-in the Tower of London.
-
-[292] Of these towers, that on the west has an outer salient or spur,
-on the sides of which two bartizans are corbelled out: these are united
-into one, so that the outer face of the upper stage of the tower is
-rounded into a semicircle. The eastern tower is smaller, with a solid
-base: the western part of the upper portion is corbelled off in the
-angle between the tower and a rectangular southern projection. The
-upper stages of the towers completely command the approach, while the
-projection just mentioned would conceal a small body of defenders
-posted between the gateway and the spur-wall (236).
-
-[293] This was not founded by the Crown, like the great castles
-of North Wales, but, like Caerphilly, was a private foundation.
-It passed by marriage, early in the fourteenth century, into the
-possession of the house of Lancaster. Some of the most important
-English castles—_e.g._, Kenilworth, Knaresborough, Lancaster, Lincoln,
-Pontefract, and Pickering—came at various times into the possession of
-this royal house, and, at the accession of Henry IV., became castles of
-the Crown as seized of the duchy of Lancaster.
-
-[294] The stair to the rampart-walk, built against the curtain, was,
-however, normal in the defences of towns (241).
-
-[295] It may be compared with the division of the outer face of the
-polygonal tower at Stokesay into two smaller half-octagons (306).
-
-[296] Viollet-le-Duc’s drawing (_La Cité de Carcassonne_, p.75) shows
-a rampart-walk on each of the enclosing walls of this passage. He also
-shows the passage crossed by a series of looped barriers, so placed
-that each formed a separate line of defence, guarded by a few soldiers,
-and compelled an enemy to pursue a zigzag course through the passage.
-Much allusion has been already made to oblique and elbow-shaped
-contrivances for impeding an enemy’s progress: the antiquity of these
-is evident from the entrances to earthworks like Maiden Castle (see
-Chapter I.).
-
-[297] Description and plan in Blanchetière, _Le Donjon ... de
-Domfront_, pp. 59-63. The date there given is actually earlier than the
-probable epoch of construction.
-
-[298] The progress of fire-arms in English warfare was slow. See the
-various articles by R. Coltman Clephan, F.S.A., in _Archæol. Journal_,
-lxvi., lxvii., and lxviii. The earliest picture of a cannon is in a
-MS. at Christ Church, Oxford, written in 1326 (lxviii. 49), while
-the earliest mention of a hand-gun in England appears to be in 1338
-(lxvi. 153-4). The long-bow continued to be the popular weapon of the
-individual English soldier until long after this date.
-
-[299] The ramparts of Saint-Paul-du-Var (Alpes Maritimes) are said
-to belong to the epoch of the wars between Francis I. and Charles
-V. To the same period belong the fortifications of Lucca, Verona,
-and Antwerp. The present walls of Berwick were begun somewhat later,
-in 1558, enclosing a space considerably smaller than the original
-_enceinte_ of the town, as fortified by Edward I.
-
-[300] Holes with embrasures for cannon were in many cases pierced
-in the walls of fortresses during the fifteenth century, or were
-formed, as in the eastern tower at Warkworth, by blocking the ordinary
-cross-loops through most of their height.
-
-[301] This is very clearly seen in the fortified towns of Italy, or
-in the towns founded by Edward I. and by the kings of France in the
-southern districts of France.
-
-[302] _Pomerium_ = the space _pone muros_, _i.e._, at the back of the
-walls. The word was at first applied to the sacred boundary of Rome and
-other towns, which limited the _auspicia_ of the city.
-
-[303] The re-erection of the rectangular wall-turrets at Newcastle,
-which are of very slight projection from the wall, appears to date
-from 1386: a writ of aid was granted to the mayor and bailiffs on 29th
-November in that year for the repair of the walls and bridge of the
-town (Pat. 10 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 8).
-
-[304] _I.e._, the lower gate. The north-western gateway is the upper
-gate, Porth Uchaf.
-
-[305] Every monastery was, of course, surrounded by a wall; but it was
-only in certain cases and after a certain period that such walls were
-crenellated.
-
-[306] Pat. 4 Edw. I., m. 12.
-
-[307] _Ibid._, 13 Edw. I., m. 22.
-
-[308] _Ibid._
-
-[309] _Ibid._, m. 15.
-
-[310] _Ibid._, 14 Edw. I., m. 24.
-
-[311] _Ibid._, m. 19 (sched.).
-
-[312] _Ibid._, 24 Edw. I., m. 8.
-
-[313] _Ibid._, 27 Edw. I., m. 29.
-
-[314] _Ibid._, 2 Edw. II., pt. 2, m. 25. The abbot and convent of St
-Mary’s, York, had licence to crenellate their wall, except on the side
-towards the city, 12th July 1318 (_Ibid._, 12 Edw. II., pt. I, m. 31).
-
-[315] September 1315 (Pat. 9 Edw. II., pt. 1, m. 18), and 24th February
-1315-6 (_Ibid._, pt. 2, m. 31).
-
-[316] _Ibid._, 12 Edw. II., pt. 1, m. 7. No licence for crenellation
-had previously been given. The licences, here and elsewhere, explain
-that homicide and other crimes in the close by night made walling
-desirable. The gates were to be closed from twilight to sunrise.
-
-[317] Burghersh also had licence to crenellate his manor-houses of
-Stow Park and Nettleham in Lincolnshire and Liddington in Rutland,
-16th November 1336 (Pat. 10 Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 18). A comprehensive
-licence was granted, 20th July 1377 (_Ibid._, 1 Rich. II., pt. 1, m.
-26) to Ralph Erghum, bishop of Salisbury, to wall and crenellate the
-city of Salisbury and his manor-houses at Salisbury, Bishop’s Woodford,
-Potterne, Bishops Cannings, and Ramsbury in Wilts, Sherborne in Dorset,
-Chardstock in Devon, Sonning in Berks, and his house in Fleet Street.
-
-[318] There were four of these double gatehouses in the _enceinte_. The
-fifth gatehouse, Pottergate, was single.
-
-[319] Bishop Wyvill had a grant, 1st March 1331-2, of the stones of the
-cathedral of Old Sarum and the old residential houses, for the repair
-of the cathedral and enclosure of the precinct (Pat. 5 Edw. III., pt.
-1, m. 27).
-
-[320] Licence to crenellate Whalley, “the church and close,” was
-granted 10th July 1348 (Pat. 22 Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 20).
-
-[321] Pat. 6 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 22: a further licence to crenellate
-the abbey precinct bears date 1389, 6th May (Pat. 12 Rich. II., pt. 2,
-m. 13).
-
-[322] Pat. 3 Rich. II., pt. 2, m. 10.
-
-[323] The beautiful rectangular gatehouse of Battle abbey is earlier
-than Thornton. Licence to crenellate was granted 9th June 1339 (Pat. 12
-Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 28).
-
-[324] One of these towers remains: the other, with the adjacent
-curtain, is gone.
-
-[325] Pat. 19 Edw. I., m. 2.
-
-[326] _Ibid._, 2 Edw. II., pt. 2, m. 19.
-
-[327] Pat. 3 Edw. II., m. 18.
-
-[328] 28th August 1315 (Pat. 9 Edw. II., pt. 1, m. 25).
-
-[329] See a commission to Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, to survey and
-repair defects in Dover castle, 22nd May 1425 (Pat. 3 Hen. VI., pt. 2,
-m. 17).
-
-[330] It will be remembered that the gatehouse of the quasi-concentric
-castle of Kidwelly, only a few miles distant from Llanstephan, is also
-situated upon the outer line of defence.
-
-[331] Bishop Bek enfeoffed Henry Percy of the manor and town, 19th
-November 1309 (Pat. 3 Edw. II., m. 23).
-
-[332] It has been already pointed out that this older house may have
-simply taken the form of a series of buildings against the encircling
-wall of a large shell-keep.
-
-[333] John, Lord Neville, obtained licence from Bishop Hatfield of
-Durham to crenellate Raby in 1378 (O. S. Scott, _Raby, its Castle and
-its Lords_, 1906, P-47).
-
-[334] At Middleham, where the plan of the fore-building is rather
-exceptional, there was a passage through the eastern part of the
-ground-floor of the forebuilding: this, however, was not the only way
-from the northern to the southern half of the castle. The first floor
-of the tower at Knaresborough, which formed a great guard-room, is
-in a very ruinous state; but there are clear indications of the main
-entrance near the north-east angle, and the inner entrance in the south
-wall, at right angles to the outer, still remains. There is also a vice
-in the south wall, by which the inner ward could be reached when the
-gates were closed. This tower, of course, never contained the domestic
-buildings of the castle; but the kitchen was in the basement, to which
-there were three doors of entry from the inner ward. The approach to
-each gateway from outside seems to have been a rising causeway built on
-arches.
-
-[335] The tower of Belsay measures 51½ by 47½ feet. The tower of
-Knaresborough, which is of the same period, measures 62 by 54 feet;
-while that of Gilling measures 79½ by 72½ feet.
-
-[336] This is said to have been the medieval vicarage of the church,
-which was appropriated to the cathedral priory of Carlisle. A
-pele-tower forms part of the rectories of Elsdon and Rothbury and of
-the vicarage of Embleton, Northumberland.
-
-[337] The term “pele-yard” is applied to the base-court of the castle
-of Prudhoe in Pat. 1 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 1; where there is a licence
-to Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus, to apply a rent to the
-augmentation of a chaplain’s stipend in the “chantry of St Mary in le
-Peleyerde of Prodhowe.”
-
-[338] Enlart (ii. 623-753) quotes 242 examples of French churches
-which show remains of fortification. Most of the midland and southern
-departments of France contain a few; but the thickest clusters occur
-near the northern frontier (15 in the Aisne, 10 in the Ardennes
-department), and on the coast of Languedoc and Roussillon, where
-inroads of pirates were common (Pyrénées-Orientales 22; Hérault, 12).
-Among the larger fortified churches were the cathedrals of Agde,
-Béziers, Lodève, and Saint-Pons (Hérault), Elne (Pyrénées-Orientales),
-Pamiers (Ariège), Viviers (Ardèche), and Saint-Claude (Jura),
-and the abbey churches of Saint-Denis (Seine), Saint-Victor at
-Marseilles (Bouches-du-Rhône), La Chaise-Dieu (Haute-Loire), Moissac
-(Tarn-et-Garonne), and Tournus (Saône-et-Loire). The example of Ewenny
-was followed in one or two churches of the same district, such as
-Newton Nottage, and in the peninsula of Gower.
-
-[339] At Llanfihangel-cwm-Du, near Crickhowell, there was a fireplace
-upon the first floor of the tower until recently: the vent for the
-smoke remains in one of the corner turrets of the tower.
-
-[340] The constant pressure of Scottish invasion upon the northern
-border is illustrated by the persistence of military architecture in
-the counties of Northumberland and Cumberland. Thus, as late as 1399,
-William Strickland undertook the building of Penrith castle “for
-fortifying that town and the whole adjacent country” (Pat. 22 Rich.
-II., pt. 2, m. 16; _cf._ pt. 3, m. 37).
-
-[341] Bishop Burnell was building this house in 1284. He left the king
-at Conway on 25th July, to look after the progress of the works (Pat.
-12 Edw. I., m. 7).
-
-[342] 4th July (Pat. 3 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 43). A contract is still
-preserved, of 14th September 1378.
-
-[343] 26th April (Pat. 5 Rich. II., pt. 2, m. 21).
-
-[344] The builder of Raby, John, Lord Neville (d. 1388), was also
-responsible for the fortification of Sheriff Hutton.
-
-[345] This date is given in the 43rd Report of the Deputy-Keeper of
-the Public Records, p. 71. The licence, as the castle was within the
-palatinate, was granted by Bishop Skirlaw.
-
-[346] The licence to Thomas de Heton to “make a castle or fortalice” of
-Chillingham bears date 27th January 1343-4 (Pat. 18 Edw. III., pt. 1,
-m. 46). Some of the masonry in the angle-towers is, however, of a much
-earlier date than this.
-
-[347] The mount remains at the west end of the enclosure, but the
-shell-keep on its summit has been removed.
-
-[348] The gatehouse and barbican in the east curtain, as well as the
-older portion of the dwelling-house, were the work of Thomas Beauchamp,
-earl of Warwick (d. 1369): Cæsar’s tower and Guy’s tower were the work
-of his son Thomas, who died in 1401.
-
-[349] This-is the usual date given for the tower, which is entered from
-the first floor of the great donjon, and from the lower floor of the
-“lesser donjon” attached to one side of the keep. E. Lefèvre-Pontalis,
-_Le Château de Coucy_, p. 82, departs from the usual date to assign the
-tower to Philip Augustus, two centuries earlier. The details certainly
-appear to be of a period much earlier than the fifteenth century.
-
-[350] The turrets attached to some of the towers at Conway and Harlech
-are at the side, not in the centre. Such raised turrets were useful
-as look-out posts, and a watcher posted upon them could inform the
-defenders on the rampart-walk below of movements which they might not
-be able to follow for themselves.
-
-[351] Pat. 9 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 22.
-
-[352] Pat. 9 Rich. II., pt. 2, m. 24.
-
-[353] An interesting gatehouse, belonging to the later years of Edward
-I., is that of Denbigh, which was probably built by Henry de Lacy,
-the last earl of Lincoln (d. 1310). Here a noble archway, flanked by
-two octagonal towers, gives access through a passage to an octagonal
-central hall, beyond which is a smaller octagonal guard-room. The inner
-gateway to the enclosure is set in a side of the octagon, obliquely to
-the outer entrance. The plan is apparently unique. The upper portion of
-the gatehouse is badly ruined, and the walls have been much stripped;
-but there is a statue, probably of the founder, left above the entrance
-archway, which is set in a niche and panel treated with a considerable
-amount of ornamental detail.
-
-[354] The barrel-vault of a basement chamber in one of the
-curtain-towers retains the marks of the wattled centering on which it
-was built. This is persistently asserted to be a mark of Roman origin.
-As a matter of fact, no part of the present castle can be proved to be
-earlier than the beginning of the twelfth century, when Roger of Poitou
-may have moved the head of his honour here from Penwortham, south of
-the Ribble. The castle, however, lies partly within, and partly outside
-the limits of a Roman military station.
-
-[355] This is the date proposed by Bates, _Border Holds_: C. H.
-Hartshorne (_Archæol. Inst._, Newcastle, vol. ii.) proposed a later
-date, _c._ 1435-40. Mr Bates’ date is more likely than the other: for
-neither is there any direct evidence.
-
-[356] New works were begun at Porchester in 1386, when Robert Bardolf,
-the constable, was appointed to impress masons, carpenters, etc.,
-and to take materials at the king’s expense (Pat. 8 Rich. II., pt.
-2, m. 23). This probably applies to the building of the barbican,
-but the hall may also have been remodelled at this period. There are
-considerable remains of twelfth-century work in the substructure of the
-hall, as already noted.
-
-[357] The stone gatehouse of the Norman castle appears to be
-incorporated in the fourteenth-century work, the outer archway, which
-was covered by a barbican, being merely a facing added to earlier work.
-The inner walls of the gatehouse were also lengthened, as part of the
-fourteenth-century enlargement.
-
-[358] John of Gaunt was duke of Lancaster 1362-99. The gatehouse of
-Lancaster castle, known as John of Gaunt’s gateway, was not built until
-after his death. See p. 327.
-
-[359] This hall was probably built late in the thirteenth or early in
-the fourteenth century.
-
-[360] Charles also seems to have rebuilt the chapel on the south side
-of the enclosure.
-
-[361] See the drawing by Androuet du Cerceau and plans in W. H. Ward,
-_French Châteaux and Gardens in the XVIth Century_, Plates III., IV.,
-and p. 11.
-
-[362] See p. 285 above.
-
-[363] The three principal features of the strong tower at Stokesay
-are (1) its isolation from the range of buildings adjoining it, its
-only entrances being from the outside, in the basement and on the
-first floor; (2) the division of its face towards the field into two
-small half-octagons; (3) the stairs carried from floor to floor in
-the thickness of the wall. The stair from the basement to the first
-and second floors crosses the entrance-lobby on the first floor; but,
-in order to reach the roof, the second-floor chamber has to be passed
-through, and a new stair entered in the embrasure of a window. This was
-planned partly, as at Richmond and Conisbrough, to give the defenders
-complete control of the stair, and partly to keep the stair within the
-wall of the tower which was least open to attack, and could therefore
-be lightened most safely.
-
-[364] This was done towards the end of the twelfth century. The licence
-stated that the wall was to be without crenellations (_sine kernello_).
-
-[365] The hall may be a little earlier than the fourteenth century: the
-windows seem to indicate the period 1290-1310. The great chimney and
-the heavy battlement were added when the porch to the hall was built.
-
-[366] Such a position for a medieval stronghold was not unusual. Thus
-Richmond castle is commanded by much higher hills on the north and
-south-west. In medieval warfare, however, before fire-arms had received
-any full development, an enemy would have gained little advantage
-by occupying a commanding position at some distance from the place
-attacked. In 1644, the Parliamentary force which besieged Wingfield
-attempted to breach the walls from Pentrich common, on slightly higher
-ground to the south-east. This was found impossible, and the cannon had
-to be moved to a wood on the west side of the manor before any damage
-was done.
-
-[367] The additions at this end were possibly the work of John Talbot,
-second earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1460), to whom Cromwell sold the manor
-shortly before his death. The earl certainly did some building at
-Wingfield: see the short, but carefully compiled _Guide to Wingfield
-Manor_, by W. H. Edmunds, p. 11.
-
-[368] This can clearly be seen from the small open courtyard on the
-north-west side of the great chamber block. The kitchen block is there
-seen to have been built up against the west wall of the great chamber
-and its lower stage, without any bonding.
-
-[369] At Conway, Porchester, etc., however, the large hall was probably
-intended for the use of the garrison. The great hall at Wingfield was
-essentially the hall of a dwelling-house, in which the inner court is
-kept quite separate from the base-court, where possibly a common hall
-was provided for the men-at-arms who might be lodged there.
-
-[370] This tower, like that at Stokesay, can be entered only by an
-outer door. This is at the foot of a turret containing a broad vice.
-The doorway had no portcullis, but was commanded by a slit in the wall
-from the stair, which ascends on the left of the entrance lobby.
-
-[371] The gateways of the outer and inner courtyards each had double
-doors. There was no provision for portcullises. Each gateway has a
-small postern entrance on one side of the main archway. This would be
-used after the great doors had been closed for the night.
-
-[372] These have recently been removed, to the great detriment of this
-noble tower.
-
-[373] The high tower at Wingfield is not machicolated, and affords a
-curious contrast in this respect to Tattershall.
-
-[374] The late thirteenth-century hall at Little Wenham, near Hadleigh,
-is an early example of a brick house in this district.
-
-[375] Other Lincolnshire examples of brick-work are the gatehouse
-of Thornton abbey (1382), already described, and the early
-sixteenth-century manor-house on the Trent above Gainsborough, known as
-Torksey castle.
-
-[376] The ditch at Hurstmonceaux is now dry. That at Compton Wyniates
-has been partly filled up. The moat of Kentwell, an Elizabethan house,
-is still perfect.
-
-[377] The upper stories of these towers only are semicircular. The two
-lower stages are half octagons. The towers have circular upper turrets
-like those at Warwick.
-
-[378] The castle of Amberley was built about 1379 by Bishop Rede of
-Chichester, and is therefore nearly contemporary with Bodiam. It is
-rectangular in shape, with lofty curtains, and has a gatehouse flanked
-by round towers.
-
-[379] _Lett. and Pap. Hen. VIII._, vol. IV., nos. 2,655, 2,656.
-
-[380] _Lett. and Pap. Hen. VIII._, vol. IV., no. 1,089.
-
-[381] Calendared _ibid._, vol. III., no. 1,186.
-
-[382] Pat. 19 Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 25.
-
-
-
-
-INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES
-
-_N.B.—Illustrations are denoted by numbers followed by the name of the
-photographer, draughtsman, or source from which the picture is derived._
-
-
-  A
-
-  Acton Burnell (Salop), castle, 298, 317, 338
-
-  Adrianople, siege of, 73
-
-  Æthelflaed, lady of the Mercians, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 41, 101
-
-  Æthelwulf, king of Wessex, 28
-
-  Agde (Hérault), cathedral, 315
-
-  Aigues-Mortes (Gard), 77, A. Thompson; 242, 246, 250, 289
-
-  Aire river, 85
-
-  Aisne department, fortified churches in, 315
-
-  Alan of Brittany, earl of Richmond, 47, 94, 101, 104, 107
-
-  Albi (Tarn), fortified cathedral, 315
-
-  Alençon (Orne), castle, 289, A. Thompson
-
-  Alençonnais, the, 52
-
-  Alesia [Alise (Côte-d’Or)], siege of, 46, 59, 60, 61, 79
-
-  Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, 97, 99, 189
-
-  Alfred the Great, king, 26, 28, 64
-
-  Alne river, 86
-
-  Alnwick (Northumberland), castle, 115, G. T. Clark; 243, J. P. Gibson;
-      310, A. Thompson; 7, 42, 43, 86, 115, 116, 210, 235, 245, 247,
-      265, 309, 310, 327, 328
-
-  Amaury, count of Evreux, 165
-
-  Amberley (Sussex), castle, 360
-
-  Amboglanna (Cumberland), 15
-
-  Amboise (Indre-et-Loire), castle, 338
-
-  Amiens (Somme), 22
-
-  Ancaster (Lincoln), 355
-
-  Anderida (Sussex), 12, 22;
-    _see_ Pevensey
-
-  Andover (Hants), 22
-
-  Angers (Maine-et-Loire), 27, 88, 118
-
-  Angevins, war of William I. with, 52
-
-  Anglesey, isle of, 278
-
-  Angus, earl of, _see_ Umfraville
-
-  Anjou, count of, _see_ Fulk
-
-  Anker river, 101
-
-  Antioch (Syria), siege of, 71, 164, 241
-
-  Antwerp, 290
-
-  Ardennes department, fortified churches in, 315
-
-  Ardres (Pas-de-Calais), castle, 54, 55
-
-  Arles (Bouches-du-Rhône), 315
-
-  Arnold, son of Robert, 52
-
-  Arras (Pas-de-Calais), 290
-
-  Arundel (Sussex), castle, 37, 115, 190, 360
-
-  Ashbourne (Derby), 318
-
-  Astures, Roman auxiliaries, 19
-
-  Auckland (Durham), castle, 197, 198, 200, 338
-
-  Autun (Sâone-et-Loire), 15
-
-  Avignon (Vaucluse), palace of the popes, 304;
-    walls, 246, 250, 295
-
-  Avon river (Bristol), 2, 88;
-    (Warwick), 29
-
-  Axholme, isle of, 56
-
-  Aydon (Northumberland), castle or fortified house, 189, 190, 312, 338
-
-
-  B
-
-  Badbury (Dorset), 25
-
-  Bakewell (Derby), 29
-
-  Bamburgh (Northumberland), castle, 91, J. P. Gibson, W. Maitland;
-      25, 62, 66, 86, 90, 120, 132, 133, 134, 137, 150, 155, 202, 230,
-      233
-
-  Bardolf, Robert, 335
-
-  Barking (Middlesex), 38
-
-  Barlborough (Derby), hall, 318
-
-  Barnard Castle (Durham), castle, 87, G. T. Clark; 85, 86, 163, 185
-
-  Baroche, la (Orne), 52
-
-  Barwick-in-Elmet (Yorks, W.R.), castle, 56
-
-  Basing house (Hants), 360
-
-  Bath (Somerset), 24, 25
-
-  Bath and Wells, bishop of, _see_ Burnell
-
-  Battle (Sussex), gatehouse of abbey, 304
-
-  Battlesbury (Wilts), 25
-
-  Bayeux (Calvados), castle, 45
-
-  —— bishop of, _see_ Odo
-
-  Beauchamp, house of, 109
-
-  —— Thomas, earl of Warwick (d. 1369), 321
-
-  —— Thomas, earl of Warwick (d. 1401), 321
-
-  Beaugency (Loiret), castle, 116, A. Thompson; 117, 118, 120
-
-  Beaumaris (Anglesey), castle, 277, G. T. Clark; 236, 278, A. Thompson;
-      7, 211, 225, 236, 251, 261, 265, 266, 268, 275, 276-9, 280, 282,
-      284
-
-  Beauvais (Oise), 22, 27
-
-  Bebbanburh, 25;
-    _see_ Bamburgh
-
-  Bedale (Yorks, N. R.), church tower, 316
-
-  Bedburn river, 8
-
-  Bedford, 29, 30, 32;
-    castle, 30, 32;
-    John, duke of, 330
-
-  Bek, Antony, bishop of Durham, 188, 189, 198, 200, 202, 309
-
-  Bellême, house of, 51;
-    Robert of, 55, 67, 85
-
-  Belsay (Northumberland), castle, 313, J. P. Gibson; 236, 312
-
-  Belvoir (Leicester), castle, 85, 360
-
-  Berkeley (Gloucester), castle, 142, 186, A. Thompson; 42, 43, 142,
-      186, 193, 194, 209, 210
-
-  Berkhampstead (Herts), castle, 42, A. Thompson; 42, 119, 263
-
-  Berry, John, duke of, 338
-
-  Berry Pomeroy (Devon), castle, 229, 358
-
-  Berwick-on-Tweed, town walls, 290, 291
-
-  Beverley (Yorks, E. R.), 295
-
-  Béziers (Hérault), cathedral, 315
-
-  Bignor (Sussex), Roman villa, 12
-
-  Birdoswald (Cumberland), 15
-
-  Bishop Auckland (Durham), 8;
-    and _see_ Auckland
-
-  Bishops Cannings (Wilts), manor-house, 301
-
-  Bishop’s Castle (Salop), 2
-
-  Bishop’s Woodford (Wilts), manor-house, 301
-
-  Black mountains, 184
-
-  Blackbury castle (Devon), 7, A. H. Allcroft; 6
-
-  Blackfriars, _see_ London
-
-  Blackwater river, 22, 29
-
-  Blois (Loir-et-Cher), castle, 337
-
-  Blyth (Notts) castle, 85;
-    and _see_ Tickhill;
-    priory, 85
-
-  Bodiam (Sussex), castle, 323, E. A. and G. R. Reeve; 326, A. Thompson;
-      210, 322, 325, 326, 327, 330, 335, 360
-
-  Bokerley dyke, 24, 25
-
-  Bolton-in-Wensleydale (Yorks, N. R.), castle, 316, 317, 318, 330,
-      362, 367
-
-  Bolton-on-Swale (Yorks, N. R.), church tower, 316
-
-  Boothby Pagnell (Lincoln), manor-house, 190, 192
-
-  Borcovicus (Northumberland), 14, A. Thompson; 15, 18, A. Thompson
-      (after Bruce); 15, 17, 18, 19
-
-  Bosham (Sussex), 36, A. Thompson (after Bayeux tapestry); 190
-
-  Boston (Lincoln), Hussey tower at, 355
-
-  Bothal (Northumberland), castle, 245, 327
-
-  Bourbourg, Louis de, 54
-
-  Bourges (Cher), 22
-
-  Boves (Somme), siege of, 70, 76
-
-  Bowes (Yorks, N. R.), tower, 131, 132, 133, 142, 145, 312
-
-  Bowness (Cumberland), 10
-
-  Bracieux, Pierre de, 73
-
-  Bradwell-juxta-Mare (Essex), 22
-
-  Brancaster (Norfolk), 12
-
-  Brancepeth (Durham), castle, 86
-
-  Brandenburg (Prussia), 26
-
-  Branodunum (Norfolk), 12
-
-  Brecon beacons, 274
-
-  —— castle, 44, 56, 87, 362, 365, 367
-
-  Breteuil, William of, 55
-
-  Bréval (Seine-et-Oise), 55, 67
-
-  Bridgnorth (Salop), 29;
-    castle, 108, 109, 119, 133
-
-  Bridlington (Yorks, E. R.), gatehouse of priory, 301
-
-  Brionne (Eure), castle, 56
-
-  Bristol, castle, 88;
-    walls and gateways, 292, 295, 296
-
-  —— channel, 24, 308
-
-  Brittany, mount-and-bailey castles in, 45;
-    Alan of, _see_ Alan
-
-  Brixworth (Northants), church, 100
-
-  Bronllys (Brecknock), castle, 183, 184
-
-  Bruce, house of, 85
-
-  Brunanburh, battle of, 63
-
-  Brutus, Marcus, 62
-
-  Buckingham, 29, 30, 32
-
-  —— castle, 30, 32
-
-  —— duke of, _see_ Stafford
-
-  Builth (Brecknock), castle, 50, G. T. Clark; 50, 51
-
-  Burgh Castle (Suffolk), 12, 16, 22
-
-  Burghersh, Henry, bishop of Lincoln, 301
-
-  Burghwallis (Yorks, W. R.), 100
-
-  Burgundy, 59, 64, 198
-
-  Burnell, Robert, bishop of Bath and Wells, 298, 317
-
-  Bury ditches (Salop), 6, A. Thompson; 2, 6
-
-  Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk), 25;
-    Moyses hall, 190
-
-  Busli, Roger de, 85
-
-
-  C
-
-  Cadbury (Somerset), 25
-
-  Caen (Calvados), 118;
-    abbey churches, 93
-
-  Caer Caradoc (near Clun, Salop), 6
-
-  Caerlaverock (Dumfries), castle, 364, J. P. Gibson; 304, 307
-
-  Caerphilly (Glamorgan), castle, 270, 271, 272, A. Thompson; 7, 160,
-      189, 205, 236, 264, 265, 270-2, 274-5, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280,
-      282, 284, 287, 309, 334, 352
-
-  Cahors (Lot), walled town, 65;
-    Pont Valentré, 297, 355
-
-  Calder river, 85
-
-  Caldicot (Monmouth), castle, 182, 184
-
-  Calleva Atrebatum (Hants), 14;
-    and _see_ Silchester
-
-  Cambridge, castle, 39, 40, 41
-
-  —— colleges, 193
-
-  Camulodunum (Essex), 12;
-    and _see_ Colchester
-
-  Canterbury (Kent), 28, 198;
-    archbishops of, _see_ Robert of Jumièges, Sudbury
-
-  —— castle, 46, 120, 128
-
-  —— west gate, 296, 304
-
-  Carcassonne (Aude), town and castle, 78, 239, 242, A. Thompson; 264,
-      283, Viollet-le-Duc; 79, 82, 236, 242, 246, 250, 264, 284, 286, 289
-
-  Cardiff (Glamorgan), 274;
-    castle, 114, A. Thompson; 191, G. T. Clark; 115, 190, 193, 194, 209
-
-  Carew (Pembroke), castle, 248, 336, A. Thompson; 202, 239, 240, 247,
-      252, 269, 304, 330, 333, 337, 362
-
-  Carisbrooke (Isle of Wight), castle, 111, R. Keene; 115
-
-  Carlisle (Cumberland), castle, 87, 88, 120, 361, 362, 367
-
-  —— cathedral priory, 312
-
-  Carnarvon, castle, 245, 253, G. T. Clark; 258, A. Thompson; 259,
-      F. Bond; 88, 189, 209, 224, 242, 245, 246, 248, 252, 255, 257,
-      261, 262, 265, 266, 269, 270, 279, 282, 284, 291
-
-  —— town walls, 251, A. Thompson; 88, 251, 291, 292, 295, 296
-
-  Carrickfergus (Antrim), castle, 194
-
-  Castles camp (Durham), 8
-
-  Castleton (Yorks, N. R.), castle, 85
-
-  Castrum Harundel (Sussex), 37;
-    and _see_ Arundel
-
-  Caus castle (Salop), 362
-
-  Cawood (Yorks, W. R.), castle, 85, 338
-
-  Ceawlin, king of West Saxons, 25
-
-  Cedd, St, 22
-
-  Cérisy-la-Forêt (Calvados), abbey church, 100
-
-  Chaise-Dieu, la (Haute-Loire), abbey church, 315
-
-  Champlitte, Guillaume de, 73
-
-  Chardstock (Devon), manor-house, 301
-
-  Charles the Bald, king of Neustria, 27, 29, 32
-
-  —— the Fat, king of Neustria, 27, 64
-
-  —— the Simple, king of Neustria, 28
-
-  —— V., emperor, 290
-
-  —— Martel, 65
-
-  Chartres (Eure-et-Loir), 22
-
-  —— count of, _see_ Theobald
-
-  Château-Gaillard (Eure), 163, A. Thompson, after Enlart; 175, A.
-      Thompson; 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 163, 172, 175, 176, 215,
-      216, 229, 257, 264
-
-  Château-sur-Epte (Eure), 165
-
-  Chauny (Aisne), 295
-
-  Chedworth (Gloucester), Roman villa, 12
-
-  Chepstow (Monmouth), 182; castle, 103, 249, 268, A. Thompson; 104,
-      A. Thompson (after _Official Guide_); 56, 88, 104, 107, 175, 185,
-      189, 223, 249, 250, 268, 269, 280, 282, 359
-
-  —— town and walls, 88, 251, 295
-
-  Chester, castle, 39
-
-  —— city and walls, 14, 22, 23, 24, 119
-
-  Chesters (Northumberland), 15;
-    and _see_ Cilurnum
-
-  Chichester (Sussex), 14, 22, 23, 198;
-    bishop of, _see_ Rede
-
-  Chilham (Kent), castle, 120
-
-  Chillingham (Northumberland), castle, 318
-
-  China, great wall of, 79
-
-  Chipchase (Northumberland), castle, 156, 236, 312
-
-  Christchurch (Hants), castle, 123, P. M. Johnston; 128, 189, 192, 193
-
-  —— priory church, 93, 94
-
-  Cilurnum (Northumberland), 13, A. Thompson (after Bruce); 15, 17,
-      18, 19
-
-  Cirencester (Gloucester), 25
-
-  Cissbury (Sussex), 2, 25
-
-  Clare (Suffolk), castle, 188
-
-  —— Gilbert de, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, 270
-
-  Clark, G. T., 30
-
-  Clavering (Essex), castle, 37
-
-  Clement VI., pope, 250
-
-  Cleveland (Yorks, N. R.), 85
-
-  Clifford’s hill (Northampton), 84
-
-  Clifton (Bristol), promontory forts, 2, 8
-
-  Clinton, family of, 365
-
-  Clipsham (Rutland), 197
-
-  Clun (Salop), 2, 6
-
-  —— castle, 43, 127, A. Thompson; 43, 50, 119, 128, 129, 131, 145
-
-  Clwyd river, 275
-
-  Cnut, king, 33, 34
-
-  Colchester (Essex), 12, 19, 26, 29, 65;
-    castle, 47, 101, A. Thompson; 47, 83, 100, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133,
-      134, 137, 146, 150, 154, 188, 317
-
-  Cole, John, 274, 275
-
-  Colne river (Essex), 29
-
-  Compton castle (Devon), 358
-
-  Compton Wyniates (Warwick), manor-house, 193, 210, 308, 359
-
-  Conisbrough (Yorks, W. R.), castle, 166, 167, 168, A. Thompson; 217,
-    G. Hepworth; 42, 85, 86, 149, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 178,
-      179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 188, 212, 216, 342
-
-  Constantinople, siege of, 73, 77, 78, 81, 164, 262, 263
-
-  Conway (Carnarvon), 317;
-    castle, 234, 256, G. T. Clark; 261, 262, 263, A. Thompson; 7, 88,
-      177, 205, 209, 210, 229, 233, 236, 242, 252, 255, 257, 258, 261,
-      262, 265, 268, 270, 275, 276, 279, 280, 282, 291, 322, 334, 352
-
-  —— town walls, 88, 177, 240, 250, 251, 291, 295, 296
-
-  Coquet river, 86, 219, 298
-
-  Corbridge-on-Tyne (Northumberland), 18;
-    _see_ Corstopitum
-
-  —— pele-tower, 156, 312
-
-  Corfe (Dorset), castle, 102, 131, 132, 155
-
-  Corstopitum (Northumberland), 18, 22
-
-  Cosin, John, bishop of Durham, 198, 200
-
-  Coucy (Aisne), castle, 81, 177, A. Thompson; 80, 81, 82, 171, 176,
-      177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 189, 216, 225, 241, 242, 248, 264, 269,
-      284, 285, 322, 338
-
-  —— town walls, 240, 250, 295, 297
-
-  —— Enguerrand III., seigneur de, 176
-
-  —— VII., 338
-
-  Courcy-sur-Dives (Calvados), 67
-
-  Coutances (Manche), 23
-
-  Coventry and Lichfield, bishop of, _see_ Langton
-
-  Cowdray castle (Sussex), 360
-
-  Cradyfargus tower at Warkworth, 194, 219, 247
-
-  Cranborne (Dorset), 25
-
-  Cromwell, Ralph, Lord, 345, 347, 352
-
-  Cynewulf, king, 36
-
-
-  D
-
-  Dacre, Lord, of Gillesland, 361
-
-  Dalyngrugge, Sir Edward, 322, 325
-
-  Danby Wiske (Yorks, N. R.), church-tower, 316
-
-  Danelaw, the, 28, 34
-
-  Dead sea (Palestine), 263
-
-  Dee river, 24
-
-  Delhi, 79
-
-  Denbigh, castle, 185, 224, 229, 255, 327, 360
-
-  Denmark, king of, _see_ Swegen
-
-  Derby, 29, 30
-
-  Derwent river (Derby), 345
-
-  —— (Durham and Northumberland), 316
-
-  —— (Yorks), 85
-
-  Despenser, Hugh, 274
-
-  Devizes (Wilts), 24
-
-  Devon river, 99
-
-  Didier, St, bishop of Cahors, 65
-
-  Dinan (Ille-et-Vilaine), castle, 46, A. Thompson, after Bayeux
-      tapestry; 45
-
-  D’Oily, Robert, 104
-
-  Dol (Ille-et-Vilaine), castle, 45
-
-  Dolbadarn (Carnarvon), tower, 183, 184, A. Thompson; 87, 185
-
-  Dolebury (Somerset), 8, 25
-
-  Dolwyddelan (Carnarvon), castle, 185
-
-  Domfront (Orne), castle, 284, A. Thompson; 51, 52, 117, 118, 120,
-      142, 145, 284, 285
-
-  —— town walls, 250
-
-  Don river, 85
-
-  Doncaster (Yorks, W.R.), 85, 100
-
-  Dorchester (Dorset), 2, 19
-
-  Dove river, 42
-
-  Dover (Kent), 37;
-    castle, 126, G. T. Clark; 37, 119, 120, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137,
-      138, 141, 146, 149, 150, 154, 155, 159, 241, 265, 308
-
-  Drayton house (Northampton), 205
-
-  Dudley, Robert, earl of Leicester, 337
-
-  Duffield (Derby), castle, 132
-
-  Dumfries, 304
-
-  Dunheved (Cornwall), 89
-
-  Dunstanburgh (Northumberland), castle, 219, 308, 309, 327
-
-  Durham, bishops of, _see_ Bek, Cosin, Flambard, Hatfield, Pudsey,
-      Skirlaw, Tunstall
-
-  Durham, 24;
-    castle, 199, _Archaeol. Journal_; 201, Billings; 203, J. P. Gibson;
-      44, 86, 107, 108, 189, 200, 202, 275
-
-  —— cathedral, 153
-
-  —— University college, 200
-
-  Dyrham (Gloucester), battle of, 25
-
-
-  E
-
-  Earls Barton (Northampton), castle and church, 45, 52, 109
-
-  Easingwold (Yorks, N.R.), 296
-
-  East Anglia, king of, _see_ Edmund
-
-  Échauffour (Orne), castle, 52
-
-  Eddisbury (Chester), 29
-
-  Eden river, 312
-
-  Edgar the Ætheling, 39
-
-  Edmund, king of East Anglia, 28
-
-  —— Ironside, king, 33, 34
-
-  Edward the Confessor, king, 37
-
-  —— the Elder, king, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 41
-
-  —— I., king, 241, 252, 275, 276, 290, 291, 292, 298, 304, 307,
-      317, 327
-
-  —— II., king, 185, 301, 307
-
-  —— III., king, 109, 266, 291, 301, 307
-
-  Egbert, king, 27
-
-  Elizabeth, queen, 337, 345, 361
-
-  Ellesmere (Salop), castle, 119
-
-  Elmham (Suffolk), 24
-
-  Elmley (Worcester), castle, 109
-
-  Elne (Pyrénèes-Orientales), cathedral, 315
-
-  Elsdon (Northumberland), fortified rectory, 312
-
-  Embleton (Northumberland), fortified vicarage, 312
-
-  Emperors, _see_ Charles V., Henry the Fowler, Vespasian
-
-  England, kings of, _see_ Cnut, Edward I., Edward II., Edward III.,
-      Henry I., Henry II., Henry III., Henry IV., Henry V., Henry VIII.,
-      John, Richard I., Richard II., Stephen, William I., William II.
-
-  England, queens of, _see_ Elizabeth, Isabel
-
-  Erghum, Ralph, bishop of Salisbury, 301
-
-  Ermine street, 21
-
-  Erve river, 90
-
-  Etampes (Seine-et-Oise), castle, 172, A. Thompson; 172, 186
-
-  Ethelred the Redeless, king, 28, 33
-
-  Eudes, count of Paris (Hugh Capet), 63, 64
-
-  Eustace, son of John, 116
-
-  Evreux (Eure), abbey of Saint-Taurin, 22;
-    count of, _see_ Amaury
-
-  Ewenny (Glamorgan), priory church, 315
-
-  Ewias Harold (Hereford), castle, 37
-
-  Exeter (Devon), 21, 23, 39;
-    castle, 39, 40, 83, 95, 96, 98, 113
-
-  —— cathedral close, 298
-
-
-  F
-
-  Falaise (Calvados), castle, 117, A. Thompson; 54, 100, 117, 118, 120,
-      322
-
-  Farnham (Hants), castle, 115
-
-  Ferrers (Walkelin de), 197
-
-  Fiennes, Sir Roger, 358, 359
-
-  Fitzwilliam, Sir William, 300
-
-  Flambard, Ranulf, bishop of Durham, 133
-
-  Flamborough head (Yorks, E.R.), 86
-
-  Flint, castle, 181, 182, 249
-
-  Foss river, 41
-
-  Fosseway, the, 21
-
-  Fougères (Ille-et-Vilaine), 250, A. Thompson; 250, 304
-
-  France, Capetian kings of, 34;
-    and _see_ Hugh Capet, Louis VI., Louis IX., Philip I., Philip II.,
-      Philip III.
-
-  —— Carolingian kings of, 36;
-    _see_ Neustria
-
-  —— Valois kings of, _see_ Francis I., Henry II., Louis XII.
-
-  Francis I., king of France, 290, 337, 338
-
-  Freeman, Professor E. A., 30
-
-  Frome river (Bristol), 88, 296;
-    (Dorset), 2, 19
-
-  Fulk the Black, count of Anjou, 116
-
-
-  G
-
-  Gainsborough (Lincoln), 100, 101, 358
-
-  —— old hall, 355, 356, 358
-
-  Galmanho (York), 33
-
-  Galtres forest (Yorks, N.R.), 55, 85
-
-  Gannock’s castle, _see_ Tempsford
-
-  Gariannonum (Suffolk), 12;
-    and _see_ Burgh castle
-
-  Garonne river, 27
-
-  Gaunt, John of, _see_ Lancaster, John, duke of,
-
-  Gête-aux-Lièvres, 66
-
-  Gilbert, family of, 358
-
-  Gilling, East (Yorks), castle, 312
-
-  Gisors (Eure), castle, 166, 176
-
-  Gloucester, 14, 22, 25, 37
-
-  —— castle, 119
-
-  —— duke of, Humphrey, 308
-
-  —— earl of, _see_ Clare
-
-  Godwin, earl, 37
-
-  Goël, Ascelin, 55
-
-  Goodmanham (Yorks, E.R.), 23
-
-  Goodrich (Hereford), castle, 174, C. Gethen, G. W. Saunders; 175, 185
-
-  Gower (Glamorgan), fortified churches in, 315
-
-  Gower, Henry, bishop of St David’s, 338, 341
-
-  Goxhill (Lincoln), “priory,” 190
-
-  Gravesend (Kent), 119
-
-  Guildford (Surrey), castle, 128, A. Thompson; 100, 128, 129, 131,
-      132, 133, 134, 138, 145, 149, 153, 154, 156, 189
-
-  Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, 120
-
-  Gwendraeth Fach river, 279
-
-
-  H
-
-  Haddon, Nether (Derby), 342;
-    hall, 340, H. Baker; 343, G. J. Gillham; 193, 206, 315, 342, 345
-
-  Hadleigh (Suffolk), rectory, 355
-
-  Hallaton (Leicester), castle, 51, A. Thompson
-
-  Halton (Northumberland), pele-tower, 312
-
-  Hambleton hills (Yorks, N.R.), 85
-
-  Hamelin Plantagenet, 167
-
-  Hardwick hall (Derby), 318
-
-  Harewood (Yorks, W.R.), castle, 85
-
-  Harlech (Merioneth), castle, 273, G. T. Clark; 274, A. Thompson; 160,
-      189, 209, 210, 211, 225, 236, 249, 261, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279,
-      280, 282, 284, 289, 309, 322, 325
-
-  Harold, king, 36, 38, 190, 192
-
-  Hastings (Sussex), 37;
-    castle, 38, A. Thompson (after Bayeux tapestry); 38, 39, 40, 43,
-      45, 46, 102, 108, 109, 119, 128, 209, 360
-
-  Hatfield, Thomas, bishop of Durham, 202, 310
-
-  Haughmond abbey (Salop), 192
-
-  Haughton (Northumberland), castle, 317, 338
-
-  Haverfordwest (Pembroke), castle, 341
-
-  Hawarden (Flint), castle, 184
-
-  Hedingham (Essex), castle, 135, 147, F. R. Taylor; 44, 128, 131, 132,
-      133, 134, 137, 145, 146, 155, 156, 159
-
-  Helmsley (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 85, 131
-
-  Henry I., king, 66, 71, 85, 117, 118, 133, 189, 193
-
-  —— II., king, 56, 57, 83, 89, 118, 120, 133, 159, 160, 165, 166, 167,
-      176, 188, 202, 212
-
-  —— III., king, 55, 162, 185, 188, 202, 205, 265, 270
-
-  —— IV., king, 279, 330, 336
-
-  —— V., king, 327
-
-  —— VIII., king, 337, 361
-
-  —— II., king of France, 337
-
-  —— the Fowler, emperor, 26
-
-  Hérault department, fortified churches in, 315
-
-  Hereford, 37;
-    castle, 119;
-    earl of, _see_ William, son of Osbern
-
-  Herefordshire, Norman castle in, 37
-
-  Hertford, 29, 30, 32;
-    castle, 30, 32, 119;
-    earl of, _see_ Clare
-
-  Hestengaceaster (Sussex), 45
-
-  Heton, Thomas de, 318
-
-  Hexham (Northumberland), 317;
-    fortified manor-house, 312
-
-  Higham Ferrers (Northampton), castle and church, 109
-
-  Hingston down (Cornwall), battle of, 27
-
-  Holderness (Yorks, E.R.), 86
-
-  Holy Island (Northumberland), castle, 86
-
-  Horkstow (Lincoln), Roman villa, 12
-
-  Horncastle (Lincoln), 355
-
-  Houdan (Seine-et-Oise), donjon, 165
-
-  Housesteads (Northumberland), 15;
-    and _see_ Borcovicus
-
-  Hubert, count of Maine, 66, 90
-
-  Hugh Capet, king of France; _see_ Eudes
-
-  Hull (Yorks, E.R.), 296
-
-  Humber estuary, 28, 85
-
-  Huntingdon, 29, 30
-
-  —— castle, 39, 40, 362
-
-  Hurstmonceaux (Sussex), castle, 323, E. A. and G. R. Reeve; 359,
-      A. Thompson; 330, 358, 359, 360
-
-
-  I
-
-  Ida, king of Northumbria, 25
-
-  Ireland, passage from England to, 179
-
-  Isabel, queen of England, 274
-
-  Issoudun (Indre), donjon, 175
-
-  Ivry (Eure), castle, 55
-
-
-  J
-
-  Jerusalem, kingdom of, 263
-
-  —— siege of, 67, 70
-
-  Jervaulx abbey (Yorks, N.R.), 192
-
-  Jeufosse (Seine-et-Oise), 27
-
-  John, king, 162, 194
-
-  Jublains (Mayenne), 23
-
-
-  K
-
-  Kala’at-el-Hosn; _see_ Krak des Chevaliers
-
-  Kenilworth (Warwick), castle, 132, 337, A. Thompson; 129, 131, 132,
-      133, 134, 138, 146, 149, 154, 156, 209, 210, 233, 234, 247, 270,
-      271, 279, 297, 317, 322, 336, 337
-
-  Kentwell hall (Suffolk), 359
-
-  Kerak in Moab, castle, 240, 241, 263
-
-  Kidwelly (Carmarthen), castle, 225, 281, A. Thompson; 267, G. T.
-      Clark; 211, 224, 269, 275, 279-82, 304, 309
-
-  Kimbolton (Hunts), castle, 365, 366
-
-  Kinnard’s Ferry (Lincoln), castle, 56, 57, 83
-
-  Kirkby Malzeard (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 56, 57, 83
-
-  Knaresborough (Yorks, W.R.) castle, 85, 86, 216, 279, 310, 312, 327
-
-  Knighton (Radnor), 6
-
-  Krak, le, des Chevaliers, 176, A. Thompson (after G. Rey); 176, 263
-
-  Kyme (Lincoln), tower, 355
-
-
-  L
-
-  Labienus, Titus, 61
-
-  Lacy, Henry de, earl of Lincoln, 327
-
-  —— Ilbert de, 56
-
-  —— Roger de, 102
-
-  Laigle (Orne), castle, 193
-
-  Lamotte, significance of place-name, 46
-
-  Lamphey (Pembroke), manor-house, 341, A. Thompson; 338, 341, 342
-
-  Lancaster castle, 104, 145, 246, 279, 327, 328, 336, 337
-
-  —— duchy of, castles of, 279, 327, 336
-
-  —— —— records of, 186, 336, 361
-
-  —— John, duke of, 336, 337
-
-  —— Thomas, earl of, 308
-
-  Langeais (Indre-et-Loire), castle, 116
-
-  Langley (Northumberland), castle, 156, 317
-
-  Langton, Walter, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 298
-
-  Languedoc, fortified churches in, 315
-
-  Laon (Aisne), 295
-
-  Launceston (Cornwall), castle, 89, 182, 188, 264, 362
-
-  Laval (Mayenne), castle, 80, A. Thompson; 81, 88
-
-  —— town walls, 88
-
-  Lea river, 29, 120
-
-  Leconfield (Yorks, E.R.), manor-house, 307
-
-  Leeds (Kent), castle, 326
-
-  —— (Yorks, W.R.), 56
-
-  Leicester, 22, 29, 30
-
-  —— castle, 88, 109, 197
-
-  —— earl of, _see_ Dudley
-
-  Le Roy, Pierre, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, 236
-
-  Lewes (Sussex), castle, 50, 98, A. Thompson; 49, 96, 97, 98, 99, 115,
-      220, 235, 236, 360
-
-  Lichfield (Stafford), 24;
-    bishop of, _see_ Coventry
-
-  —— cathedral close, 298
-
-  Liddington (Rutland), manor-house, 190, 301
-
-  Lilbourne (Northampton), castle, 43, 51
-
-  Lille (Nord), 290
-
-  Lillebonne (Seine-Inférieure), edict of, 89, 90, 102
-
-  Lincoln, 12, 18, 19, 20, 23, 30, 301, 355
-
-  —— bishops of, 85;
-    and _see_ Alexander, Burghersh
-
-  —— bishop’s palace, 198, 301, 338, 348, 351
-
-  —— castle, 40, W. G. Watkins; 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50,
-      85, 86, 87, 100, 102, 114, 115, 188, 236, 279, 301
-
-  —— cathedral, 23, 94
-
-  —— cathedral close, 298, 301;
-    gatehouses, 301, 303
-
-  —— city walls, 20, 296
-
-  —— earl of, _see_ Lacy
-
-  Lindsey, parts of (Lincoln), 28
-
-  Llanberis (Carnarvon), 87, 185
-
-  Llandovery (Carmarthen), castle, 87, 229
-
-  Llanfihangel-cwm-Du (Brecon), church tower, 316
-
-  Llanstephan (Carmarthen), castle, 249, 308, 309
-
-  Llawhaden (Pembroke), castle, 342
-
-  Loches (Indre-et-Loire), castle, 82
-
-  Lodève (Hérault), cathedral, 315
-
-  Loire river, 27
-
-  Lois Weedon (Northampton), church, 100
-
-  London, 21, 26, 27, 28, 37, 38, 64, 65, 295
-
-  —— Baynard’s castle, 38, 39
-
-  —— Blackfriars, 39
-
-  —— Fleet Street, house of bishops of Salisbury, 301
-
-  —— St Paul’s cathedral close, 298
-
-  —— Tower of, 121, 122, A. Thompson; 123, P. M. Johnston;
-      38, 39, 40, 47, 88, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 134,
-      137, 146, 150, 154, 188, 202, 210, 223, 225, 226, 234, 265, 266,
-      268, 277
-
-  Longchamp, William, bishop of Ely, 265
-
-  Louis VI., king of France, 66, 67, 68, 93, 165
-
-  —— IX., king of France, 68, 74, 264
-
-  —— XII, king of France, 337, 338
-
-  Lucca (Tuscany), 290
-
-  Lucé (Orne), castle, 52
-
-  Ludlow (Salop), castle, 94, 95, 96, 108, A. Thompson; 106, R. Keene;
-      195, C. Gethen; 87, 95, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 104, 107, 109, 110,
-      113, 137, 149, 153, 156, 159, 161, 189, 194, 206, 207, 209, 210,
-      212, 215, 219, 229, 252, 304, 330, 334, 335
-
-  —— town walls, 87
-
-  Ludlow, Lawrence of, 307
-
-  Lumley (Durham), castle, 318
-
-  Lundenburh, 26
-
-
-  M
-
-  Magdeburg (Prussian Saxony), 26
-
-  Maiden Castle (Dorset), 2, 3, A. Thompson; 2, 3, 5, 19, 26, 230, 282
-
-  Maine, count of, _see_ Hubert
-
-  Malassis, 66
-
-  Malcolm IV., king of Scots, 120
-
-  Maldon (Essex), 29;
-    battle of, 63
-
-  Malet, William, 39
-
-  Mailing, West (Kent), St Leonard’s church, 120
-
-  Malton (Yorks, N. R.), castle, 85
-
-  Manorbier (Pembroke), castle, 208, A. Thompson; 217, C. Gethen; 189,
-      192, 207, 208, 209, 211, 215, 229, 304, 316, 334, 335
-
-  Mans, le (Sarthe), 22, 23
-
-  Mansurah (Lower Egypt), 68, 74
-
-  Mantes (Seine-et-Oise), 27
-
-  Markenfield (Yorks, W.R.), manor-house, 307, 308, 338
-
-  Marlborough (Wilts.), 24
-
-  Marmion, Robert, 101
-
-  Marne river, 27
-
-  Marrah (Syria), siege of, 71
-
-  Marseilles (Bouches-du-Rhône), abbey church of Saint-Victor, 315
-
-  —— siege of, 61, 62, 70, 73, 78
-
-  Marshal, William, earl of Pembroke and Striguil, 179
-
-  Marton (Lincoln), church, 100, 101
-
-  Massilia, _see_ Marseilles
-
-  Mâte-Putain, 66
-
-  Maule, siege of, 90
-
-  Maxstoke (Warwick), castle, 364, H. Baker; 365, 366, 367
-
-  Medway river, 365
-
-  Méhun-sur-Yèvre (Cher), castle, 338
-
-  Melbourne (Derby), castle, 336
-
-  Melsonby (Yorks, N.R.), church-tower, 315
-
-  Melun (Seine-et-Marne), 27
-
-  Merchem, castle of, 53, 54
-
-  Mercia, kingdom of, 28;
-    kings of, _see_ Offa, Penda
-
-  Mercians, lady of the, _see_ Æthelflaed
-
-  Merseburg (Prussian Saxony), 26
-
-  Mersey river, 28, 29
-
-  Merton (Surrey), 36
-
-  Mexborough (Yorks, W. R.), castle, 42, 51
-
-  Middleham (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 85, 87, 132, 133, 134, 142, 150,
-      310, 312
-
-  Midhurst (Sussex), 360
-
-  Milford haven, 179
-
-  Mitford (Northumberland), castle, 86, 166, 167
-
-  Moel Siabod (Carnarvon), 185
-
-  Moissac (Tarn-et-Garonne), abbey, 315
-
-  Monkchester, _see_ Muncanceaster
-
-  Monkton (Pembroke), priory church, 316
-
-  Monmouth, fortified bridge, 297, A. Thompson; 298
-
-  Montauban (Tarn-et-Garonne), Pont des Consuls, 297
-
-  Montgomery castle, 43
-
-  Montmajour (Bouches-du-Rhône), fortified abbey, 315
-
-  Montmartre (Seine), 64
-
-  Mont-Saint-Michel (Manche), abbey, 235, A. Thompson; 236;
-    abbots of, _see_ Le Roy, Tustin
-
-  —— town walls, 291, A. Thompson; 250, 289
-
-  Morpeth (Northumberland), 166
-
-  Mortham (Yorks, N. R.), manor-house, 338
-
-  Mount Bures (Essex), 44, 46
-
-  Mowbray, Robert, 66, 90
-
-  —— vale of (Yorks, N.R.), 83
-
-  Mowbrays, revolt of the, 56, 83
-
-  Muncanceaster (Northumberland), 21
-
-
-  N
-
-  Naeodunum Diablintum (Mayenne), 23
-
-  Nantes (Loire-Inférieure), 27
-
-  Narbonne (Aude), 65
-
-  Naworth (Cumberland), castle, 189
-
-  Nettleham (Lincoln), manor-house, 301
-
-  Neufmarché, Bernard de, _see_ Newmarch
-
-  Neustria, kingdom of, 34;
-    kings of, _see_ Charles
-
-  Neville, John, Lord, 310, 317
-
-  Newark-on-Trent (Nottingham), castle, 99, A. Thompson; 157, F. Bond;
-      85, 86, 97, 98, 99, 189, 202, 360
-
-  Newcastle-on-Tyne (Northumberland), 21, 22
-
-  —— castle, 139, 152, J. P. Gibson; 227, A. Thompson; 22, 47, 48, 51,
-      86, 88, 120, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 141, 146, 149, 153,
-      154, 155, 156, 166, 169, 188, 202, 210, 227, 265
-
-  —— town walls, 293, W. Maitland; 88, 292
-
-  Newmarch, Bernard of, 56
-
-  Newport (Monmouth), castle, 362
-
-  Newton Nottage (Glamorgan), fortified church, 315
-
-  Nidd river, 85
-
-  Nile river, 68
-
-  Niort (Deux-Sèvres), castle, 175
-
-  Noirmoutier (Vendée), 27, 28
-
-  Norham (Northumberland), castle, 157, J. P. Gibson; 86, 129, 131,
-      132, 133, 149, 160, 163
-
-  Normandy, duchy of, 28, 34;
-    dukes of, _see_ Robert, Rollo;
-    mount-and-bailey castles in, 45, 51, 52
-
-  Northallerton (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 56, 57, 83
-
-  Northampton, 44
-
-  —— town wall, 295
-
-  Northumberland, earls of, 211;
-    _see_ Percy
-
-  Northumbria, kingdom of, 28;
-    king of, _see_ Ida
-
-  Norwich (Norfolk), castle, 88, 128, 134, 137, 141, 155
-
-  —— cathedral close, 298
-
-  —— town wall, 88, 89, 301
-
-  Nottingham, 28, 29, 30, 32
-
-  —— castle, 30, 32, 39, 41, 85, 88, 120
-
-  Nunney (Somerset), castle, 325
-
-  Nuremberg (Middle Franconia), town walls, 82
-
-
-  O
-
-  Oakham (Rutland), castle, 107, 197, 198, 362
-
-  Ockley (Surrey), battle of, 28
-
-  Odiham (Hants), castle, 185
-
-  Odo, bishop of Bayeux, 66
-
-  Offa, king of Mercia, 24, 32
-
-  Offa’s dyke, 24
-
-  Oise river, 27
-
-  Oissel (Seine-Inférieure), 27
-
-  Old Sarum (Wilts), camp and castle, 4, A. H. Allcroft; 3, 5, 6, 19,
-      24, 25, 153, 154, 210, 301
-
-  Orford (Suffolk), castle, 119, 165, 166, 168, 170
-
-  Orléans, Charles, duke of, 337
-
-  —— Louis, duke of, 338
-
-  Orontes river, 164
-
-  Osbern, _see_ William
-
-  Oswestry (Salop), 24;
-    castle, 119
-
-  Othona (Essex), 22
-
-  Otley (Yorks, W.R.), 85
-
-  Ouse river, Great, 29, 30, 33, 63;
-    (Yorkshire), 41, 85
-
-  Oxburgh (Norfolk), hall, 355
-
-  Oxford castle, 88, 104, 108, 119, 188
-
-  —— Christ Church, 190
-
-  —— New college, 190
-
-
-  P
-
-  Pamiers (Ariège), cathedral, 315
-
-  Paris (Seine), 22, 27;
-    count of, _see_ Eudes;
-    Louvre, donjon of, 178;
-    siege of, by Danes, 27, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 81
-
-  Peak castle (Derby), 35, 156, 315
-
-  Pembroke, castle, 180, 224, A. Thompson; 181, _Archaeol. Journal_;
-      213, C. Gethen; 179, 180, 182, 202, 212, 215, 223, 224, 225, 236,
-      239, 240, 248, 251, 316
-
-  —— St Mary’s church, 316
-
-  Pembroke, earl of, _see_ Marshal, William
-
-  Pembrokeshire, churches of, 316
-
-  Penda, king of Mercia, 25
-
-  Penmaenmawr (Carnarvon), 8
-
-  Penrith (Cumberland), castle, 316
-
-  Penshurst (Kent), manor-house, 206
-
-  Pentecost’s castle (Hereford), 37
-
-  Pentrich (Derby), 345
-
-  Penwortham (Lancaster), castle, 327
-
-  Percy, Sir Henry, 307, 309
-
-  —— Henry, earl of Northumberland, 328, 330
-
-  —— house of, 348
-
-  Périers (Calvados), church, 100
-
-  Perrott, Sir John, 333
-
-  Peterborough (Northants), 25
-
-  —— abbey precinct, 298
-
-  Petworth (Sussex), manor-house, 307
-
-  Pevensey (Sussex), Roman station and castle, 16, 246, A. Thompson;
-      12, 16, 22, 247, 360
-
-  Philip I., king of France, 55
-
-  —— II. (Augustus), king of France, 62, 70, 71, 73, 76, 175, 176, 178,
-      215, 216, 322
-
-  —— III., king of France, 264
-
-  Pickering (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 43, 85, 86, 115, 279
-
-  Pierrefonds (Oise), castle, 338
-
-  Pistes, edict of, 32, 35, 55
-
-  Pitt-Rivers, General A. H. L. F., 25
-
-  Poitiers (Vienne), 27
-
-  Poitou, Roger of, 327
-
-  Pons Aelii (Northumberland), 21
-
-  Pontaudemer (Eure), 71
-
-  Pontefract (Yorks, W.R.), castle, 49, 56, 85, 86, 185, 186, 187, 236,
-      279, 336, 360
-
-  Porchester (Hants), Roman station and castle, 97, 131, A. Thompson;
-      12, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 122, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 141, 142,
-      145, 146, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 189, 235, 247, 335, 352
-
-  Portishead (Somerset), 24
-
-  Portsmouth harbour, 99, 335
-
-  Portus Adurni, 12
-
-  —— Magnus (Hants), 12
-
-  Potterne (Wilts), manor-house, 301
-
-  Poundbury (Dorset), 2, 19, 25
-
-  Prague (Bohemia), bridge, 297, 298
-
-  Provins (Seine-et-Marne), castle, 172, 182
-
-  Prudentius, bishop of Troves, 27
-
-  Prudhoe (Northumberland), castle, 86, 315
-
-  Pudsey, Hugh, bishop of Durham, 56, 107, 133, 198, 200, 202
-
-  Puiset, le (Eure-et-Loir), siege of, 67, 68
-
-  Pyrénées-Orientales department, fortified churches in, 315
-
-
-  R
-
-  Raby (Durham), castle, 311, _Archaeol. Journal_; 310, 317, 318, 322
-
-  Raglan (Monmouth), castle, 331, G. W. Saunders; 269, 330
-
-  Ramsbury (Wilts), manor-house, 301
-
-  Raymond, count of Toulouse, 70, 71
-
-  Reading (Berks), 28
-
-  Rede, William, bishop of Chichester, 360
-
-  Reims (Marne), 22
-
-  Rennes (Ille-et-Vilaine), castle, 45, A. Thompson (after Bayeux
-      tapestry)
-
-  Restormel (Cornwall), castle, 52, 230, 335
-
-  Rhiangol river, 183
-
-  Rhône river, 304
-
-  Rhuddlan (Flint), castle, 229, 249, 275, 276, 280
-
-  Rhymney river, 274
-
-  Rhys ap Thomas, 330
-
-  Ribble river, 327
-
-  Richard I., king, 172, 176, 265
-
-  —— II., king, 307
-
-  Richborough (Kent), 12, 22
-
-  Richmond (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 93, A. Thompson; 47, 51, 56, 85, 87,
-      90, 93, 94, 97, 98, 101, 104, 107, 131, 133, 134, 137, 146, 149,
-      153, 159, 163, 178, 189, 202, 212, 215, 252, 304, 308, 342, 345;
-    earl of, _see_ Alan
-
-  Ripon (Yorks, W.R.), 24
-
-  Rising (Norfolk), castle, 143, G. H. Widdows; 131, 132, 133, 134,
-      141, 142, 143, 146, 150, 154, 156, 188, 194
-
-  Robert, duke of Normandy, 55, 67, 117, 193
-
-  —— of Jumièges, archbishop of Canterbury, 37
-
-  —— son of Giroie, 52, 90
-
-  —— son of Roger, 194
-
-  Robert’s castle, 37
-
-  Roche-Guyon, la (Seine-et-Oise), castle, 172, 175
-
-  Roche-sur-Igé, la (Orne), castle, 52
-
-  Rochester (Kent), Boley hill, 128;
-    bishop of, _see_ Gundulf;
-    castle, frontispiece, J. Bailey; 145, A. Thompson; 66, 120, 125,
-      127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145, 149, 150,
-      154, 155, 156, 159, 162, 163, 177
-
-  —— cathedral, 120
-
-  Rockingham (Northants), castle, 205, 226, A. Thompson; 202, 205, 226,
-      227, 266, 360
-
-  Roger, bishop of Salisbury, 98
-
-  —— of Newburgh, earl of Warwick, 109
-
-  Rollo, duke of Normandy, 28
-
-  Rome, 292
-
-  Rothbury (Northumberland), fortified rectory, 312
-
-  Rother river, 325
-
-  Rouen (Seine-Inférieure), 22, 27, 66, 176;
-    abbey of Saint-Ouen, 22;
-    castle, 23, 82, 117, 176, 178;
-    priory of Ste-Trinité-du-Mont, 85
-
-  Roussillon, fortified churches in, 315
-
-  Royat (Puy-de-Dôme), fortified church, 315
-
-  Runcorn (Chester), 29
-
-  Ruthin (Denbigh), castle, 119
-
-  Rutupiae (Kent), 12;
-    _see_ Richborough
-
-  Rye (Sussex), 325
-
-  Ryedale (Yorks, N.R.), 85
-
-
-  S
-
-  Saint-Cénéri-le-Gérei (Orne), castle, 52, 90
-
-  Saint-Clair-sur-Epte (Eure), treaty of, 28
-
-  Saint-Claude (Jura), cathedral, 315
-
-  St David’s (Pembroke), bishop’s palace, 338 341, 342
-
-  —— bishops of, _see_ Gower, Vaughan
-
-  Saint-Denis (Seine), abbey, 32, 315
-
-  Saint-Malo (Ille-et-Vilaine), town walls, 290, A. Thompson; 250, 289
-
-  Saint-Paul-du-Var (Alpes-Maritimes), 290
-
-  Saint-Pol, count of, 216
-
-  Saint-Pons (Hérault), cathedral, 315
-
-  Sainte-Suzanne (Mayenne), castle, 66, 90
-
-  Saintes-Maries-sur-la-Mer, les (Bouches-du-Rhône), fortified church,
-    315
-
-  Salisbury (Wilts), 25;
-    and _see_ Old Sarum
-
-  —— bishop’s palace, 301
-
-  —— bishops of, _see_ Erghum, Roger, Wyvill
-
-  —— cathedral close, 301
-
-  —— city walls, 301
-
-  Sandal (Yorks, W.R.), castle, 86, _Yorks. Archæol. Journal_; 85, 86,
-      230
-
-  Sandwich (Kent), 22
-
-  Sarthe river, 23
-
-  Savernake park (Wilts), 24
-
-  Saracens in southern France, 65
-
-  Scarborough (Yorks, N. R.), 296;
-    castle, 129, A. Thompson; 85, 119, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137,
-      138, 142, 145, 149, 160, 175, 202, 216, 230, 233, 236, 360
-
-  Scots, kings of, _see_ Malcolm IV., William the Lion
-
-  Scratchbury (Wilts), 25
-
-  Searobyrig (Wilts), 25;
-    _see_ Old Sarum
-
-  Segedunum (Northumberland), 10
-
-  Seine river, 27, 63, 64, 172, 175
-
-  Sens (Yonne), 22
-
-  Sept-Forges (Orne), castle, 52
-
-  Severn river, 29, 119
-
-  Sheffield (Yorks, W.R.), 318
-
-  Sherborne (Dorset), 24
-
-  —— castle, 98, 301
-
-  Sheriff Hutton (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 317, 362, 367
-
-  Shirburn (Oxford), castle, 325
-
-  Shrawardine (Salop), castle, 119
-
-  Shrewsbury, 29
-
-  —— castle, 39, 40, 88, 109, 119
-
-  —— church of St Julian, 109
-
-  —— earl of, _see_ Talbot
-
-  Shropshire, free chapels in, 109
-
-  Silchester (Hants), 14, 22
-
-  Skelton (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 85
-
-  Skenfrith (Monmouth), castle, 184
-
-  Skipsea (Yorks, E.R.), castle, 85, 86
-
-  Skirlaw, Walter, bishop of Durham, 318
-
-  Sleaford (Lincoln), 355
-
-  Soar river, 28
-
-  Soissons (Aisne), 295
-
-  Solway firth, 10, 304
-
-  Sonning (Berks), manor-house, 301
-
-  Southampton (Hants), castle, 88, 119
-
-  —— town walls, 293, C. Gethen; 88, 223, 241, 247, 292, 296
-
-  Spennithorne (Yorks, N.R.), church-tower, 316
-
-  Spofforth (Yorks, W.R.), manor-house, 307, 358
-
-  Spurn head (Yorks, E.R.), 86
-
-  Stafford, 29
-
-  —— castle, 365, 367
-
-  Stafford, Edward, duke of Buckingham, 362, 365, 366
-
-  —— Anne, duchess, 365, 366
-
-  Stainmoor, 312
-
-  Stamford (Lincoln and Northampton), 29, 30, 32;
-    castle, 30, 32
-
-  Stephen, king, 56, 57
-
-  Stokesay (Salop), castle, 207, A. Thompson; 306, R. Keene, C. Gethen;
-      193, 206, 281, 307, 342, 352
-
-  Stour river (Kent), 28
-
-  Stow Park (Lincoln), manor-house, 301
-
-  Strickland, William, 316
-
-  Sudbury, Simon, archbishop of Canterbury, 304
-
-  Surrey, earl of, _see_ Warenne
-
-  Swale river, 90
-
-  Swaledale, 85
-
-  Swansea (Glamorgan), castle, 338, 341
-
-  Swegen, king of Denmark, 64
-
-  Sweyn Godwinsson, 37
-
-  Syria, castles and churches in, 176
-
-
-  T
-
-  Tadcaster (Yorks, W.R.), 295;
-    castle, 85
-
-  Talbot, John, earl of Shrewsbury, 347
-
-  Talvas, Guillaume, 51
-
-  Tamar river, 27
-
-  Tame river, 101
-
-  Tamworth (Stafford), 28, 29, 30
-
-  —— castle, 48, A. Thompson; 32, 47, 101, 242
-
-  Tattershall (Lincoln), castle, 356, A. Thompson; 297, _Archaeol.
-      Journal_; 318, 352, 355, 356, 357
-
-  Tavistock (Devon), 27
-
-  Tees river, 85, 86, 312
-
-  Tempsford (Beds), _burh_ and earthwork, 32, A. Thompson; 29, 30, 33
-
-  Tenby (Pembroke), town walls, 240, A. Thompson; 239, 240, 297
-
-  Tewkesbury (Gloucestershire), gatehouse of abbey, 301
-
-  Thames river, 28, 63, 64, 119
-
-  Thanet, isle of (Kent), 28
-
-  Thelwall (Chester), 26, 29
-
-  Theobald, count of Chartres, 67, 68
-
-  Thérouanne, bishop of, _see_ Warneton
-
-  Thetford (Norfolk), 24;
-    castle, 44
-
-  Thirsk (Yorks, N.R.), castle, 56, 57, 83
-
-  Thornbury (Gloucester), castle, 366, 367
-
-  Thornton (Lincoln), gatehouse of abbey, 302, A. Thompson; 303,
-      _Archaeol. Journal_; 331, F. Bond; 303, 304, 358
-
-  Thurkill, 64
-
-  Tickhill (Yorks, W.R.), castle, 67, 85, 96, 98, 99, 220, 235
-
-  Tinchebray (Orne), battle of, 117
-
-  Toledo (New Castile), bridge of Alcantarà, 297
-
-  Tolleshunt Major (Essex), manor-house, 308
-
-  Tonbridge (Kent), castle, 115, 365, 367
-
-  Tor Bay, 358
-
-  Torksey (Lincoln), castle, 358
-
-  Torquay (Devon), 358
-
-  Totnes (Devon), castle, 115
-
-  Toulouse (Haute-Garonne), 27
-
-  —— count of, _see_ Raymond
-
-  Tournai (Hainault), fortified bridge, 297
-
-  Tournus (Saône-et-Loire), abbey church, 315
-
-  Tours (Indre-et-Loire), 22
-
-  Towcester (Northampton), 26, 29, 65
-
-  Tower on the Moor (Lincoln), 355
-
-  Towy river, 308
-
-  Trebonius, Gaius, 61, 62
-
-  Trecastle (Brecknock), castle, 44, A. Thompson; 44, 56, 87
-
-  Trent river, 28, 29, 50, 83, 85, 99, 120, 355, 358, 360
-
-  Tre’r Ceiri (Carnarvon), 8
-
-  Tretower (Brecknock), castle, 183, 184
-
-  Tripoli (Syria), county of, 263
-
-  Troyes (Aube), 22;
-    bishop of, _see_ Prudentius
-
-  Tungri, first cohort of, 18
-
-  Tunstall, Cuthbert, bishop of Durham, 200
-
-  Tustin, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, 236
-
-  Tutbury (Stafford), castle, 237, R. Keene; 41, 42, 44, 327, 335,
-      336, 359
-
-  Tweed river, 86
-
-  Tyne river, 10, 86, 88, 316
-
-  Tynemouth priory (Northumberland), 298
-
-
-  U
-
-  Umfraville, Gilbert de, earl of Angus, 315
-
-  Upton (Lincoln), church, 100
-
-  Ure river, 83, 85
-
-  Usk river, 183
-
-
-  V
-
-  Vaughan, Edward, bishop of St David’s, 342
-
-  Vercingetorix, 59, 60, 61
-
-  Vernon (Eure), 27
-
-  Verona (Venetia), 290
-
-  Vespasian, emperor, 14
-
-  Villandraut (Gironde), castle, 325
-
-  Villeneuve-d’Avignon (Gard), Château-Saint-André, 307, A. Thompson;
-      304
-
-  Vitré (Ille-et-Vilaine), 49
-
-  Viviers (Ardèche), cathedral, 315
-
-
-  W
-
-  Wakefield (Yorks, W.R.), 85
-
-  Wallsend (Northumberland), 10
-
-  Wansbeck river, 86, 166
-
-  Wansdyke, the, 24, 25
-
-  Warburton, 29
-
-  Warenne, Isabel de, 167
-
-  —— William de, earl of Surrey, 167
-
-  Wark (Northumberland), castle, 86, 119
-
-  Warkworth (Northumberland), castle, 49, A. Thompson; 221, J. P.
-      Gibson; 44, 48, 86, 107, 190, 194, 197, 206, 209, 210, 211, 219,
-      220, 223, 247, 248, 251, 290, 328, 329, 330, 356, 357
-
-  —— fortified bridge, 298
-
-  Warneton, John of, bishop of Thérouanne, 53
-
-  Warrington (Lancaster), 26
-
-  Warwick, _burh_, 29, 32
-
-  —— castle, 231, 319, H. Baker; 234, 321, A. Thompson; 32, 39, 40,
-      109, 189, 190, 194, 206, 223, 235, 246, 318, 321, 322, 327, 328,
-      330, 359
-
-  —— church of St Mary, 109
-
-  —— earls of, _see_ Beauchamp, Roger
-
-  —— town walls, 296
-
-  Wat’s dyke, 24
-
-  Wear river, 86, 202
-
-  Wedmore (Somerset), peace of, 28
-
-  Welland river, 28, 29
-
-  Wells (Somerset), 24
-
-  —— bishop’s palace, 300, Mrs Jessie Lloyd; 301, 338
-
-  —— cathedral close, 298, 301
-
-  Welshmen, 37
-
-  Wenham, Little (Suffolk), hall, 355
-
-  Wensleydale (Yorks, N.R.), 85
-
-  Wessex, kingdom of, 28, 34
-
-  —— kings of, _see_ Æthelwulf, Alfred, Ceawlin, Cynewulf, Edmund,
-      Edward the Confessor, Edward the Elder, Egbert, Ethelred, Harold
-
-  Westminster palace, 124
-
-  Weston-super-Mare (Somerset), 8
-
-  Whickham (Durham), church-tower, 316
-
-  Whalley (Lancashire), gatehouse of abbey, 303
-
-  Wharfe river, 85
-
-  William I., king, 22, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 52, 56, 66, 67, 85,
-      88, 90, 118, 120, 265
-
-  —— II., king, 25, 62, 66, 90, 120, 124, 193
-
-  William the Lion, king of Scots, 83
-
-  William, son of Osbern, earl of Hereford, 104
-
-  Winchelsea (Sussex), 296, 325
-
-  Winchester (Hants), castle, 39, 40, 197, 202
-
-  Windsor (Berks), castle, 109, 119, 282;
-
-  St George’s chapel, 109
-
-  Wingfield (Derby), manor, 346, W. H. Edmunds’ _Guide_; 348, A.
-      Thompson; 349, 353, G. J. Gillham; 229, 269, 336, 345, 347,
-      348, 351, 352, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
-
-  Witham (Essex), 29
-
-  Witham river, 12, 20
-
-  Wiverton (Notts), manor-house, 360
-
-  Wollaton hall (Notts), 318
-
-  Wootton lodge (Derby), 318
-
-  Worcester, 119
-
-  Worlebury (Somerset), 9, A. H. Allcroft; 8, 25
-
-  Worthing (Sussex), 2
-
-  Wressell (Yorks, E.R.), castle, 358
-
-  Wrexham (Denbigh), 24
-
-  Writtle (Essex), manor-house, 366
-
-  Würzburg (Lower Franconia), 26
-
-  Wye river, 24, 268
-
-  Wyvill, Robert, bishop of Salisbury, 301
-
-
-  Y
-
-  Yanwath (Westmorland), manor-house, 338
-
-  York, 17, A. Thompson; 14, 16, 18, 23, 28, 33, 41;
-    archbishops of, 85;
-    bars, 229, A. Thompson; 237, W. Maitland; 7, 229, 230, 233, 236,
-      241, 245, 295, 296, 297;
-    castles, 185, A. Thompson; 32, 39, 40, 41, 42, 52, 55, 85, 86, 88,
-      89, 115, 120, 185, 186
-
-  —— cathedral, 100;
-    cathedral close, 298
-
-  —— St Mary’s abbey, 33, 107, 298
-
-  —— St Mary Bishophill Junior, 100
-
-  Yorkshire, sheriff of, 55
-
-  Ythanceaster (Essex), 22
-
-
-  Z
-
-  Zara (Dalmatia), siege of, 70
-
-
-
-
-INDEX RERUM
-
-
-  A
-
-  Adulterine castles, 56, 57, 89
-
-  _Adulterinus_, 56
-
-  _Agger_, 11, 60
-
-  _Alatorium_, 89
-
-  Allure, 89
-
-  Angle, dead, in fortification, 162
-
-  Angles, reduction of, in fortification, 165
-
-  Arbalast, 73;
-    _see_ Cross-bow
-
-  _Arx_, 22, 32, 53, 65;
-    _arcem condere_, etc., 38
-
-  Attack, science and methods of, 66-79
-
-  _Aula_, hall or manor-house, 197, 198
-
-  _Aula principalis_, 56;
-    _see_ Hall
-
-
-  B
-
-  Bailey, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 55, 56;
-    _see_ Castles, plan of
-
-  _Ballista_, 16, 63, 67, 73, 74
-
-  _Ballium_, 40
-
-  Barbican, 215, 229, 230, 233-6, 239-41
-
-  Barmkin, 189, 229, 312, 347
-
-  Bartizan, 187, 235, 236
-
-  Base-court, 40, 96
-
-  _Basse-cour_, 40
-
-  _Bastille_, 236
-
-  Bastion, 289, 290
-
-  Battering ram, _see_ Ram
-
-  Bayeux tapestry, 36, 38, 45, 46, A. Thompson; 36, 38, 44, 45, 46, 52,
-      66, 190, 192
-
-  Belfry, 72, Viollet-le-Duc; 67, 70, 71, 78
-
-  _Berfredum_, 67
-
-  Berm, 5, 11, 60
-
-  Bishop’s palaces, fortified, 301, 338, 341, 342
-
-  Bore, 70, Viollet-le-Duc; 61, 64, 68
-
-  Borough, 30
-
-  _Bourg_, 26
-
-  Bower, 192, 193
-
-  Brattice, 79, 187
-
-  _Bretèche_, 79, 187
-
-  Brick-work in eastern counties, 355, 358
-
-  —— tower of, at siege of Marseilles, 62
-
-  Bridges, fortified, 297, 298;
-    London bridge, 64;
-    bridges at Paris, 63
-
-  _Burg_, 25, 26
-
-  _Burgus_ or _burgum_, 30, 41
-
-  _Burh_, 25;
-    _burhs_ in Saxon England, map of, 31, A. Thompson; 25-27, 28-33,
-      35, 38, 41, 42
-
-  Byzantine military science, 59, 61, 67, 73
-
-
-  C
-
-  _Cabulus_, 76
-
-  Carfax, 22
-
-  _Castel_, 35, 37, 42
-
-  _Castellum_, 35, 55, 60, 66;
-    _castellum construere_, etc., 38;
-    _castellis, vastata in_, 42
-
-  Castles, dwelling-houses in, 188-211
-
-  —— in England, Norman, earthworks, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35-57;
-    mount-and-bailey plan, 42-47, 48-52, 55-56, 110, 113, 160, 161;
-    relative date of, 56, 57;
-    importance in warfare, 65, 66, 83-7;
-    stone fortifications, 47, 89-107
-
-  —— in relation to plan of walled towns, 87-89
-
-  —— plan of, with successive baileys, 162, 163, 164;
-    concentric, 7, 164, 264, 264-82, 304;
-    mount-and-bailey, _see_ Castles in England, Norman
-
-  —— strategic position in North of England, map illustrating, 84, A.
-      Thompson; 83-87
-
-  —— Syrian, _see_ Crusaders
-
-  _Castrum_, 35, 53
-
-  Cat, 68
-
-  Catapult, 73, Viollet-le-Duc; 16, 17, 51, 67, 70, 71, 73-6;
-    _see_ _Ballista_, _Mangana_, etc.
-
-  Centering of vault at Lancaster castle, 327
-
-  _Cervi_, 60
-
-  Chamber, great, 54, 205, 206, 207
-
-  Chapels in castles, 107-9, 209-11;
-    _see_ also Keep
-
-  _Châtelet_, 236
-
-  _Chats-châteaux_, 68
-
-  _Chemise_, 90, 177
-
-  Churches, fortified, 315, 316
-
-  _Cippi_, 60, 61
-
-  Closes of cathedrals, fortified, 298, 301
-
-  “Contour” forts, 1, 2
-
-  _Cortina_, 89
-
-  Countervallation, wall of, 62
-
-  _Coursière_, 80, 82, 178
-
-  _Courtine_, 89
-
-  Crenellate, licences to, 298, 301, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309
-
-  Crenellations, 79
-
-  Cross-bow, 67, 73, 74, 78
-
-  Crusade, first, 66, 74;
-    fourth, 70
-
-  Crusaders, castles of, in Syria, 175, 176, 240, 241, 262, 263
-
-  Crusades, influence of, on military science, 59, 66, 67, 160, 163,
-      164, 175, 176, 262, 263
-
-
-  D
-
-  Danegeld, 33
-
-  Danes, invasions of England and France by, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33,
-      34, 39, 63, 64, 65
-
-  Defence, science and progress of, 79-82, 161-5
-
-  Demi-lune, 215
-
-  Domesday Book, evidence with regard to early castles, 30, 37, 41,
-      42, 83
-
-  _Domgio_, 46
-
-  Donjon or dungeon, 43, 46, 47, 361, 365
-
-  Drainage of roofs, 156, 179
-
-  Drawbridge, 55
-
-  Dungeon, _see_ Donjon
-
-  _Dunio_, 46
-
-
-  E
-
-  Earthworks in Britain, early, 1-10, 19;
-    defence of entrances, 3, 5-7;
-    dry-built walls, 8;
-    in Saxon England, 24, 25
-
-  Embrasure, 169
-
-
-  F
-
-  Fire-arms, introduction of, 58, 59, 287-90
-
-  _Firmamentum_, 38
-
-  _Firmitas_, 55
-
-  Flanking, 102, 161, 162, 164, 216-20
-
-  Fore-building, _see_ Keep
-
-  _Forum_, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23
-
-  France, Gallo-Roman cities in, 22, 23
-
-  —— early castles in, 36
-
-  —— mount-and-bailey castles in, 46, 52, 53, 55
-
-  —— progress of military art in, 65
-
-  —— walled towns in, 64, 65, 250, 290, 292
-
-  Free chapels, 109
-
-
-  G
-
-  Galleries in walls of castles, 284, 285
-
-  Garde-robes, 247;
-    _see_ also Keep, Mural chambers
-
-  Gatehouses of castle, early, 95-9;
-    later, 220-9
-
-  Gateways of Roman stations, 14, 15, 19
-
-  _Geweorc_, 30, 33, 63
-
-  Great chamber, _see_ Chamber
-
-
-  H
-
-  _Haia_, 55
-
-  Hall of castle, 54, 55, 56, 104, 107, 190-3, 195, 197, 198, 200,
-      202, 205, 206
-
-  “Herring-bone” masonry, 93, 99-102
-
-  Herse, 70
-
-  Hides, raw, used to protect palisades, 62, 64, 68
-
-  Hoarding, 79, Viollet-le-Duc; 79, 80, 81, 82, 187
-
-  Hooks, grappling, 61, 71
-
-  Horn-work, 215
-
-  _Hourd_; _see_ Hoarding
-
-  Hurdles, use of, in attack, 61
-
-
-  I
-
-  Italy, fortified towns in, 290, 292
-
-
-  K
-
-  Keep, gradual disappearance of, 164, 212, 215
-
-  —— cylindrical tower, 165-85;
-    internal arrangements, 168-72, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184
-
-  —— octagonal tower, 185
-
-  —— quatrefoil tower, 172, 185-7
-
-  —— rectangular tower, map of towers, 130, A. Thompson;
-    in France and Normandy, 116-8;
-    in England, 118-59;
-    evidence for date, 118-20;
-    early Norman towers, 120-5;
-    comparative measurements of towers, 125, 127-8, 131-3;
-    position in plan, 128-31;
-    external treatment, 133, 134, 137;
-    entrance and forebuilding, 137-8, 141-2;
-    internal arrangement and cross-wall, 142, 145-6;
-    basement, 146, 149-50;
-    stairs, 146, 149;
-    chapels, 150, 153-4;
-    kitchens, 154;
-    wells, 154;
-    mural chambers and galleries, 155-6;
-    roof and rampart, 157, 159;
-    drawbacks of shape, 161-2
-
-  —— , residential use of, 53-5, 179, 188
-
-  —— shell, 113-6;
-    combination with rectangular tower, 129
-
-  —— wooden tower on mount, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52-5, 56, 113, 160
-
-  Kitchen in castles, 54, 193, 194, 209;
-    _see also_ Keep
-
-
-  L
-
-  _Lilium_, 60, 61
-
-  Lists, 264
-
-  Limestone, Yorkshire, 355
-
-  _Logium_, 54
-
-
-  M
-
-  Machicolations, 82, 175, 223, 246
-
-  _Malvoisin_, 66
-
-  _Mangana_, mangon, mangonel, 64, 73
-
-  Mantlets, 61, 64, 68, 70, 79;
-    of rope, 62
-
-  _Merlon_, 169, 242, 245, 246
-
-  Mile-castles on Roman wall, 11, 17, 60
-
-  Mines, use of, in siege, 58, 62, 63, 68, 70, 71
-
-  Monasteries, fortified, 298, 301, 303, 304, 315
-
-  _Motte_, 41, 46, 54
-
-  Mount, 41, 43, 44-47, 48-53, 54
-
-  Mouse, 62, 68
-
-  _Municipium_, 35, 53
-
-  _Munitio_, 35, 53;
-    _munitionem firmare_, etc., 38
-
-  _Musculus_, 62
-
-
-  N
-
-  Norman conquest, castle-building after, 38, 39
-
-  Normans at court of Edward the Confessor, 37
-
-
-  O
-
-  _Oppidum_, 21
-
-
-  P
-
-  _Palicium_, 55
-
-  Palisade and stockade, use of, 5, 25, 26, 29, 32, 36, 40, 45, 46,
-      52, 53, 55, 58, 59, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 89
-
-  Pantry, 54
-
-  Parapets, 79, 80, 82, 102, 242, 245, 246
-
-  Parvise, 192
-
-  Pele, 229, 312
-
-  Pele-towers, 185, 219, 220, 312, 315, 316
-
-  Pele-yard, 315
-
-  Pent-houses, 62, 64, 79
-
-  _Petraria_, 73
-
-  _Pierrière_, 73
-
-  _Pomerium_, 292, 295
-
-  _Porta decumana_, 19;
-    _praetoria_, 19;
-    _principalis_, 19
-
-  Portcullis, 70, 96, 227, 229
-
-  _Porte-coulis_, 70
-
-  Postern, 247, 251
-
-  _Praetorium_, 14, 18
-
-  Promontories, early camps on, 1, 2
-
-  _Propugnaculum_, 89
-
-
-  Q
-
-  _Quincunx_, 60
-
-
-  R
-
-  Ram, 69, Viollet-le-Duc; 63, 64, 68, 78, 79;
-    devices against, 79
-
-  Rampart-walk, 241, Viollet-le-Duc; 79, 80, 89, 102;
-    _see_ also Keep
-
-  Ravelin, 215
-
-  Revetment, walls of, 186
-
-  Roman military science, 59-62, 73
-
-  —— occupation of Britain, 10-20
-
-  —— roads in Britain, 11, 12, 25
-
-  —— stations, 10, 12-20
-
-  —— wall in Northumberland and Cumberland, 11, A. Thompson
-    (after Bruce);
-      10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25
-
-
-  S
-
-  Saxon invasions of Britain, 21, 22
-
-  —— shore, fortresses of, 12, 22
-
-  —— towns and villages, 23, 24
-
-  Scaling, 58;
-    scaling-ladders, 61, 70, 71
-
-  _Scorpio_, 73
-
-  Shutter in embrasure, 245, Viollet-le-Duc; 242
-
-  Siegecraft, engines used in, 68-77;
-    _see_ Catapult
-
-
-  Sieges—
-    of Alesia, 59-61
-    of Antioch, 164, 241
-    of Château-Gaillard, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 163, 215, 216
-    of Constantinople, 164
-    of London by Danes, 64, 65
-    of Marseilles, 61, 62
-    of Paris, 63, 64
-    of Le Puiset, 67, 68
-
-  Slingers, 58
-
-  Solar, _solarium_, 192, 193
-
-  Sow, 68
-
-  Spur at base of towers, 175, 185
-
-  Stakes used as missiles, 61
-
-  _Stimuli_, 61
-
-  Stockade, _see_ Palisade
-
-
-  T
-
-  _Terebra_, 68
-
-  _Testudo_, 62, 68
-
-  _Tête-du-pont_, 63, 234, 326
-
-  Teutonic origin of mount-and-bailey castle, conjectural, 51
-
-  _Timbrian_, 29
-
-  Tortoise, 68;
-    _see_ _Testudo_
-
-  Tower at siege of Marseilles, 62
-
-  Tower, great, _see_ Keep
-
-  Towers on ramparts, 60, 61, 161, 162, 164;
-    in early Norman castles, 102-4;
-    _see_ Flanking
-
-  —— on walls of Roman stations, 15-17
-
-  —— strong, survivals of keep, 269, 281, 282
-
-  Towns; Saxon settlements, 23, 24
-
-  —— walled, 228, 288, Viollet-le-Duc;
-    early, 64, 65;
-    in relation to castles, 87-89
-
-  _Trebuchet_, 75, 76, Viollet-le-Duc; 76
-
-  Turrets on Roman wall, 11
-
-
-  U
-
-  _Urbs_, 21
-
-
-  V
-
-  _Vallum_, 2, 5, 11, 53, 60, 61
-
-  _Via praetoria_, 18;
-    _principalis_, 18, 19, 23
-
-  _Villa_, 53
-
-  Villas in Roman Britain, 12, 21
-
-  _Vinea_, 62
-
-
-  W
-
-  Ward, 40
-
-  Wells in castles, 119, 124, 125, 141, 145, 146, 154, 155, 179
-
-
-  _Printed at_ THE DARIEN PRESS, _Edinburgh_
-
-
-
-
-GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND
-
-
-An Analysis of the Origin and Development of English Church
-Architecture from the Norman Conquest to the Dissolution of the
-Monasteries
-
-BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.
-
-With 1254 Illustrations, comprising 785 Photographs, Sketches, and
-Measured Drawings, and 469 Plans, Sections, Diagrams, and Moldings.
-Imperial 8vo, 800 pp., handsomely bound in art canvas, gilt. Price 31s.
-6d. net
-
-Published by B. T. BATSFORD, 94 High Holborn, London
-
-
-SOME PRESS NOTICES
-
-_The Times._—“Mr Bond has given us a truly monumental work on English
-Gothic Architecture in his profusely illustrated and very fully indexed
-volume of some 800 pages.... As a mine of erudition, of detailed
-analysis and information, and of criticism on English Mediæval Church
-Architecture the book is worthy of all praise. For students it must
-be of lasting value; for authentic reference it will be long before
-it is likely to be in any way seriously superseded; while the lavish
-illustrations, many of them unpublished photographs, must be of
-permanent interest to all.”
-
-_The Athenæum._—“This is, in every sense of the word, a great book. It
-at once steps to the front as authoritative.”
-
-_The Building News._—“A remarkable book.... Perfectly orderly, and most
-complete and thorough, this great book leaves nothing to be desired.”
-
-_The Reliquary._—“The more expert a man is as a Church Architect or as
-an intelligent ecclesiologist, the more grateful will he be to Mr Bond
-for the production of a noble volume like that now under notice.”
-
-_The Spectator._—“The whole book is extraordinarily full,
-extraordinarily minute, and enriched by a wealth of illustrations, and
-must stand for many years to come as _the_ book of reference on the
-subject of Ecclesiastical Gothic in England for all architects and
-archaeologists.”
-
-_The Westminster Gazette._—“Mr Bond gives us an immense quantity of
-material—the result of the most painstaking and laborious research;
-he has illustrated every chapter, not only with photographs, but with
-the most admirable diagrams of mouldings and details; he has scarcely
-missed a church of any importance in his search for examples. In all
-these respects he places the architect and the architectural student
-under an immense obligation.”
-
-_The Pall Mall Gazette._—“Archæologist, scholar, and geologist, he
-is something more than a mere enthusiast, for to the ardour of his
-argument he brings deep technical mastery, much wide research, and
-scientific knowledge.... The book is one of the most absorbing that we
-have read for a long time in any field.”
-
-_Bulletin Monumental._—“Le grand travail sur l’architecture gothique
-anglaise.”
-
-
-
-
-SCREENS AND GALLERIES IN ENGLISH CHURCHES
-
-
-BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.
-
-A handsome volume, containing 204 pp., with 152 Illustrations,
-reproduced from Photographs and Measured Drawings. Octavo, strongly
-bound in cloth. Price 6s. net
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press
-
-
-SOME PRESS NOTICES
-
-_Builder._—“When we look at the detailed photographs we realise the
-richness of the field which Mr Bond has traversed, and congratulate
-him on the choice of his subject. His method is one of singular
-thoroughness from the ecclesiological standpoint.”
-
-_Journal of the Architectural Association._—“As a record of the screens
-remaining in our churches it cannot be valued too highly. No book till
-now has brought such a number together, or traced their development in
-so full and interesting a manner.... A most delightful book.”
-
-_Builders’ Journal._—“The author may be congratulated on the production
-of a book which, in text as well as in illustrations, is of striking
-and inexhaustible interest; it is the kind of book to which one returns
-again and again, in the assurance of renewed and increased pleasure at
-each reperusal.”
-
-_Tablet._—“The numerous excellent illustrations are of the greatest
-interest, and form a veritable surprise as to the beauty and variety of
-the treatment which our forefathers lavished upon the rood screen.”
-
-_British Weekly._—“The book abounds with admirable illustrations of
-these beautiful works of art, so perfect even in the minute details
-that any one interested in the art of woodcarving could reproduce the
-designs with ease from the excellent photographs which occur on almost
-every page. There is also a series of ‘measured drawings’ of great
-beauty and interest.”
-
-_New York Nation._—“It is not easy to praise too highly the simple and
-effective presentation of the subject and the interest of the book to
-all persons who care for ecclesiology or for decorative art.”
-
-_Bibliophile._—“This excellent book is a sign of the times; of the
-reawakened interest in the beautiful and historic.... A model of
-scholarly compression. Of the finely produced illustrations it is
-difficult to speak in too high terms of praise.”
-
-_Daily Graphic._—“Mr Bond has produced a work on our ecclesiastical
-screens and galleries which, like his larger work on the ‘Gothic
-Architecture of England,’ is in the first degree masterly. His
-knowledge of his subject, exact and comprehensive, is compressed into a
-minimum amount of space, and illustrated by a series of photographs and
-measured drawings which render the work of permanent value.”
-
-_Bulletin Monumental._—“Après avoir analysé, aussi exactement que
-possible, l’intéressant étude de M. Bond, nous devons le féliciter de
-nous avoir donné ce complément si utile à son grand ouvrage.”
-
-
-
-
-FONTS & FONT COVERS
-
-
-BY FRANCIS BOND. M.A., F.G.S.
-
-A handsome volume containing 364 pages, with 426 Illustrations
-reproduced from Photographs and Measured Drawings. Octavo, strongly
-bound in cloth. Price 12s. net
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press
-
-
-SOME PRESS NOTICES
-
-_Guardian._—“Mr Bond is so well known by his monumental work on ‘Gothic
-Architecture in England,’ and by his beautiful book on ‘Screens and
-Galleries,’ that his name alone is a sufficient guarantee for this new
-volume on ‘Fonts and Font Covers,’ the most complete and thorough that
-has yet appeared.”
-
-_Church Times._—“The finest collection of illustrations of fonts and
-font covers yet attempted.... A real delight to the ecclesiologist.”
-
-_Commonwealth._—“A sumptuous monograph on a very interesting subject;
-complete and thorough.”
-
-_Church Quarterly Review._—“It is most delightful, not only to indulge
-in a serious perusal of this volume, but to turn over its pages again
-and again, always sure to find within half a minute some beautiful
-illustration or some illuminating remark.”
-
-_Irish Builder._—“This book on ‘Fonts and Font Covers’ is a most
-valuable contribution to mediæval study, put together in masterly
-fashion, with deep knowledge and love of the subject.”
-
-_Westminster Gazette._—“Every one interested in church architecture
-and sculpture will feel almost as much surprise as delight in Mr
-Bond’s attractive volume on ‘Fonts and Font Covers.’ The wealth of
-illustrations and variety of interest are truly astonishing.”
-
-_Journal of the Society of Architects._—“The book is a monument of
-painstaking labour and monumental research; its classification is
-most admirable. The whole subject is treated in a masterly way with
-perfect sequence and a thorough appreciation of the many sources of
-development; the illustrations, too, are thoroughly representative.
-To many the book will come as a revelation. We all recognise that
-the fonts are essential, and in many cases beautiful and interesting
-features in our ancient churches, but few can have anticipated the
-extraordinary wealth of detail which they exhibit when the photographs
-of all the best of them are collected together in a single volume.”
-
-_Outlook._—“Mr Francis Bond’s book carefully included in one’s luggage
-enables one, with no specialist’s knowledge postulated, to pursue to a
-most profitable end one of the most interesting, almost, we could say,
-romantic, branches of ecclesiastical architecture.... This book, owing
-to its scholarship and thoroughness in letterpress and illustrations,
-will doubtless be classic; in all its methods it strikes us as
-admirable. The bibliography and the indexes are beyond praise.”
-
-
-
-
-VISITORS’ GUIDE TO WESTMINSTER ABBEY
-
-
-BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.
-
-93 pages of text, abridged from the eighteenth and nineteenth chapters
-of the author’s larger work on “Westminster Abbey,” consisting chiefly
-of description of the Tombs, Monuments, and Cloisters, with 15 Plans
-and Drawings and 32 Photographic Illustrations. Price 1s. net
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press
-
-
-SOME PRESS NOTICES
-
-_Guardian._—“There is probably no better brief handbook. Mr Bond’s
-qualifications for the task are beyond question. By the use of varied
-type, ingenious arrangement, and excellent tone-blocks and plans, the
-book attains a high standard of lucidity as well as of accuracy.”
-
-_Building News._—“This little work is characterised by its terseness,
-directness, and practical treatment. A carefully compiled and scholarly
-guide-book.”
-
-_Architect._—“This book will excellently and admirably fulfil its
-purpose.... A splendid itinerary, in which almost every inch of the way
-is made to speak of its historical connections.”
-
-_Birmingham Daily Post._—“Concise, informative, reliable, and admirably
-illustrated.”
-
-_Western Morning News._—“By his key plan and very clear directions as
-to where to find the numerous side chapels, historic monuments, and
-other objects of interest, Mr Bond makes it possible for a visitor to
-find his way round the building at his leisure. It refreshes one’s
-knowledge of English history, and is supplemented by thirty-two
-excellent plates, which by themselves are worth the shilling charged
-for it.”
-
-_Scotsman._—“A more complete and dependable guide to the National
-Pantheon could not be desired.”
-
-_Architectural Review._—“This is an excellent little text-book. Mr Bond
-is to be congratulated in having introduced into it an interesting
-element of history. The notes in small print should make the visit
-to the Abbey both more profitable and more interesting. The key plan
-and the numerous small plans are extremely clear and easily read. The
-information given is concise and to the point, and a word of special
-praise must be given to the plates at the end; the subjects of these
-are well chosen and are illustrated by very good photographs.”
-
-_Antiquary._—“This little book, strongly bound in linen boards, gives
-concisely and clearly all the information the ordinary visitor is
-likely to require. Cheap, well arranged, well printed, abundantly
-illustrated and well indexed, this handy book, which is light and
-‘pocketable,’ is the best possible companion for which a visitor to our
-noble Abbey can wish; it is an ideal guide.”
-
-
-
-
-WESTMINSTER ABBEY
-
-
-BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.
-
-A handsome volume, containing 348 pages, with 270 Photographs, Plans,
-Sections, Sketches, and Measured Drawings. Octavo, strongly bound in
-cloth. Price 10s. net
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press
-
-
-SOME PRESS NOTICES
-
-_Oxford Magazine._—“All who love the Abbey will be grateful for the
-skill and affection bestowed on this admirable work.”
-
-_Birmingham Post._—“With the history of the Abbey the author
-interweaves the life of the Benedictines, peopling the building with
-its occupants in the centuries when England was a Catholic country,
-and does it with such skill than one can almost imagine oneself at the
-services.”
-
-_Englishman._—“The writer handles his subject with consummate skill,
-and his reward will lie in the unmeasured praise of his many readers.”
-
-_Guardian._—“A book which brings fresh enthusiasm, and will impart a
-new impetus to the study of the Abbey and its history.”
-
-_Scotsman._—“At once instructive and delightful, it more than justifies
-its existence by its historical and architectural learning.”
-
-_Liverpool Daily Courier._—“We found the earlier parts of the book most
-fascinating, and have read them over and over again.”
-
-_Architectural Association Journal._—“Bright and interesting; evincing
-the author’s invariable enthusiasm and characteristic industry.”
-
-_Western Morning News._—“To say that the book is interesting is to say
-little; it is a monument of patient and loving industry and extreme
-thoroughness, an inexhaustible mine of delight to the reader, general
-or technical.”
-
-_Outlook._—“The author discusses the architecture with a minuteness
-that might terrify the inexpert if it were not for the sustained ease
-and interest of his style; great is the fascination of the expert hand
-when its touch is light.”
-
-_Saturday Review._—“Mr Bond leaves us more than ever proud of what is
-left to us of the stately Benedictine house of God, which is to the
-entire English-speaking world a common bond and home.”
-
-_Antiquary._—“It has a wealth of capital illustrations, is preceded by
-a bibliography, and is supplied with good indexes to both illustrations
-and text.”
-
-_Journal des Savants._—“Certains clichés, comme ceux des voûtes, des
-tombeaux et de quelques détails de sculpture sont de véritables tours
-de force. Le choix des illustrations est très heureux, comme d’ailleurs
-dans les autres ouvrages de M. Bond.”
-
-
-
-
-Wood Carvings in English Churches
-
-
-I. MISERICORDS
-
-BY FRANCIS BOND. M.A., F.G.S.
-
-A Handsome Volume, containing 257 pages, with 241 Illustrations Octavo,
-strongly bound in cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press
-
-
-SOME PRESS NOTICES
-
-_Morning Post._—“The subject is one of the first importance to mediæval
-popular history, and we welcome this very admirable and thorough
-monograph with special gratitude.”
-
-_Athenæum._—“Mr Bond has put his rare industry in all that pertains to
-ecclesiology to excellent service in his latest book on Misericords.”
-
-_Antiquary._—“An authoritative and, at the same time, delightful and
-instructive volume. Really the first attempt to deal comprehensively
-with the great variety of carvings on misericords.”
-
-_New York Herald._—“One of the quaintest, most fascinating, and at the
-same time most learned volumes that a reader would happen upon in a
-lifetime.”
-
-_Church Times._—“An indispensable guide to the subject. The
-illustrations are worthy of all praise.”
-
-_Architectural Association Journal._—“The blocks, taken from
-photographs, are of an excellence really amazing, when the difficulties
-such subjects present to the camera are considered. A most delightful
-book.”
-
-_Yorkshire Post._—“Another of the valuable series of monographs on
-Church Art in England, and the most entertaining of all.”
-
-_Architects’ and Builders’ Journal._—“An exceedingly interesting
-volume both in illustrations and subject-matter, and full of curious
-information.”
-
-_Glasgow Herald._—“Mr Bond’s scholarly and most interesting book brings
-us very near to popular life in the Middle Ages.”
-
-_Liverpool Courier._—“Another of the admirably written and illustrated
-art handbooks for which the author is famous.”
-
-_Birmingham Post._—“This well illustrated volume is not only a valuable
-technical monograph, but also an important contribution to the history
-of social life and thought in the Middle Ages. Mr Bond’s treatment
-of the subject is exceptionally charming and successful. The general
-excellence of the book is great.”
-
-_Outlook._—“Many there must be to whom Mr Bond’s new book will be
-welcome. Into all the details of this varied and most puzzling subject
-he goes with thoroughness and a pleasant humour. The bibliography and
-indexes, as usual in Mr Bond’s work, are admirable.”
-
-
-
-
-STALLS AND TABERNACLE WORK IN ENGLISH CHURCHES
-
-
-BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.
-
-Illustrated by 123 Photographs and Drawings. Price 6s. net
-
-LONDON; HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press
-
-
-SOME PRESS NOTICES
-
-_Birmingham Post._—“Valuable for lucid description and enlightened
-criticism of architectural and technical details combined with
-suggestive treatment of historical facts. A certain charm of manner
-contributes to the interest.”
-
-_La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité._—“Une illustration copieuse
-établie avec des soins tout documentaires; des index; une table par
-ordre chronologique, une autre par noms de lieux, viennent faciliter
-les recherches et permettre au lecteur de tirer bénéfice des vastes
-resources d’une érudition informée et sure.”
-
-_Revue de l’Art Chrétien._—“M. Bond est le premier qui ait traité ce
-sujet; il l’a fait avec une grande compétence, et son intéressant
-ouvrage nous fait regretter que chez nous pareil travail ne tente un de
-nos érudits.”
-
-_The Builder._—“The illustrations are admirable, and we cordially
-recommend our readers to undertake their examination with the help of
-so accomplished and genial a cicerone as Mr Bond.”
-
-_The Antiquary._—“The volume abounds with fine illustrations, which
-even more than the text make us realise the extraordinary beauty and
-variety of the craftsmanship.”
-
-_The Architect._—“A most delightful and valuable account of the
-marvellous fertility of design, the exquisite craftsmanship, and the
-pious generosity of mediæval England.”
-
-_Cambridge Review._—“The fourth of a series of handbooks of which it is
-difficult to speak too highly.”
-
-_Building News._—“A monument of industry and erudition.”
-
-_The Cabinet Maker._—“Every lover of woodwork should possess this
-series, which contains beautiful illustrations and most interesting
-descriptions of the noble heritage of magnificent work handed down to
-us by the mediæval Church.”
-
-
-
-
-_IN THE PRESS._
-
-
-ENGLISH MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN THE MIDDLE AGES
-
-By A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A., F.S.A.
-
-Author of “THE GROUND PLAN OF THE ENGLISH PARISH CHURCH”; “THE
-HISTORICAL GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH PARISH CHURCH”; &c.
-
-Copiously illustrated with Plans, Drawings, and Photographs. Octavo,
-strongly bound in cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
-
-
-CHURCH BELLS IN ENGLAND
-
-By H. B. WALTERS, Esq., M.A., F.S.A.
-
-Joint-Author of “BELLS OF ESSEX” and “BELLS OF WARWICKSHIRE.”
-
-Copiously illustrated with Photographs of Bells, Bell Stamps, Founders’
-Marks, &c.
-
-Octavo, strongly bound in cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
-
-
-CATHEDRALS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
-
-By FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.
-
-A Short History of their Architecture; being a remodelled,
-re-illustrated, and enlarged edition of “English Cathedrals
-Illustrated.” Containing over 270 Illustrations from photographs and a
-complete set of plans specially drawn to a uniform scale. Octavo, cloth
-gilt. Price 7s. 6d. net
-
-LONDON: B. T. BATSFORD
-
-
-INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH CHURCH ARCHITECTURE FOR GENERAL READERS
-
-By FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.
-
-This book has been specially prepared for those who have not had an
-architectural training and desire an account of English Ecclesiastical
-Architecture not overlaid with archæological and technical detail. It
-will be a quarto volume of large size and handsome type, illustrated
-with many hundred Plans, Drawings, and large size Photographs, and will
-probably be published at a Guinea.
-
-LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
-
-
-
-
-Transcriber’s Notes:—
-
-
-  Numbers in parentheses eg., (106) refer to the illustration page
-  numbers.
-
-  In the Bibliography:—
-  Viollet-de-Duc corrected to read Viollet-le-Duc
-
-  In the Index:—
-
-  Aigues-Mortes (Gard), 7, A. Thompson;
-  Corrected thus:—
-  Aigues-Mortes (Gard), 77, A. Thompson;
-
-
-  Tattershall (Lincoln), castle, 296, A. Thompson;
-  Corrected thus:—
-  Tattershall (Lincoln), castle, 356, A. Thompson;
-
-  mount-and-bailey plan, 42-47, 48-52, 55-56, 112, 113, 160, 161;
-  Corrected thus:—
-  mount-and-bailey plan, 42-47, 48-52, 55-56, 110, 113, 160, 161;
-
-  Hall of castle, 54, 55, 56, 104, 107, 190-3, 196, 197, 198, 200,
-  Corrected thus:—
-  Hall of castle, 54, 55, 56, 104, 107, 190-3, 195, 197, 198, 200,
-
-  Keep, gradual disappearance of, 164, 214, 215
-  Corrected thus:—
-  Keep, gradual disappearance of, 164, 212, 215
-
-  Footnotes:—
-
-  [135] Other important shell keeps of the normal type are at Arundel,
-  Cardiff (114), Carisbrooke (171), Farnham, Lewes, Pickering, Totnes,
-  Corrected thus:—
-  [135] Other important shell keeps of the normal type are at Arundel,
-  Cardiff (114), Carisbrooke (111), Farnham, Lewes, Pickering, Totnes,
-
-
-
-
-
-End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Military Architecture in England
-During the Middle Ages, by Alexander Hamilton Thompson
-
-*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND ***
-
-***** This file should be named 60518-0.txt or 60518-0.zip *****
-This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
-        http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/5/1/60518/
-
-Produced by MWS, Brian Wilcox 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 print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law 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 in the United States with eBooks
-not protected by U.S. copyright law. 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 unprotected by copyright law 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 in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
-  are located before using this ebook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (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 The
-Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, 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
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law 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 in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
-mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, 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
-    gbnewby@pglaf.org
-
-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 not protected by copyright 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.
-
diff --git a/old/60518-0.zip b/old/60518-0.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index 96c0500..0000000
--- a/old/60518-0.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h.zip b/old/60518-h.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index 7e5ff17..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/60518-h.htm b/old/60518-h/60518-h.htm
deleted file mode 100644
index 850719f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/60518-h.htm
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,16379 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
-    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
-  <head>
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
-    <title>
-      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Military Architecture in
-      England during the Middle Ages, by A. Hamilton Thompson
-    </title>
-    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
-    <style type="text/css">
-
-body {
-    margin-left: 10%;
-    margin-right: 10%;
-}
-
-    h1,h2,h3 {
-    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
-    clear: both;
-    font-weight: normal;
-}
-
-ul.index { list-style-type: none; }
-li.indx { margin-top: .5em; text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 1em;}
-li.ifrst { margin-top: 1em; text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 1em;}
-li.isubtwo {text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 3em;}
-
-p {
-    margin-top: .51em;
-    text-align: justify;
-    margin-bottom: .49em;
-    text-indent: 1em;
-}
-
-p.indent {
-    margin-top: 0em;
-    text-align: left;
-    margin-bottom: 0em;
-    text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 1em;
-}
-
-hr.chap {width: 65%}
-
-table {
-    margin-left: auto;
-    margin-right: auto;
-}
-
-table.my100 {border-collapse: collapse; table-layout: auto;
-margin-left: 1%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;
-font-size: 100%;}
-
-    .tdl      {text-align: left;}
-    .tdr      {text-align: right;}
-
-.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
-    /*  visibility: hidden;  */
-    position: absolute;
-    left: 92%;
-    font-size: smaller;
-    text-align: right;
-}
- /* page numbers */
-
-
-
-.blockquote {
-    margin-left: 5%;
-    margin-right: 10%;
-    font-size: 0.9em;
-}
-
-
-/* Images */
-.figcenter   {
-    margin: auto;
-    text-align: center;
-}
-
-.center   {text-align: center;}
-
-.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
-
-
-.smaller {font-size: 80%;}
-.smallest {font-size: 70%;}
-.larger {font-size: 130%;}
-
-
-.center table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
-
-.padt1 {padding-top: 1em;}
-
-.padt2 {padding-top: 2em;}
-
-.padb1 {padding-bottom: 1em;}
-
-.padb2 {padding-bottom: 2em;}
-
-.padr1 {padding-right: 1em;}
-
-.vertb {vertical-align: bottom;}
-
-.vertt {vertical-align: top;}
-
-.normal {font-weight: normal;}
-
-.noindent {text-indent: 0;}
-
-.lowercase {text-transform: lowercase;}
-
-.sans {font-family:sans-serif, serif; }
-
-.u {text-decoration: underline;}
-
-.caption  {font-weight: normal;
-           text-align: center;
-           font-size: 100%;
-           text-indent: 0em;
-           margin: .5em auto; }
-
-.chapter {page-break-before: always;}
-
-.section {page-break-before: avoid;}
-
-/* Footnotes */
-
-.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
-
-.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
-
-.fnanchor {
-    vertical-align: super;
-    font-size: .8em;
-    text-decoration:
-    none;
-}
-
-
-/* Transcriber's notes */
-.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA;
-    color: black;
-     font-size:smaller;
-     padding:0.5em;
-     margin-bottom:5em;
-     font-family:sans-serif, serif; }
-
-.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;}
-
-#half-title
-{
-  text-align: center;
-  font-size: large;
-}
-
-@media screen
-{
-  #half-title
-  {
-    margin: 6em 0;
-  }
-}
-
-@media print, handheld
-{
-  #half-title
-  {
-    page-break-before: always;
-    page-break-after: always;
-  }
-}
-
-    @media handheld {
-      .msg {
-          border-bottom: none; }
-      .screenonly {
-          display: none; }
-      }
-
-@media handheld {
-  .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block;}
-}
-
-    </style>
-  </head>
-<body>
-
-
-<pre>
-
-The Project Gutenberg EBook of Military Architecture in England During the
-Middle Ages, by Alexander Hamilton Thompson
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
-other parts of the world 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.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
-to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
-
-Title: Military Architecture in England During the Middle Ages
-
-Author: Alexander Hamilton Thompson
-
-Release Date: October 19, 2019 [EBook #60518]
-
-Language: English
-
-Character set encoding: UTF-8
-
-*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND ***
-
-
-
-
-Produced by MWS, Brian Wilcox 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.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-</pre>
-
-
-<div class="transnote covernote">
-  <p>The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.</p>
-</div>
-
-<p id="half-title"><span class="larger">MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN
-ENGLAND DURING THE MIDDLE AGES</span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter">
-<img src="images/i_frontis.jpg" width="404" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><i>Frontispiece</i><br />
-ROCHESTER: GREAT TOWER.</p></div>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<h1>MILITARY ARCHITECTURE
-IN ENGLAND DURING THE
-MIDDLE AGES</h1></div>
-
-<p class="center padt2"><span class="smallest">BY</span></p>
-
-<h2>A. HAMILTON THOMPSON<br />
-<span class="smaller">M.A., F.S.A.</span></h2>
-
-<p class="center noindent padt2 padb2">Illustrated by 200 Photographs, Drawings, and Plans</p>
-
-<p class="center"><span class="larger">HENRY FROWDE</span><br />
-OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS<br />
-LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO, AND MELBOURNE<br />
-1912</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<p class="center noindent padt2 padb2">
-<i>Printed at</i><br />
-<span class="smcap">The Darien Press</span><br />
-<i>Edinburgh</i>
-</p></div>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vii">vii</a></span></p>
-<h2 id="PREFACE">PREFACE</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Apart</span> from the late Mr G. T. Clark’s <i>Medi&aelig;val Military Architecture</i>,
-published in 1884, the greater portion of which is a series of
-monographs dealing with individual castles, there has been no attempt,
-until within the last few years, to apply systematic treatment to
-this branch of science. Recently, however, more than one book has
-been published upon the general subject of the castles of England.
-Mr Alfred Harvey has lately given a lucid account of the growth of
-the castle, with a valuable essay upon English walled towns; and the
-present year has seen the appearance of a book in which Mrs Armitage
-has embodied the result of labours of the utmost importance, extending
-over many years. In addition to works of a general character, a
-number of separate monographs, indispensable to students, have been
-published during the last twenty years, in the transactions of various
-arch&aelig;ological societies. The contributions of Mr W. H. St John Hope to
-the study of castle architecture take a foremost place among these,
-with papers such as those by Mr J. Bilson on Gilling castle and by
-Mr Harold Sands on Bodiam and the Tower of London; and the late Mr
-Cadwallader Bates’ unfinished <i>Border Holds of Northumberland</i> contains
-accounts of Warkworth and Bamburgh, as well as of smaller castles and
-peles, which must take rank among the classics of the subject.</p>
-
-<p>In the present volume an attempt is made to trace the growth of the
-general principles of medieval fortification, with special reference
-to castles, in which, within their limited area, the most complete
-illustration of those principles is given. In order to give greater
-clearness to the account of their evolution, a prefatory chapter deals
-generally with earlier types of fortification in Britain, and the
-critical period of Saxon and Danish warfare is treated in the second
-chapter with some detail. This leads us to the early Norman castle of
-earthwork and timber; and the stone fortifications to which this gave
-place are introduced by a brief account of the progress of siegecraft
-and siege-engines. The Norman castle and its keep or great tower are
-then described. The developments of the later part of the twelfth
-century and the arrangements of the thirteenth-century<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_viii">viii</a></span> castle, with
-those of the dwelling-house within its <i>enceinte</i>, follow and prepare
-the way for the castles of the reign of Edward I. which represent
-the highest effort of military planning. In the last two chapters
-is related the progress of the transition from the castle to the
-fortified manor-house, which followed the introduction of fire-arms
-into warfare and preceded the Renaissance period. It will be seen that
-the castle is taken as the unit of military architecture throughout;
-but illustrations are constantly drawn from walled towns, which are, in
-fact, the castles of communities, and in the eleventh chapter extended
-allusion is made to the chief features of their plan and defences.</p>
-
-<p>In speaking of the walled town, however, as the castle of the
-community, it must not be forgotten that the castle is, in its origin,
-the stronghold of a single owner. That origin is still to some extent
-a vexed question; for the well-known theory of Mr G. T. Clark, that
-the castle of Norman times was identical with the <i>burh</i> of the Saxon
-Chronicle, was accepted as a dogma by the antiquaries of twenty-five to
-fifty years ago, and a theory thus established, however precipitately,
-is not easily shaken. The patient and thorough work of Mrs Armitage,
-which deserves the admiration of every scholar, has done much to
-disturb the foundations on which Mr Clark built his hypothesis; and
-Mr Neilson, Dr Round, Mr St John Hope, and others, have contributed
-their share to the discovery of the real character of the evidence,
-and the formulation of a sounder theory. The present writer has
-devoted much time to the study of the original authorities for Saxon
-and Norman military history, and it is his conviction that the weight
-of documentary evidence is entirely upon the side of the views upheld
-with so much ability and originality by these recent investigators. At
-the same time, the earthworks of early castles still present several
-difficult problems; and the discredit into which Mr Clark’s theory
-has fallen is a warning against the too confident acceptation of the
-conclusions of a more critical age, and against the danger of forcing
-exceptions into the service of the rule.</p>
-
-<p>In the earlier part of this book, some allusion is made to methods
-of Roman warfare; and the main points of two of the sieges conducted
-by C&aelig;sar and his lieutenants are summarily described. It need hardly
-be said, in view of what follows, that<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_ix">ix</a></span> the methods of military
-architecture in the middle ages have, for the most part, their
-exact prototypes in Roman and Byzantine history. The student of the
-siege-campaigns of Philip Augustus will be constantly reminded, for
-example, of the relation by Ammianus of the exploits of Julian the
-Apostate. Too much emphasis cannot be laid on the importance, first,
-of the contact of the Northmen who overran England and France with the
-traditional expedients of Roman siegecraft, as they existed in the
-eastern empire, and secondly, of the influence of the Crusades upon the
-development of medieval fortification. The conditions of our military
-architecture in the middle ages were naturally governed by the methods
-of attack employed by a besieging force. As these had been brought
-to a high state of perfection in the east, an advance upon which was
-hardly possible, the history of English fortification, from the Norman
-conquest to the general adoption of fire-arms in warfare, is that of a
-progress towards a system of defence in which western Europe lagged far
-behind the older centres of civilisation.</p>
-
-<p>It is to be noted that, although the architecture of the castle and the
-fortifications of towns naturally took its share in the formal progress
-of Gothic art, the laws under which it was evolved bear no resemblance
-to the principles of construction, in obedience to which the medieval
-cathedral assumed its characteristic form. Ribbed vaults, Gothic
-mouldings, and traceried windows afford a clue to the dates of the
-various parts of a medieval castle, as they do to those of a church;
-but they are merely incidental to a type of construction to which the
-solid and impregnable wall is all-important. The cases are rare in
-which the builders of castles paid much attention to elaborate detail
-in the minor parts of their building: their decorative work is used
-with the economy and simplicity appropriate to the massive construction
-which their fortresses demanded.</p>
-
-<p>A vast amount of work still remains to be done in the exploration
-of our military buildings and the reconstruction of their history;
-and, until that is accomplished, no thoroughly satisfactory general
-hand-book can be written. Nevertheless, it is hoped that there is room
-for books which may serve as general indicators to what has been done,
-up to the present time, in this direction. The bibliography which will
-be found<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_x">x</a></span> preceding the text of this volume includes a selected list
-of monographs or articles upon individual castles, many of which have
-appeared in the transactions of various archaeological societies.
-These vary considerably in value; but, taken as a whole, they serve to
-enlarge our knowledge of the history and architecture of the buildings
-with which they are concerned.</p>
-
-<p>The author desires to express his thanks, first to his wife, without
-whose constant help in the preparation of the book and in the provision
-of drawings and plans to illustrate its pages, it could hardly have
-been written. Mr Francis Bond, the editor of this series, has aided
-the author with unfailing kindness, by reading through the proofs,
-making suggestions as to the general form of the book, and arranging
-for its adequate illustration. To the following, who have kindly
-allowed the use of photographs, special thanks should be returned: Mrs
-Jessie Lloyd, the Revs. J. Bailey and G. W. Saunders, and Messrs Harold
-Baker, F. Bond, J. P. Gibson, F.S.A., G. J. Gillham, G. Hepworth, P. M.
-Johnston, F.S.A., R. Keene, W. Maitland, E. A. and G. R. Reeve, F. R.
-Taylor, and G. H. Widdows. The editors of the <i>Archaeological Journal</i>
-have sanctioned the use of various plans from the annual programmes
-of the Archaeological Institute. Mr A. Hadrian Allcroft and Messrs
-Macmillan have given consent to the reproduction of three illustrations
-from Mr Allcroft’s <i>Earthwork of England</i>. Permission to found the plan
-of Chepstow castle on one in the official <i>Guide</i> to that building
-was kindly given by his Grace the Duke of Beaufort, through Mr Noel
-H. P. Somerset. MM. Camille Enlart and Auguste Picard have permitted
-the insertion of a plan of Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, founded on that in M.
-Enlart’s <i>Manuel</i>. Mr R. Blair, F.S.A., has authorised a similar use of
-illustrations founded on those of Dr Bruce’s <i>Roman Wall</i>. Thanks are
-also due to the editor of the <i>Yorkshire Arch&aelig;ological Journal</i> for the
-plan of Sandal castle, and to Mr W. G. Watkins, jun., for his plan of
-Lincoln castle. Special acknowledgments are due to Mr Godfrey L. Clark
-for his liberality in putting at the disposal of the writer valuable
-plans and drawings from his father’s work. The author much regrets that
-questions of space and cost have prevented him from taking advantage of
-more than a limited number of the generous offers of illustration which
-reached him during the preparation of the book for the press.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xi">xi</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="TABLE_OF_CONTENTS">TABLE OF CONTENTS</h2>
-
-<div class="center">
-<table class="my100" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" summary="ToC">
-<tr>
-<th class="tdl smaller normal">CHAPTER</th>
-<th>&nbsp;</th>
-<th class="tdr smaller normal">PAGE</th>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td>&nbsp;</td>
-<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Preface</span></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_vii">vii</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td>&nbsp;</td>
-<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Bibliography</span></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_xiii">xiii</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">I.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Early Earthworks and Roman Stations</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">II.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Saxon and Danish Period</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_21">21</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">III.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The English Castle after the Conquest</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_35">35</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">IV.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Progress of Attack and Defence</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_58">58</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">V.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Beginning of the Stone Castle</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_83">83</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">VI.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Keep of the Norman Castle</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_110">110</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">VII.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Period of Transition: Cylindrical Tower-Keeps</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_160">160</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">VIII.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Dwelling-House in the Castle</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_188">188</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">IX.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Castles of the Thirteenth Century: The Fortification
-of the Curtain</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_212">212</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">X.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Edwardian Castle and the Concentric Plan</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_252">252</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">XI.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Military Architecture in the Later Middle
-Ages: Fortified Towns and Castles</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_287">287</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">XII.</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">The Age of Transition: The Fortified Dwelling-House</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#Page_334">334</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">&nbsp;</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Index of Persons and Places</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#INDEX_OF_PERSONS">369</a></td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td class="tdr padr1 vertt">&nbsp;</td>
-<td class="tdl padr1"><p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Index Rerum</span></p></td>
-<td class="tdr vertb"><a href="#INDEX_RERUM">381</a></td>
-</tr></table></div>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xiii">xiii</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="BIBLIOGRAPHY">BIBLIOGRAPHY</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center"><b>1. Chief Original Authorities cited.</b></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Abbo</span>, De Bello Parisiaco libri tres (Migne, <i>Patrologiae
-Cursus Completus</i>, vol. 131 (1853), pp. 722-62).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Amiens, Guy of.</span> Carmen de Hastingae proelio (Chroniques
-Anglo-Normands). Rouen, 1836-40.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Anglo-Saxon Chronicle</span>, ed. C. Plummer. 2 vols. Oxford,
-1892-9.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Anna Comnena.</span> Alexias, ed. A. Reifferscheid. 2 vols.
-Leipzig, 1884.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Annales Bertiniani</span> (Annales Francorum, vulgo Bertiniani
-dicti), ed. Dom. M. Bouquet, <i>Recueil des historiens des Gaules et
-de la France</i>, vols. vi. (1749), 192-204; vii. (1749), 59-124; viii.
-(1752), 26-37.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Ardres, Lambert of.</span> Extracts in Bouquet, <i>Recueil des
-historiens</i>, vols. xi. (1767), 295-307; xiii. (1786), 423-53; xviii.
-(1822), 583-8.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bede.</span> Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. C. Plummer. Oxford, 1896.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Breton (le), Guillaume.</span> Philippidos libri xii., ed. Bouquet,
-<i>Recueil des historiens</i>, vol. xvii. (1818), 117-287.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Caesar.</span> Commentaries, ed. B. K&uuml;bler. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1893-6.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Colmieu, Jean de</span>, canon of St Martin, Ypres. Vita beati
-Joannis Morinorum episcopi (<i>Acta Sanctorum</i>, January, vol. iii.
-409-17).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Diceto, Ralph de.</span> Historical Works (Ymagines Historiarum and
-Abbreviationes Chronicorum), ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (Rolls Series,
-No. 68).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Domesday Book</span> (Record Commission). 4 vols. Lond., 1816.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Henry VIII., Letters and Papers</span>, ed. Brewer and Gairdner,
-vol. iv.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Hoveden, Roger of.</span> Chronicle, ed. W. Stubbs. 4 vols. (Rolls
-Series, No. 51).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Joinville, Jean, seigneur de.</span> Histoire de Saint Louis, ed.
-N. de Wailly. Paris, 1874 (translation of Chronicle by Sir Frank
-Marzials, London, 1908).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Monte, Robert de</span> (Robert de Torigny, abbot of
-Mont-Saint-Michel). Cronica (continuation of Sigebert of Gemblours),
-ed. Migne, <i>Patrologiae Cursus</i>, vol. clx., 423-546.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Ordericus Vitalis.</span> Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. A. le
-Pr&eacute;vost. 5 vols. Paris, 1838-55.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Patent Rolls, Calendars of</span>, 1216-66, 1271-1364, 1377-1485.
-47 vols. (in progress).</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xiv">xiv</a></span></p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Peterborough, Benedict of.</span>
-Chronicle, ed. W. Stubbs. 2 vols. (Rolls Series, No. 49).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Pipe Rolls.</span> Pipe Roll Society Publications. 27 vols. (in
-progress). London, 1884, etc.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Rymer, Thomas.</span> Foedera. 20 vols. London, 1704-35.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Stubbs, William</span>, D.D. Select Charters and other
-Illustrations of English Constitutional History, 8th edit. Oxford,
-1905.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Suger.</span> Gesta Ludovici Grossi, ed. A. Molinier. Paris, 1887.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Vegetius.</span> Epitoma Rei Militaris, ed. C. Lang. Leipzig, 1885.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Vetusta Monumenta</span>, vol. vi. (Bayeux Tapestry). London, 1842.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Villehardouin, Geoffroi de.</span> De la Conqueste de
-Constantinople par les Barons Fran&ccedil;ois associez aux Venitiens, ed. N.
-de Wailly. Paris, 1872-4 (trans. Sir Frank Marzials, London, 1908).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Vitruvius.</span> De Architectura, ed. V. Rose. Leipzig, 1899.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Wendover, Roger of.</span> Chronica sive Flores Historiarum, ed. H.
-G. Hewlett, 3 vols. (Rolls Series, No. 84).</p></div>
-
-<p class="center"><b>2. General.</b></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Allcroft, A. Hadrian.</span> Earthwork of England. London, 1908.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Armitage, Ella S.</span> Anglo-Saxon burhs and early Norman castles
-(<i>Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland</i>, xxxiv. 260-88).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The Early Norman Castles of England (<i>English Historical Review</i>,
-xix. 209-45 and 417-55).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles. London, 1912.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bruce, J. C.</span>, LL.D., F.S.A. Hand-book to the Roman Wall, ed.
-Robert Blair, F.S.A., 5th edition. London and Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1907.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Christison, David</span>, M.D. Early Fortification in Scotland:
-Motes, camps, and forts. Edinburgh and London, 1898.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Clark, G. T.</span>, F.S.A. Medi&aelig;val Military Architecture in
-England. 2 vols. London, 1884.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Clephan, R. Coltman</span>, F.S.A. An Outline of the History of
-Gunpowder and that of the Hand-Gun, from the epoch of the earliest
-records to the end of the fifteenth century (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>,
-lxvi. 145-70).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The Military Handgun of the sixteenth century (<i>Archaeol.
-Journal</i>, lxvii. 109-50).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The Ordnance of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (<i>Archaeol.
-Journal</i>, lxviii. 49-138).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Codrington, Thomas.</span> Roman Roads in Britain. London, 1903.</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xv">xv</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">D’Auvergne, Edmund B.</span> The Castles of England. London, 1907.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The English Castles, London, 1908.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Dieulafoy, M.</span> Le Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard et l’architecture
-militaire au XIIIᵐᵉ si&egrave;cle (<i>M&eacute;moires de l’Acad&eacute;mie des
-Inscriptions</i>, tom. xxxvi., part. 1). Paris, 1898.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Enlart, Camille.</span> Manuel d’Arch&eacute;ologie fran&ccedil;aise, vol. ii.
-Paris, 1904.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Harvey, Alfred.</span> The Castles and Walled Towns of England.
-London, 1911.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Haverfield</span>, Prof. F. J., LL.D., D.Litt., V.P.S.A. The
-Romanization of Roman Britain. London, 1905.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Roman Britain (<i>Cambridge Medieval History</i>, i. 367-81: see
-<i>ibid.</i> 666-7 for bibliography of various articles by the same
-writer).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Hochfelden, G. H. Krieg von.</span> Geschichte der
-Militar-Architektur in Deutschland. Stuttgart, 1859.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Hope, W. H. St John.</span> English fortresses and castles of the
-tenth and eleventh centuries (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, lx. 72-90).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Mackenzie</span>, Sir J. D. The Castles of England, their Story and
-Structure. 2 vols. London, 1897.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Neilson, George.</span> The motes in Norman Scotland (<i>Scottish
-Review</i> xiv. 209-38).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Oman</span>, Prof. C. W. C., F.S.A. A History of the Art of War in
-the Middle Ages. London, 1898.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Orpen, G. H.</span> Motes and Norman castles in Ireland (<i>Proc.
-Royal Soc. Antiq. Ireland</i>, xxxvii. 123-52).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span id="parkerjh" class="smcap">Parker, J. H.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Turner, T. Hudson</span>. Some account
-of domestic architecture in England. 3 vols, in 4. Oxford, 1851-9.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Round, J. Horace</span>, LL.D. The Castles of the Conquest.
-(<i>Archaeologia</i>, lviii. 313-40).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Feudal England, Historical Studies on the XIth and XIIth Centuries
-(new edition). London, 1909.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Saint-Paul, Anthyme.</span> Histoire Monumentale de la France, 6th
-edition. Paris, 1903.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Turner, T. Hudson</span>; <i>see</i> <span class="smcap"><a href="#parkerjh">Parker</a>, J. H.</span></p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Van Millingen, A.</span> Byzantine Constantinople. London, 1899.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Viollet-le-Duc, E.</span> Dictionnaire Raisonn&eacute; de l’Architecture
-fran&ccedil;aise du XIᵉ au XVIᵉ Si&egrave;cle. 10 vols. Paris, 1854, etc.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Essai sur l’architecture militaire au moyen &acirc;ge. Paris, 1854
-(translated by M. Macdermott, Oxford and London, 1860).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Histoire d’une forteresse. Paris, n.d.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Ward, W. H.</span> French Ch&acirc;teaux and Gardens in the XVIth Century
-(drawings reproduced from Androuet-du-Cerceau). London, 1909.</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xvi">xvi</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Westropp, T. J.</span> Irish motes and alleged Norman castles
-(<i>Proc. Royal Soc. Antiq. Ireland</i>, xiv. 313-45, and xv. 402-6).</p></div>
-
-
-<p class="center"><b>3. Special Monographs, etc.</b></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Acton Burnell.</span> Hartshorne, C. H., F.S.A. (<i>Archaeol.
-Journal</i>, ii. 325-38).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Alnwick.</span> Clark, <i>Medi&aelig;val Mil. Architecture</i>, i. 175-85.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Knowles, W. H., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A. The Gatehouse and Barbican of
-Alnwick Castle (<i>Archaeologia &AElig;liana</i>, 3rd ser., v. 286-303).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Amberley.</span> Clarkson, G. A. (<i>Sussex Arch. Coll.</i>, xvii.
-185-339).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Arundel.</span> Clark, i. 195-203.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Auckland.</span> Rev. J. F. Hodgson (<i>Archaeologia &AElig;liana</i>, xix.
-89-92).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Aydon.</span> Knowles, W. H. (<i>Archaeologia</i>, lvi. 78-88). <i>See</i>
-also <a href="#batesborder">Bates</a>, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bamburgh.</span> <a id="batesborder">Bates</a>, <i>Border Holds</i>; Clark, G. T. (<i>Archaeol.
-Journal</i>, xlvi. 93-113).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Barnard Castle.</span> Clark, i. 204-13.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Beaumaris.</span> Clark, i. 213-17.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Belsay.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Middleton, Sir Arthur E., Bart. An account of Belsay castle
-(privately printed). Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1910.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Berkeley.</span> Clark, i. 228-39.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Berkhampstead.</span> Clark, i. 223-38.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Berwick-on-Tweed.</span> Norman, F. M. (Commander R.N.): Official
-Guide to the Fortifications. Berwick, 1907.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bodiam.</span> Clark, i. 239-47.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Sands, Harold, F.S.A., in <i>Sussex Archaeol. Collections</i>, xlvi.
-114-33.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bothal.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bowes.</span> Clark, i. 259-64.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bridgnorth.</span> Clark, i. 273-81.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bristol.</span> Harvey, Alfred, M.B. Bristol, a historical and
-topographical account of the city. London, 1906.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— (castle). Pritchard, J. E., F.S.A. (<i>Proceedings of Clifton
-Antiquarian Club</i>, iv. 17-19).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Bronllys.</span> Clark, i. 283-6; <i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, 3rd
-ser., viii. 81-92.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Broughton.</span> Lord Saye and Sele (<i>Berks, Bucks, and Oxon.
-Archaeol. Journal</i>, new ser., vii. 23-5).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Builth.</span> Clark, i. 304-8.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Caerphilly.</span> Clark, i. 315-35.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Caldicot.</span> Bellows, J. (<i>Cotteswold Field Club</i>, vi. 263-7).</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xvii">xvii</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Caldicot.</span> Cobb, J. R. (<i>Clifton Antiq. Club</i>, iii. 35-40).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Cambridge.</span> Hope, W. H. St John (<i>Camb. Antiq. Soc.</i>, xi.
-324-46).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hughes, Prof. T. M‘Kenny, F.S.A. (<i>ibid.</i>, ix. 348).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Carcassonne.</span> Viollet-le-Duc, E. La Cit&eacute; de Carcassonne.
-Paris, 1858.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Cardiff.</span> Clark, i. 336-50; Ward, J., F.S.A. Cardiff castle,
-its Roman origin (<i>Archaeologia</i>, lvii. 335-52).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Carew.</span> Cobb, J. R. (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, 5th ser.,
-iii. 27-41).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Carisbrooke.</span> Beattie, W. (<i>Journal Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, xi.
-193-205).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Stone, P. G., F.S.A. (<i>Proc. Soc. Antiq.</i>, 2nd ser., xvi. 409-11).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Carlisle.</span> Clark, i. 350-8</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Carnarvon.</span> Clark, i. 309-15.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, vii. 237-65: <i>Archaeologia
-Cambrensis</i>, 3rd ser., i. 242-6).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard.</span> Clark, i. 378-85; Dieulafoy, M., <i>see</i>
-<a href="#BIBLIOGRAPHY">General Bibliography</a>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Chepstow.</span> Clark, G. T. (<i>Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc.</i>,
-vi. 51-74).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Wood, J. G., F.S.A. The Lordship, Castle, and Town of Chepstow.
-Newport, 1910.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Chester.</span> Cox, E. W. (<i>Archit., etc., Soc. Chester and North
-Wales</i>, v. 239-76).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Chillingham.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Chipchase.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Knowles, W. H. (<i>Archaeologia &AElig;liana</i>, 3rd ser., i. 32-4).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Christchurch.</span> Clark, i. 385-92.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Cilurnum.</span> An Account of the Roman Antiquities preserved in
-the Museum at Chesters, 1903.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Clun.</span> Clark, i. 402-9.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Colchester.</span> Clark, i. 418-31.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The History and Antiquities of Colchester castle. Colchester,
-1882. <i>See also</i> <i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, lxiv. 188-191.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Conisbrough.</span> Clark, i. 431-53.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Conway.</span> Clark, i. 453-60.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, new ser., v. 1-12).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Corfe.</span> Blashill, T. (<i>Journal Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, xxviii.
-258-71).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Bond, T. History and Description of Corfe Castle. London and
-Bournemouth, 1883.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, i. 461-75.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Coucy.</span> Clark, i. 476-87.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Lef&egrave;vre-Pontalis, E. Le Ch&acirc;teau de Coucy (with special
-bibliography). Paris, n.d.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Viollet-le-Duc, E. Description du Ch&acirc;teau de Coucy. Paris, n.d.</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xviii">xviii</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Denbigh.</span> Ayrton, W. (<i>Chester Archit., etc., Soc.</i>, ii.
-49-60).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Dolwyddelan.</span> Barnwell, E. L. (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, 4th
-ser., xiv. 174-5).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Domfront.</span> Blancheti&egrave;re, L. Le Donjon ou Ch&acirc;teau f&eacute;odal de
-Domfront (Orne). Domfront, 1893.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Dover.</span> Blashill, T. (<i>Journal Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, xl. 373-8).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, ii. 4-24.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Duffield.</span> Cox, J. C., LL.D., F.S.A. (<i>Derbyshire Archaeol.
-Soc.</i>, ix. 118-78).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Dunstanburgh.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Compton, C. H. (<i>Journal British Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, new ser., ix.
-111-16).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Durham.</span> Clark, ii. 32-5, and <i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, xxxix.
-1-22.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Gee, H., D.D., F.S.A. (<i>Proc. Soc. Antiq.</i>, 2nd ser., xx. 17-18,
-and <i>Trans. Durham and Northumb. Archaeol. Soc.</i>).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Exeter.</span> Clark, ii. 44-7.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Falaise.</span> Ruprich-Robert, V. Paris, 1864.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Gilling.</span> Bilson, J. (<i>Yorks Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>, xix. 105-92).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Guildford.</span> Clark, ii. 53-71.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Malden, H. E. (<i>Surrey Archaeol. Soc.</i>, xvi. 28-34).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Haddon.</span> Cheetham, F. H. Haddon Hall. London and Manchester,
-1904.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Hallaton.</span> Dibbin, H. A. (<i>Proc. Soc. Antiq.</i>, 2nd ser., vii.
-316-21).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Harlech.</span> Chapman, F. G. W. (<i>Journal British Archaeol.
-Assoc.</i> xxxiv. 159-67).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, ii. 72-81.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Hastings.</span> Clark, ii. 82-88.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Dawson, C., F.S.A. History of Hastings Castle. 2 vols. London,
-1909.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Hawarden.</span> Clark, ii. 88-99.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Helmsley.</span> Clark, ii. 100-8.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Kenilworth.</span> Clark, ii. 130-53.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Knowles, E. H. The Castle of Kenilworth. Warwick, 1872.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Kentish Castles.</span> Sands, Harold. Some Kentish Castles
-(<i>Memorials of Old Kent</i>, 1907).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Kidwelly.</span> Clark, ii. 153-62.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Knaresborough.</span> Clark, ii. 168-76.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Lancashire Castles.</span> Fishwick, H. Lancashire castles (<i>Lancs.
-and Chesh. Antiq. Soc.</i>, xix. 45-76).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Lancaster.</span> Cox, E. W. (<i>Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire</i>, new
-ser., xii. 95-122).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Langley.</span> Bates, C. J. (<i>Archaeologia &AElig;liana</i>, x. 38-56).</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xix">xix</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Leeds.</span> Clark, ii. 176-8.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— James, F. V. (<i>Archaeologia Cantiana</i>, xxv. pp. xlix-liii).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Leicester.</span> Clark, ii. 182-8.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Thompson, James. Leicester Castle. Leicester, 1859.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Lewes.</span> Clark (<i>Sussex Archaeol. Collections</i>, xxxiv. 57-70).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Lincoln.</span> Clark, ii. 189-201.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Sympson, E. Mansel, M.D. Lincoln, a historical and topographical
-account of the city. London, 1906.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Llanstephan.</span> Williams, Sir John (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>,
-6th ser., vii. 108-18).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">London, Tower of.</span> Clark, ii. 203-72.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Sands, H., F.S.A. (<i>Memorials of Old London</i>, London, 1908, vol.
-i. 27-65).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Ludlow.</span> Clark, ii. 273-90.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hope, W. H. St John (<i>Arch&aelig;ologia</i>, lxi. 258-328).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Lumley.</span> Dodd, J. (<i>Journal British Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, xxii.
-45, 46).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Manorbier.</span> Duckett, Sir J. (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, 4th
-ser., xi. 134-145, 286-91, xiii. 166-73).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Middleham.</span> Clark, ii. 293-300.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Mitford.</span> Clark, ii. 300-3.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Montgomery.</span> Clark, ii. 303-12.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Mont-St-Michel.</span> Corroyer, E. Description de l’abbaye du
-Mont-Saint-Michel et de ses abords. Paris, 1877.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Mass&eacute;, H. J. L. J. A short history and description ... of Mont S.
-Michel. London, 1902.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Newark-on-Trent.</span> Blagg, T. M., F.S.A. A Guide to Newark, 2nd
-ed., 1911.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Newcastle-on-Tyne.</span> Bates, C. J. (<i>Archaeologia &AElig;liana</i>, ix.
-120-9).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Heslop, R. O., F.S.A. (<i>ibid.</i>, xxv. 91-105; <i>Journal of British
-Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, new ser., xii. 137-8, 214-5).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The Castle of Newcastle, a short descriptive guide. Newcastle,
-1906 (4th ed.).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Norham.</span> Bates, C. J. (<i>Archaeologia &AElig;liana</i>, v. 52-5).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, ii. 322-35.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Jerningham, Sir H. E. H. Norham Castle. Edinburgh, 1883.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Northampton.</span> Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, iii.
-309-32).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Northumbrian Castles.</span> Bates, Cadwallader J. The Border Holds
-of Northumberland (<i>Archaeologia &AElig;liana</i> [Newcastle-on-Tyne], xv.
-1-465).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hartshorne, C. H. Feudal and military antiquities of
-Northumberland and the Scottish Borders (<i>Memoirs of Brit. Archaeol.
-Inst.</i>, Newcastle, vol. 2, 1858). <span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xx">xx</a></span></p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Norwich.</span> Hartshorne, A., F.S.A. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, xlvi.
-260-8).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— The Walls of Norwich (report of corporation). Norwich, 1910.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Nottingham.</span> Green, Emanuel, F.S.A. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>,
-lviii. 365-97).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Oakham.</span> Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, v. 124-42).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Thompson, A. Hamilton, F.S.A. (<i>Rutland Magazine</i>, v. 80-88).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Odiham.</span> Clark, ii. 336-45.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Old Sarum.</span> Clark, ii. 447-458.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hope, W. H. St John, and Hawley, Lt.-Col. W., in <i>Proc. Soc.
-Antiq.</i>, 2nd ser., xxiii. 190-200 and 501-17.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Orford.</span> Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeologia</i>, xxix. 60-9).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Redstone, V. B. (<i>Trans. Suffolk Archaeol. Inst.</i>, x. 205-30).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Oxford.</span> Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, viii. 354-65).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hope, W. H. St John (<i>ibid.</i>, lxvii. 363-6).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Lynam, Charles. The Crypts of the Churches of St Peter in the East,
-and of St George within the Castle, Oxford (<i>ibid.</i>, lxviii. 203-17).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Peak Castle.</span> Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeol. Journ.</i>, v. 207-16).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hope, W. H. St John (<i>Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc.</i>, xi. 120-6).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Kirke, Henry (<i>Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc.</i>, xxviii.
-134-46).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Pembroke.</span> Clark (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, 3rd series, v.
-1-13, etc.; vi. 1-11, etc.; vii. 185-204).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Cobb, J. R. (<i>ibid.</i>, 4th series, xiv. 196-220, 264-73).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Pevensey.</span> Clark, ii. 359-67.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Salzmann, L. F. (<i>Sussex Archaeol. Collections</i>, xlix. 1-30, etc.).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Pickering.</span> Clark, ii. 368-75.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Pontefract.</span> Clark, ii. 375-88.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hartshorne, C. H., <i>Journal British Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, xx. 136-55).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Porchester.</span> Clark, ii. 388-400.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Prudhoe.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Raby.</span> Scott, O. S., Raby, its Castle and its Lords. Barnard
-Castle, 1908.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Raglan.</span> Beattie, W. (<i>Jour. Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, ix. 215-30).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Bradney, J. A. (<i>Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol. Soc.</i>, xx. 76-87).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Richmond.</span> Clark (<i>Yorkshire Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>, ix. 33-54).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Curwen, J. F., (<i>Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol.
-Soc.</i>, vi. 326-32).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— <i>Yorks Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>, xx. 132-3.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Rising.</span> Beloe, E. M., F.S.A. (<i>Norfolk Archaeology</i>, xii.
-164-89).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, i. 364-77.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Rochester.</span> Beattie, W. (<i>Journal Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, ix.
-215-30).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, ii. 405-23.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xxi">xxi</a></span></p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Rochester.</span> Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, xx. 205-23).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Payne, G. (<i>Archaeologia Cantiana</i>, xxvii. 177-92).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Rockingham.</span> Bigge, H. J. (<i>Assoc. Archit. Soc. Reports</i>, xi.
-109-18).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, ii. 423-46.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hartshorne, C. H. (<i>Archaeol. Journal</i>, i. 356-78); and privately
-printed, Oxford, 1852.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Wise, C. Rockingham Castle and the Watsons. London, 1891.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Sandal.</span> Walker, J. W., F.S.A. (<i>Yorks Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>, xiii.
-154-88).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Scarborough.</span> Clark, ii. 458-67.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Stevenson, W. H. (<i>East Riding Antiq. Soc.</i>, xiv. 13-17).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Skenfrith.</span> Bagnall-Oakeley, E. (<i>Bristol and Glouc. Archaeol.
-Soc.</i>, xx. 93-6).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Clark, ii. 467-72.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Southampton</span> (town walls). Clark, ii. 472-81.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Hope, W. H. St John (<i>Proc. Soc. Antiq.</i>, 2nd series, xvii. 221-4).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Stokesay.</span> De la Touche, G. (<i>Journal British Archaeol.
-Assoc.</i>, xxiv. 238-40).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— J. G. D. (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, xvi. 299-304).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Suffolk Castles.</span> Redstone, V. B. Suffolk Castles (<i>Suffolk
-Archaeol. Inst.</i>, xi. 301-19).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Sussex Castles.</span> Blaauw, W. H. Royal licences to fortify towns
-and houses in Sussex (<i>Sussex Archaeol. Collections</i>, xiii. 104-17).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Swansea.</span> Capper, C. (<i>Archaeologia Cambrensis</i>, 5th series,
-iii. 302-7).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Tamworth.</span> Clark, ii. 481-8.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Tattershall.</span> Sympson, E. Mansel (<i>Memorials of Old
-Lincolnshire</i>, 1911, pp. 179-97).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Tickhill.</span> Clark, ii. 494-9.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Tretower.</span> Clark, ii. 499-503.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Tutbury.</span> Clark, ii. 505-8.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Wark.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Warkworth.</span> Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Wells</span> (bishop’s palace). Davis, C. E. (<i>Journal British
-Archaeol. Assoc.</i>, xiii. 177-86).</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Wingfield.</span> Cox, J. C. (<i>Derbyshire Archaeol. Soc.</i>, viii.
-65-78).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Edmunds, W. H. Guide to Wingfield Manor.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">York.</span> Clark, ii. 534-48 (The Defences of York).</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— Cooper, T. P. York, The Story of its Walls and Castles. London, 1904.</p>
-
-<p class="indent">—— —— The Castle of York. London, 1912.</p>
-
-<p class="indent"><span class="smcap">Yorkshire Castles.</span> Thompson, A. Hamilton. The Castles of
-Yorkshire (<i>Memorials of Old Yorkshire</i>, 1909, pp. 236-64).</p></div>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_1">1</a></span></p>
-
-<p class="center larger padt2 padb2">MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND DURING THE MIDDLE AGES</p></div>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I<br />
-<br />
-EARLY EARTHWORKS AND ROMAN STATIONS</h2>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> history of military fortification in England begins with those
-strongholds which, at vast expense of labour, the early inhabitants
-of Britain hewed out of the soil, surrounding defensible positions
-with ramparts of earth, divided by deep fosses. The approximate date
-of these earthworks can be determined only by excavation, and a vast
-amount of work remains to be done in this direction. The number,
-however, of those which can be proved to be earlier than the Roman
-occupation is very large; and, of this number, a considerable portion,
-including some of the most stupendous examples of fortified hill-camps,
-may have been the work of neolithic man some two thousand years before
-the Christian era. Relative dates in this connection concern us less
-than principles of fortification. The hill-camps of pre-Roman Britain
-may be divided roughly into two classes. In the first place, there
-are those which occupy the summit of a promontory of high land, which
-slopes so steeply on all sides but one that artificial defence is
-necessary on that side alone. The second class is that of the so-called
-“contour forts,” in which the summit of a hill is utilised for the
-camp, and encircled by trenches following the contour of the ground.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_002">
-<img src="images/i_002.jpg" width="600" height="262" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Maiden Castle</p></div>
-
-<p>In each case the defences provided by the inhabitants consist of
-earthen banks, the materials of which have been dug from the fosses or
-ditches which surround their outer face. An earthen bank and fosse,
-thrown across the neck of land between<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_2">2</a></span> the promontory and the plateau
-beyond, convert the extremity of the promontory into a fortified
-enclosure. Well-known examples of such fortresses are the three camps,
-one on the east and two on the west side of the river, which guarded
-the valley of the Avon at Clifton. The labour necessary for the
-construction of these was naturally far less than that which went to
-the making of the great contour fortresses, of which so many splendid
-examples remain in Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset, and in the chalk
-districts generally. In these cases, the whole area, or at any rate the
-greater part of it, stood in need of entrenchment. There are points
-at which the slope is so precipitous that the bank and ditch were
-dispensed with, or, as in part of Cissbury camp near Worthing, only a
-single bank or ditch was necessary.<a id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">1</a> Also, the steeper the ground,
-the less was the labour required in constructing the entrenchments.
-But these positions often took the form of enclosures surrounded by
-double or triple lines of defence, often of stupendous size. For the
-greater part of its extent, the <i>vallum</i> or bank of the oval camp of
-Cissbury is double, and along the outer edge of the encircling fosse
-is a formidable counterscarp or parapet. Poundbury, which lies on the
-high ground west of Dorchester, has a single bank and ditch on its east
-and south sides. On the west side the bank is doubled; but the north
-side, where the hill falls almost perpendicularly to the Frome, was
-left without artificial defence. The superb fortress of Maiden Castle
-(<a href="#i_002">2</a>), which crowns an isolated hill, 432 feet high, south of Dorchester,
-shows a bewildering complication of plan.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_3">3</a></span> The oval central space is
-ringed by a number of banks and ditches, which varies from three on the
-north side to as many as eight about the western entrance.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_003">
-<img src="images/i_003.jpg" width="600" height="339" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Maiden Castle; plan</p></div>
-
-<p>These early camps form merely the preface to our subject, and attention
-need be called only to some general features. Their character, like
-that of the medieval town or castle, was strictly defensive. They
-were the strongholds of races whose weapons were of a very primitive
-description, and could carry to no great range. What their inhabitants
-needed was an impregnable fortress, within which they and their herds
-could be well sheltered from attack. They belong to a day before siege
-operations were possible. To carry them, a determined onset and a
-hand-to-hand fight were necessary. Their strength therefore depended
-on the complexity of their defences. No enemy could hope to scale the
-flanking banks of Maiden Castle, one by one. The entrances to the camp,
-at its eastern and western ends (<a href="#i_003">3</a>), were so elaborately concealed
-by the overlapping ramparts, that even on a ground-plan they are far
-from obvious; and it was almost inevitable that an attacking force,
-without a guide acquainted with the ground, would be decoyed into a
-<i>cul-de-sac</i> and overwhelmed by the missiles of the defenders on the
-ramparts.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_4">4</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_004">
-<img src="images/i_004.jpg" width="600" height="404" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Old Sarum<br />
-(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s <i>Earthwork of England</i> by kind permission
-of Messrs Macmillan &amp; Co.)</p></div>
-
-<p>The steepness of the bank itself constituted a formidable means of
-defence. At Maiden Castle the great northern banks rise to a height
-of 60 feet or more. The top of the outer bank of Old Sarum (<a href="#i_004">4</a>) is
-106 feet above the level of the ditch<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_5">5</a></span> below.<a id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> In many cases, and
-probably in all, the inner bank was crowned by a stockade, consisting
-of a series of upright stakes, between and round which was twined an
-impenetrable hedge of thorns. The plateau or berm which was sometimes
-left behind the parapet of the bank, where there was more than a single
-bank and ditch, was a valuable asset to the defenders of prehistoric
-strongholds, forming an advance post from which they were able to wield
-their missiles freely; while sometimes the summit of one or more of the
-outer banks was made for the same purpose into a broad platform, which
-allowed greater freedom of movement. The parapet or counterscarp of
-the outer ditch was probably defended by a stockade, and it is known
-that in some cases sharpened stakes or stones were fixed firmly in the
-bottom of the ditches.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_006">
-<img src="images/i_006.jpg" width="450" height="407" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Bury Ditches</p></div>
-
-<p>The impregnable character of the <i>enceinte</i> was thus ensured. But
-further skill was necessary to defend the entrances of the camp. Of
-these there was usually more than one, and these were necessarily
-formed by cuttings through the banks. As in the case of Maiden Castle,
-the path of entry could be converted into a labyrinth by multiplying
-the banks and ditches. Every inch of this circuitous path is guarded
-by tall ramparts: there are seven or eight points in its course at
-which fatal error was possible, and one at any rate where an attacking
-army could hardly fail to rush securely upon destruction. The eastern
-entrance is so guarded by transverse banks that the path is almost
-equally difficult to find. It was seldom, however, that entrances were
-so elaborately protected. At Old Sarum the western entrance is covered
-by a semicircular outwork, on the flanks of which are the two inlets to
-the passage through the outer <i>vallum</i>. On the east side the entrance
-is through a narrow passage which runs for some distance between the
-parapet of the outer ditch and an outwork, and is at right angles
-to the actual passage through the bank. The most common method of
-defending the entrance was to make a diagonal path, usually from right
-to left, through the banks. Each bank would thus overlap the next: the
-summits above the path would be broadened out into platforms, capable
-of occupation by bodies of defenders; and the right flank of the
-enemy, unprotected by shields, would be exposed to their missiles. The
-entrance, however, might be substantially protected by giving an inward
-curve to the inner bank on each side of the path; and this is a plan<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_6">6</a></span>
-very frequently employed.<a id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> Where outworks were specially constructed,
-their form differs considerably: we have seen them employed in two ways
-at Old Sarum—as a kind of horn-work thrown out in front of a passage,
-and as a spur projecting at right angles in front of an entrance. In
-both cases an absolutely straight approach is precluded. Occasionally,
-where an approximately direct approach was permitted, it is guarded on
-one side by a spur thrown out at right angles to the bank. At Blackbury
-castle, an early earthwork in south Devon, the main entrance has a
-straight approach guarded on either side by a triangular outwork, which
-is formed by a most ingenious arrangement of banks and by prolongations
-of the main ditch (<a href="#i_007">7</a>). At the actual entrance the main bank is curved
-outwards, with broad platforms at the top. The hollow interiors of the
-outworks might serve as guard-houses, or the attacking force could
-be driven into them from the gateway of the fort, and penned in a
-position from which escape was impossible. Sometimes hollows were made
-in the bank or in a projecting outwork near the gateway to serve as
-guard-houses. On either side of the main entrance, the bank<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_7">7</a></span> was often
-slightly raised. At least one instance is known in which the main gate
-was concealed by making a break in another part of the rampart, and
-raising the bank on either side. The enemy, making for this point,
-would miss the real entrance, and run the risk of losing his life in a
-<i>cul-de-sac</i> purposely constructed within the rampart.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_007">
-<img src="images/i_007.jpg" width="600" height="508" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Blackbury Castle<br />
-(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s <i>Earthwork of England</i> by kind permission
-of Messrs Macmillan &amp; Co.)</p></div>
-
-<p>In these fortresses, the defences of which were due to instinctive
-skill in the face of constant danger, it is impossible not to recognise
-how many of the most scientific features of medieval fortification
-were anticipated. The concentric plan of Caerphilly castle (<a href="#i_270">270</a>), with
-its easy provisions of egress, and its difficulty of access; the spurs
-which guard the approaches to Beaumaris (<a href="#i_277">277</a>) and Conway castles; the
-barbicans which form so prominent a defence of Alnwick castle (<a href="#i_243">243</a>),
-and the gateways of York have prototypes, of which their engineers were
-probably unconscious, in the huge earthworks of prehistoric Britain.
-Through a long interval, in which military art pursued a very gradual
-evolution,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8">8</a></span> the wheel came full circle. The devices of the earthwork
-builders were translated into stone with far greater economy of labour.</p>
-
-<p>Although the most conspicuous examples of early earthwork are found in
-hill fortresses, camps were not confined to hilly sites, nor were their
-defences always composed of earthwork. There are districts where the
-hard nature of the soil forbade the construction of earthen banks and
-fosses; and consequently there are many camps which are surrounded by
-walls of rough uncemented stone, originally kept in place by facings
-and bondings of larger and smoother stones.<a id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> These camps are usually
-not large. They occur very commonly in the north of England: a good
-example is that known as the Castles, in the valley of the Bedburn,
-seven or eight miles west of Bishop Auckland. The enclosure, situated
-on a boggy slope, is surrounded by shapeless masses of <i>d&eacute;bris</i>, the
-ruins of the dry-built ring wall, which has lost its facing and so
-has fallen to pieces. Stone was also used in the ramparts of some of
-the camps on the rocky hills of Somerset, as in the camps on either
-side of the Avon at Clifton. The great fortress of Worlebury, above
-Weston-super-Mare, was surrounded by an immense wall of uncemented
-stone, brought to great thickness by building several walls, each with
-its own set of facing stones, up against each other. On its eastern
-front, separated from the main rampart by a deep ditch, cut in the
-solid rock, was another wall of stone; and this again was protected by
-a series of outer earthworks (<a href="#i_009">9</a>). Dolebury, at the western extremity
-of the Mendips, is surrounded by a double wall of loose limestone.<a id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">5</a>
-In these cases, as in the Welsh strongholds of Penmaenmawr and Tre’r
-Ceiri, geological conditions made the earthen bank an impossibility,
-and the stone of the neighbourhood took its place.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_009">
-<img src="images/i_009.jpg" width="600" height="400" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Worlebury<br />
-(From Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s <i>Earthwork of England</i>, by kind permission
-of Messrs Macmillan &amp; Co.)</p></div>
-
-<p>It has often been argued that these prehistoric fortresses were merely
-places of refuge, to which, in time of war, the dwellers in the levels
-below betook themselves and their flocks. But it is much more probable
-that they were the permanent habitations of communities, not merely
-camps, but fixed settlements, chosen for habitation on account of their
-strong position, and gradually fortified by labour which may have been
-the work, in the more elaborate examples, of many generations. The
-need of permanent protection for themselves and their flocks and herds
-seems to have been felt by the early inhabitants of Britain to such an
-extent that their regular settlements naturally took the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_10">10</a></span> semblance
-of fortified camps. This is very evident in the case of those camps
-which are found in positions where the natural advantages are very
-small—positions which might be chosen by people in search of an abode,
-but would hardly be chosen merely as a refuge. Camps in these positions
-are never so imposing as those which crown hill-tops: the labour of
-excavating the ditches and heaping up the banks was not aided by the
-natural slope of a hill, and the earthworks, being slighter and nearer
-the more recent haunts of men, are more liable to destruction. But the
-defensive nature of such settlements is unmistakable.</p>
-
-<p>The Roman invaders brought to England new methods of military
-construction and the tradition of an architecture of dressed and
-cemented stone. Their whole system of warfare was far in advance of
-that pursued by the British tribes. They had developed the art of
-siege to a high pitch. Their operations in open field were orderly and
-scientific. Their walled strongholds were constructed with a view which
-took into account, not only the mere strength of the ramparts, but
-also the capacity of the defenders to man them. Men, not fortresses,
-were the main asset of Roman warfare; and consequently their earthwork
-was far less imposing than that of the Britons of the prehistoric age.
-Their camps and permanent stations were usually surrounded by a single
-fosse of no great depth: the rare cases in which traces remain of more
-than a single fosse are camps upon the exposed northern frontier of
-Roman Britain, where the onrush of the barbarian enemy was stayed by
-a series of trenches, either covered with brushwood or filled with
-sharp stones or stakes. Camps were hastily constructed of earthwork;
-bank, ditch, and parapet playing their part. But where a camp became
-a permanent station a stone wall took the place of the earthen bank.
-The most important relic of the Roman occupation in Britain, the great
-frontier wall from the Tyne to the Solway, was preceded by a <i>vallum</i>
-of turf, a temporary defence which was superseded by permanent masonry.</p>
-
-<p>No system of connected operations can be traced between prehistoric
-forts. Each of these was probably an isolated stronghold. Roman
-stations, on the other hand, were military posts manned by detachments
-of one army, and connected by strategic roads. This is seen very
-clearly in the case of the great wall already mentioned. The wall can
-be traced for about 73 miles, from Wallsend (Segedunum) on the Tyne
-to Bowness on the Solway. It is built in the usual Roman method, with
-a core of cemented rubble between ashlar facings. Its breadth varies
-between 7 and 9&frac12; feet: the height appears to have been<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_11">11</a></span> originally
-from 16 to 18 feet.<a id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> Its northern face is defended by a ditch, marked
-<i>a</i> in the section below; but, as it follows the highest ground in its
-course, and runs for some distance along the edge of basaltic cliffs
-which dip northward, the ditch at these points becomes unnecessary and
-is dispensed with. There were twenty-three stations in its length,
-each garrisoned by a cohort of infantry or squadron of cavalry, chosen
-from the Roman auxiliary troops of Gauls, Spaniards, Moors, &amp;c.<a id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">7</a>
-These were connected by a paved military road (<i>c</i>) along the south
-side of the wall. At distances of a Roman mile from one another were
-placed rectangular forts, now known as mile-castles, built against
-the wall upon its south side; and the interval between each of these
-was strengthened further by turrets, apparently two in number, which
-also projected southward, but encroached slightly upon the thickness
-of the wall. The south side of the military road was defended by an
-earthen <i>vallum</i>, marked <i>d</i>,<a id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">8</a> the course of which is not directly
-parallel to the wall, but is in places as much as half a mile distant,
-keeping to lower ground where the wall prefers the summit of the basalt
-ridge. This bank has a ditch (<i>e</i>) on its southern side, divided from
-it by a level space or berm: the ditch has a southern parapet (<i>f</i>),
-and another bank beyond (<i>g</i>). In certain places the ditch has also a
-northern parapet; but the general arrangement of the earthen ramparts
-is as described. Of the controversy as to the relative date of the wall
-and its flanking earthworks nothing need be said here. Its military
-purpose is abundantly clear. It provided not only a strong means of
-defence against the attacks of the northern tribes, but a base of
-operations for offensive warfare. Each of the stations and mile-castles
-has a northern gateway in addition to its other entrances; and two of
-the Roman roads which met the wall at intervals from the south passed
-through it on their way to the Scottish border.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_011">
-<img src="images/i_011.jpg" width="600" height="162" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Section of Roman Wall and <i>Vallum</i>.</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_12">12</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The object of the great system of Roman roads was purely military.<a id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">9</a>
-Along these broad paved “streets” the troops from the various stations
-could be mobilised with great quickness. They kept as a rule to high
-ground, choosing a convenient ridge, like that which runs from end to
-end of Lincolnshire, and preserving as straight a line as possible.
-The most important stations were placed at the crossing of rivers or
-at the junction of roads. In the early days of the Roman occupation,
-the operations of the army were directed entirely against the native
-tribes. No system of coast defence was adopted. The necessity for
-this came later, when Britain, under Roman dominion, was attacked by
-bodies of Saxon pirates. A chain of fortresses was then constructed
-along what was known as the Saxon shore, from Branodunum (Brancaster)
-in north Norfolk to Portus Adurni in Sussex or Hampshire. The remains
-of the walls of Gariannonum (Burgh Castle in Suffolk), Rutupiae
-(Richborough in Kent), Anderida (Pevensey in Sussex), and Portus Magnus
-(Porchester in Hampshire), are, next to the great wall, perhaps the
-most interesting relics of the Roman epoch which we possess. The forts
-of the Saxon shore were placed, for the most part, at the mouths of
-estuaries, for which the foreign pirates would naturally make.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_13">13</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_013">
-<img src="images/i_013.jpg" width="514" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Cilurnum</p></div>
-
-<p>In several cases a Roman station was founded on the site of a British
-settlement. It was, however, more compact in plan, and occupied only
-a portion of the site. The earthworks defending the west side of the
-settlement which preceded Camulodunum (Colchester) are two to three
-miles beyond the Roman wall of the city, which occupied merely the
-north-east angle of a very large and straggling enclosure. The original
-Roman station at Lincoln may be taken as a typical example of a walled
-town of this epoch.<a id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> It was a rectangular enclosure, with its longer
-axis from east to west, occupying the south-west angle of the high
-ridge above the valley of the Witham. In each of the four walls was a
-gateway. The inner arch and the postern, with part of the side walls,
-of the northern gateway still remain, and of the southern gateway there
-are still substantial fragments; the line of the street which led from
-one to the other is still fairly, though not accurately, preserved.
-The positions of the east and west gateways are known: the line of the
-street from the east gate to the centre of the city was deflected in
-the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_14">14</a></span> middle ages, but its continuation to the west gate is represented
-by the course of a street, much widened in modern times. Close to the
-meeting of the four streets was the market-place or <i>forum</i>. This, in
-the early days of Roman Lincoln, was the <i>praetorium</i>, or military
-headquarters of the camp. But the legion quartered at Lincoln was
-removed to York, as it seems, in the time of Vespasian, and the city
-settled down to a civil and commercial existence. Round the <i>forum</i>
-were clustered the chief public buildings of the city, and the
-foundations of a large colonnaded building are still to be seen below
-the present ground level. At Gloucester, Chichester, and Chester, the
-course of the four main streets has been little, if at all, disturbed,
-and their present meeting-place nearly represents the centre of the
-Roman city. The arrangements of the <i>forum</i> of a Romano-British town
-have been made out very clearly by the excavations at Calleva Atrebatum
-(Silchester) in Hampshire.<a id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">11</a> It was a closed rectangle, entered by
-a gateway and surrounded by public buildings, in front of which were
-colonnades; one side at Silchester was occupied by a great basilica,
-which served the purposes of a hall of justice and mercantile exchange.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_014">
-<img src="images/i_014.jpg" width="600" height="401" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Borcovicus</p></div>
-
-<p>The stations on the Roman wall were of a more purely military character
-than the towns which have been mentioned. They have the general
-characteristic of a rectangular plan, with the angles rounded off, and
-with a gateway, flanked by guard-houses,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_15">15</a></span> in each of the four sides. In
-the two largest stations, however, Amboglanna (Birdoswald) and Cilurnum
-(Chesters), there were, in addition to the main gateways, two smaller
-gateways in the east and west walls respectively.<a id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">12</a> The walls of
-the stations are generally 5 feet thick, and are built, like the wall
-itself, of a core of cemented rubble, with facings of dressed stone.
-The main gateways have a double passage, divided by a longitudinal
-wall, which is pierced by a narrow passage in the centre. Their inner
-and outer openings were spanned by arches, and closed by gates which
-were hung on iron pivots fixed in the jamb of each opening next the
-wall. At Borcovicus (Housesteads) there was no dividing wall through
-the passage between the outer and inner openings of the gateway; but
-each of these openings is composed of two arches, divided by a square
-pier (<a href="#i_015">15</a>).<a id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">13</a> Each gateway had a stone sill, raised above the level
-of the stone pavement. The interior passage was flanked by rectangular
-guard-houses. The gateways of Borcovicus show interesting signs of
-reconstruction, which point to the fact that, not long after its
-construction, the station was seized by an enemy. At a subsequent time,
-its Roman occupants reduced the width of the gateways by walling up
-one half of the double openings. This was done apparently at different
-times, the east gateway bearing signs of being treated in this way
-at an earlier period than the others. The west <a id="westgateway">gateway</a> was walled up
-with great ingenuity. Of its outer entrances, the northern, and of its
-inner entrances, the southern, were blocked; so that a foe, choosing
-this face of the station for attack, had to press his way through an
-elbow-shaped, instead of a straight passage.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_015">
-<img src="images/i_015.jpg" width="400" height="98" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Borcovicus; West Gateway</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_016">
-<img src="images/i_016.jpg" width="400" height="257" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Pevensey</p></div>
-
-<p>The wall of a Roman station, between the gateways, was often flanked
-by a series of towers, each projecting from the wall in the form of
-a semicircle or rather more than a semicircle. This was the case
-in some of the large Gallo-Roman cities, like Autun.<a id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">14</a> While the
-rounded form of these towers made<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_16">16</a></span> them difficult to undermine or
-batter down, their summits served as standing-ground for the large
-<i><a id="catapult1">ballistae</a></i> or catapults, from which javelins or stones could be
-hurled upon the attacking force. Their projection at regular intervals
-made it possible for the defenders to command the whole line of wall
-between each pair of towers; so that the besiegers’ attack would
-necessarily be concentrated upon the towers themselves. At Pevensey
-(<a href="#i_016">16</a>), where the enclosure of the station is almost oval, and not, as
-usual, rectangular, in shape, there are remains of twelve solid round
-towers, including those which flank the south-western gateway. At
-Burgh Castle there are four towers in the east wall, two of which are
-angle-towers.<a id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">15</a> Owing to the scarcity of good building stone in the
-district, the walls at Burgh Castle are unfaced, and are built of flint
-with bonding courses of tiles; only the upper portions of the towers
-were bonded into the walls. A bed of concrete, with a platform of oak
-planks above, formed the foundation of the towers.<a id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> The angles of
-the wall of Roman York were strengthened by large polygonal towers. A
-large portion of one of these, a magnificent example of Roman masonry,
-remains; it formed the north-western angle of the city, and was hollow,
-with an internal as well as an external projection (17). No outward
-projections appear to occur<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_17">17</a></span> upon the Roman wall or in the walls of
-its stations. The “mile-castles,” as already noted, are built against
-the inner side of the wall. At Cilurnum (<a href="#i_013">13</a>) and Borcovicus there
-are foundations of square towers against and inside the containing
-walls, while the angles of the stations are simply rounded off. The
-western part of the north wall of Borcovicus has also been doubled in
-thickness, apparently to give a safe foundation for a large catapult
-planted on the top of the wall. The thickening was accomplished, at
-a date later than the original building, by constructing an inner
-wall, and filling up the space between this and the outer rampart with
-clay. At Cilurnum, which appears to have been in existence before the
-great frontier wall was made, the original east and west gateways were
-left on the north side of the wall, which intersects the station.
-As they were thus insufficiently protected, they were filled up
-solid with masses of rubble, and were probably used as platforms for
-catapults,<a id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">17</a> smaller gateways being made on the south side of the
-wall.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_017">
-<img src="images/i_017.jpg" width="600" height="491" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">York; Multangular Tower</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18">18</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_018">
-<img src="images/i_018.jpg" width="453" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Borcovicus; Praetorium</p></div>
-
-<p>In the interior of the station, as at Lincoln, York, and Borcovicus,
-the main street, or <i>via principalis</i>, led directly from the north
-to the south gate.<a id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> The centre of the station, west of the <i>via
-principalis</i>, was occupied by the <i>praetorium</i>, the headquarters
-of the commander of the legion, answering to the space where, in a
-temporary camp, the tents of the general and his staff were pitched.
-As we have seen, the place of the <i>praetorium</i> was taken in commercial
-towns by the <i>forum</i>. The <i>praetorium</i> at Borcovicus consisted of two
-rectangular courts, open to the sky in the centre. The outer court,
-with its main entrance facing the eastern street or <i>via praetoria</i>,
-was surrounded on three sides by a colonnade. A doorway, immediately
-opposite the main entrance, opened into the eastern colonnade of the
-inner court. This had no northern or southern colonnades, but had
-doorways to north and south: its western side was occupied by a line
-of five rectangular chambers, the central one of which was the chapel
-where the standards, with the other sacred treasures belonging to the
-cohort,<a id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">19</a> were kept. The <i>praetorium</i> faced the eastern street of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_19">19</a></span>
-the station, which led to the east gate or <i>porta praetoria</i>. The gate
-at the end of the western street was called <i>porta decumana</i>.<a id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">20</a>
-The remaining buildings of the station consisted of straight blocks,
-intersected by lanes: the majority of these buildings would be used as
-barracks. It should be noted that, in the planning of a Roman station
-or walled town, the <i>praetorium</i> or <i>forum</i> was taken as the central
-point: the <i>via principalis</i>, in order to run clear from gate to gate,
-was thus on one side of an axis of the rectangle, and the north and
-south gates<a id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> were not in the centre of their respective walls.</p>
-
-<p>It is clear that, as time went on and the power of Rome in Britain
-grew weaker, the defensive character of the great wall and that of the
-stations which it connected were emphasised at the expense of their
-character as bases of active warfare. But it must be repeated that
-Roman stations in Britain were not planned to form impregnable shelters
-for communities mainly pastoral. They were centres for bodies of
-fighting men, linked to each other by a splendid system of roads. The
-Roman station at Dorchester, the lines of which are so well preserved
-to-day, was founded, not within the ramparts of Maiden Castle or
-Poundbury, but on the lower slopes near the passage of the Frome. The
-single rampart and single ditch of a Roman town were almost invariable.
-Free egress as well as entrance, provisions for attack as well as
-defence, were necessary; and, with these objects in view, immense
-earthen defences, such as those of Maiden Castle, would be cumbersome.
-Bodies of Roman troops, as at Lincoln or Colchester, occasionally
-occupied part of the <i>enceinte</i> of a British settlement; but it is very
-rarely that, as in the case of Old Sarum, we find a British hill fort
-which also probably served as a Roman station. In this instance, the
-occupation of the fort was due, doubtless, to its neighbourhood to the
-military road: the road would not have been brought out of its way to
-include the fort in its course. Roman stations, although they differed
-in size, were small and compact, when contrasted with the large and
-straggling areas occupied by the British settlers. Suburbs naturally
-grew up outside their walls, and sometimes, although not very often,
-the walled enclosure was extended to include a growing outer district.
-This is supposed by many antiquaries to have happened at Lincoln, where
-the original Roman station occupied the summit of the hill<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_20">20</a></span> north of
-the great bend of the Witham, which here turns from its northerly
-course due eastward. After the city of Lincoln had settled down to
-civil life, practically the whole slope of the hill south of the first
-<i>enceinte</i> was included within the city and encircled by a wall.
-Part of the east wall of this later enclosure is still visible: the
-Stonebow, the medieval south gate of the city, about a hundred yards
-from the river and the bridge, appears to be on the site of the later
-south gateway of Roman Lincoln.<a id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">22</a></p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_21">21</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II<br />
-<br />
-THE SAXON AND DANISH PERIOD</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> Saxon invasions were a rude disturbance to the progress of English
-civilisation. The Romanised Britons lay more and more at the mercy of
-the invaders, as the soldiery were called away to take part in the last
-struggles of the western Empire in Italy. Barbarians from the country
-north of the wall, Saxon and Jutish pirates from across the sea, saw
-in the monuments of the Roman occupation fair ground for pillage.
-It is difficult to estimate the destruction caused by the invaders.
-But, apart from the havoc wrought by the Teutonic immigrants and the
-northern tribes, it is certain that the walled city of Roman times
-did not commend itself as a habitation to the new settlers. The fact
-that their settlements flank Roman roads, like Ermine street or the
-Fosseway, at distances of a mile or so from the main thoroughfare,
-proves little in itself; for the villas of the Roman period, which
-probably included, like the <i>latifundia</i> of Italy, a considerable
-population of labourers on each estate, lay at some distance from the
-main roads. The frequent villages—hams, tuns, and worths—were, however,
-a new feature; and the life of each village, for which a clearing was
-made in the wooded country-side, was pastoral, not military. This
-fact is of importance with regard to the scanty traces of defensive
-fortifications constructed during the Saxon occupation. Here and there
-natural opportunities prompted the Saxon invaders to found settlements
-on sites of Roman cities. The geographical position of London or
-Exeter, at the head of a broad estuary, made such places natural
-centres of traffic, of high importance to trade routes. On the other
-hand, while some of the larger provincial capitals preserved their life
-in part, other <i>urbes</i> and the smaller <i>oppida</i>, or walled towns, were
-left desolate. Pons Aelii, near the east end of the Roman wall, was
-abandoned until in the tenth century a small monastery was founded on
-the site, and the cluster of houses which gathered round it received
-the name of Muncanceaster (Monkchester). The place, however, did not
-recover its importance or become a permanent<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_22">22</a></span> settlement until the
-Conqueror founded there his New Castle on the Tyne, which became the
-nucleus of the city of the middle ages and modern times. The military
-stations of the Saxon shore were ruined and abandoned. We know of the
-sack of Anderida in 492 <span class="smcap lowercase">A.D.</span>: the walls of the station were
-left standing, but the later settlement of Pevensey grew up in the
-open country outside the walls. Richborough, Othona at the mouth of
-the Blackwater, Burgh Castle, sheltered no new settlements: the new
-villages or towns, Sandwich, Bradwell, Burgh, were all at a distance
-from the Roman walls or outside their area. Othona (Ythanceaster) was
-deserted when Cedd made it a missionary centre in the seventh century;
-and the little church, which exists to-day and may have been Cedd’s own
-church, was built across the site of the east gate of the station. In
-Leicester, which became an important Danish centre, the topography of
-the Roman station was much disturbed, and the church of St Nicholas,
-the nave of which is probably a little earlier than the Norman
-conquest, was built within the walls directly in front of the blocked
-west gate of the city. Towns like Chester, Gloucester, or Chichester,
-which have preserved the line of their Roman streets with little
-alteration, are rare; and the continuity of plan does not necessarily
-prove that there was a similar continuity in the life of the places.
-On the contrary, the present lay-out of either town shows four streets
-meeting at an open space or Carfax in the centre of the city: no trace
-remains above ground of the closed <i>forum</i>, which at Silchester and
-Corstopitum formed the centre of the plan and directed the course of
-the streets. Silchester, laid waste by Saxon invaders, has shared the
-fate of Anderida, Othona, and many other once prosperous Romano-British
-towns.</p>
-
-<p>In French history there was no such interruption as the Saxon invasion
-caused in our own. The consequence is that the chief provincial
-capitals of to-day, the centres of local government and religion, are
-and always have been cities of Roman origin, which, although their
-Latin name has not always been kept, preserve the names of the Gallic
-tribes amid which they were founded. Reims, Paris, Amiens, Beauvais,
-Bourges, Le Mans, Tours, Rouen, Sens, Troyes, Chartres, cities which
-have taken a most prominent place in French history, and contain
-the most noble monuments of French religious architecture, have an
-unbroken history from Roman times and even earlier. The cathedrals
-of Christianised Gaul rose in the centre of the cities: outside the
-walls, as time went on, rose abbeys like those of Saint-Ouen at
-Rouen, Saint-Taurin at Evreux, La Couture and Le Pr&eacute; at Le Mans. The
-fortresses of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_23">23</a></span> the eleventh and twelfth centuries, like the older
-castle of Rouen, were founded in a corner of the city, possibly on
-the site of the Roman <i>arx</i> or citadel, of which we have substantial
-remains in the abandoned Roman station of Jublains (Naeodunum
-Diablintum). In time the city grew, extending into suburbs far
-outside the original walls: a suburb sprang up round the neighbouring
-monastery. The circuit of the walls was extended beyond their old
-limit. The eastern Roman wall might be broken down, as at Le Mans,
-where the cathedral was in a corner of the city, to make way for the
-thirteenth-century quire of the principal church:<a id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">23</a> the defences of
-the city were here transferred to a new outer ring of wall, the line of
-which can be seen on the bank of the Sarthe. Within the present extent
-of such cities the plan of the Roman station can frequently be traced:
-whatever the vicissitudes of the place may have been, no year has
-passed in which the chatter of the Vieux-March&eacute; has been silent, or the
-Grande-Rue has been untrodden daily by busy footsteps. But in English
-towns of corresponding importance the case is different. If the cities
-were preserved from pillage, traces of Christianity and civilisation
-were obliterated. If York kept its position as an inhabited town,
-its population must have been small and poor: the Anglian sovereigns
-of Northumbria dwelt, not in the old Roman capital, but at country
-settlements like Goodmanham. The history of York begins again with the
-mission of Paulinus and the foundation of the first Saxon cathedral
-there. We also hear of Lincoln in connection with Paulinus, who
-consecrated a church there; and this city, like York, was large and
-important at the time of the Conquest. But, in both these cases, the
-Anglian invasion first, and the Danish invasion later, caused a serious
-disturbance to civic and religious life. Although there is evidence
-that the Saxon bishops who ruled at Dorchester (Oxon.) in the tenth
-and eleventh centuries looked upon Lincoln as the real seat of their
-authority, it did not recover its position as an ecclesiastical capital
-until a Norman bishop raised his cathedral in the south-eastern corner
-of the hill city. Even then the cathedral stood, not with its front to
-the <i>via principalis</i>, as at Le Mans, nor with its face to the <i>forum</i>,
-as at Coutances, but in an enclosure of its own, apart from the main
-life of the city. When we think of the great ecclesiastical centres of
-England, there are some names which recall the Roman occupation; but
-of these Chichester, Exeter, Lincoln, did not become sees of bishops
-until the time of the Norman conquest; Chester, although<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_24">24</a></span> regarded
-as one seat of their authority by the medieval bishops of Lichfield,
-was never the real capital of their diocese. Bath and Old Sarum were
-given episcopal rank by Norman prelates. The true Saxon cathedral
-towns were villages of post-Roman origin—Lichfield, Wells, Sherborne,
-Durham, Ripon, Elmham, Thetford. The fact is significant; for, upon the
-continent of Europe, the ecclesiastical importance of a city was the
-result of its prominent position as the civil metropolis of a district.
-The choice of these obscure villages for the sees of Saxon prelates
-is a testimony to the practical abandonment of Roman cities by the
-invaders.</p>
-
-<p>As a matter of fact, the Saxons trusted little to walls: their
-strength, after they had settled in the country, lay neither in
-earthwork, nor in stonework, but in the boundary of wood or marsh
-that extended round their settlements. Consequently, during the six
-centuries and a half between the final departure of the Roman legions
-and the Norman conquest, the history of military construction in
-England is very obscure. Work in stone, which can be distinguished as
-Saxon, is practically confined to churches. Such fortifications of this
-long period as can be identified are entirely in earthwork. In only a
-few cases we hear of a stone wall of <i>enceinte</i> being built, or an old
-Roman town wall being repaired. Further, it may safely be said that
-these fortifications, at any rate until the end of the period, whether
-their builders were Saxons or Danes, were intended to protect, not
-private individuals, but a community. Of the private citadel or castle
-we hear nothing until the period immediately before the Conquest, and
-then it is heard of only as a foreign importation.</p>
-
-<p>The most formidable earthworks of the Saxon period are the great dykes
-known as Wansdyke and Offa’s dyke, with the subsidiary works of the
-Bokerley dyke and Wat’s dyke. Offa’s dyke, which ran from the Dee in
-the north to the Wye in the south, with a ditch along its western side,
-and the parallel line of Wat’s dyke,<a id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">24</a> are generally acknowledged
-to have formed the boundary line between the Mercian kingdom of Offa
-(757-96) and the territory of the conquered Britons. The object and
-date of Wansdyke and the Bokerley dyke is not so clear. The Wansdyke
-ran from the Bristol Channel near Portishead, across north Somerset and
-along the downs south and south-west of Bath, passed through Wiltshire,
-north of Devizes and south of Marlborough, and, leaving Wiltshire east
-of Savernake park, turned southwards in the direction of Andover. The
-Bokerley<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_25">25</a></span> dyke, in its present state, is only some four miles long, and
-forms the boundary between Wilts and Dorset, on the road from Salisbury
-to Cranborne. In both cases the ditch is upon the north or north-east
-side of the bank or dyke, which is clear proof that the defence was
-provided against attack from that quarter. The Wansdyke is obviously
-a late Roman or post-Roman work, for it encroaches in places upon the
-adjacent Roman road. The system on which it is planned resembles that
-of the Roman wall, in that its course includes a series of forts,
-presumably of earlier date. The conclusion which seems irresistible
-is that propounded by the late General Pitt-Rivers, that the Wansdyke
-was raised by the Roman Britons, to defend their last refuge in the
-south-west against the invading Saxons. If this is really the case,
-one can only wonder at the energy of despair which constructed this
-huge rampart, and at the uselessness of its builders’ attempt to ward
-off an invasion from the inland country alone. Ceawlin’s victory at
-Dyrham in 577 brought Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath into the hands
-of the Saxons, and cut off the communication between the Britons of
-the south-west and those of Wales. Whatever part the Wansdyke, on the
-hills north of which the battle was fought, may have played during the
-century before the fight at Dyrham, its history must have closed with
-Ceawlin’s conquest.</p>
-
-<p>The first work of fortification by the Teutonic invaders, of which
-we have any account, is the royal city of Bebbanburh or Bamburgh in
-Northumberland, which Ida (547-59), king of Northumbria, called after
-his wife Bebba. This, says the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,<a id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">25</a> was first
-girt by a hedge, and afterwards—probably long after the days of Ida—by
-a wall. One of the most noble of English castles stands upon the
-basaltic rock of Bamburgh, and its walls embrace the site of Ida’s
-capital. But the later stronghold must not be confounded with the
-earlier. The <i>burh</i> of Ida, which Penda sought to burn in 651,<a id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">26</a>
-was not the private castle which William Rufus afterwards besieged.
-The name of Bebbanburh is significant. <i>Burh</i> or <i>burg</i> was a term
-applied by Saxons to fortified places. Cissbury in Sussex, Badbury and
-Poundbury in Dorset, Battlesbury and Scratchbury in Wilts, Cadbury,
-Dolebury, and Worlebury in Somerset, are early camps to which Saxons
-gave the name of <i>burh</i>. Searobyrig, the later Salisbury, was the
-name given by them to the great fortress of Old Sarum. Peterborough
-and Bury St Edmunds bear names derived from <i>burh</i> and its dative
-<i>byrig</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_26">26</a></span> and were towns enclosed by a rampart.<a id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">27</a> And, although, by
-a not very satisfactory method of argument, the Saxon <i>burh</i> has been
-taken very generally as the prototype of the castle, the very cases on
-which this argument chiefly rests show that the <i>burh</i> was a fortified
-town, and not the fortress of an individual lord. It is true that, at
-any rate until the time of Alfred the Great, the word <i>burh</i> implies
-a fortified house as well as a fortified collection of dwellings; but
-the <i>burhs</i> of which we read in connection with the Danish wars were
-towns and villages. The term is equivalent to the Roman <i>oppidum</i>, the
-French <i>bourg</i>, or the German <i>burg</i>. The first of the Saxon emperors,
-Henry the Fowler, made the founding of <i>burhs</i> a leading part of his
-policy:<a id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">28</a> Merseburg, Brandenburg, W&uuml;rzburg, all bear the familiar
-suffix. And, had not a later age chosen perversely to call the greatest
-of our prehistoric camps Maiden Castle, we should have had a Maidenbury
-of our own to show, far more ancient than the German Magdeburg.<a id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">29</a></p>
-
-<p>Some uncertainty attaches to the rare remains of fortifications
-of <i>burhs</i> “wrought” by Saxons and Danes. It would seem that they
-cannot have been very strong. The defences consisted of the usual
-earthen bank with a stockade on the top and an outer ditch; but one
-may safely assume that the strength of the defence lay mainly in the
-actual stockade, and that the bank and ditch never reached formidable
-proportions. Thelwall, near Warrington, takes its name from the wooden
-stockade, the wall of thills or upright palisades with which Edward the
-Elder surrounded the village in 923.<a id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">30</a> There are exceptional cases
-in which we hear of a stone wall; but in these instances the <i>burh</i>
-was a Roman city or station, and the wall was a Roman wall. This may
-be fairly assumed with regard to the wall of Edward the Elder’s <i>burh</i>
-at Towcester (921). It was certainly the case at Colchester, where the
-Danish defenders were worsted in the same year by the <i>fyrd</i> of Kent
-and Essex. When Alfred the Great “repaired Lundenburh” in 886,<a id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">31</a> he
-undoubtedly made<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_27">27</a></span> good the weak places in the stone wall which the
-Romans had made round their city of London.</p>
-
-<p>The <i>burh</i>, the fortified stronghold of a Saxon community, comes into
-prominence as the result of the Danish invasions of the ninth century.
-The method of the invaders was in almost every case the same. Seamen
-before everything else, they sought in their long ships the estuaries
-of rivers, and proceeded to penetrate inland as far as the stream
-would take them. From a base of operations, preferably an island in
-the river, where they could harbour their boats safely, they rode into
-the surrounding country, burning and pillaging. In 835, allied with
-the Britons of Cornwall, they came up the Tamar, and fought a battle
-with Egbert at Hingston down, west of Tavistock, in which they suffered
-defeat.<a id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">32</a> In 843, they effected their first permanent settlement
-in France, on the island of Noirmoutier, south of the estuary of the
-Loire: they invaded the banks of the river, sacking Nantes and killing
-the bishop, and, after their summer campaign was over, settled down
-to build houses for winter quarters on their island.<a id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">33</a> Each of the
-great French rivers was infested during the next few years by bands of
-northern pirates. Northmen in 845 sailed up the Garonne to Toulouse,
-and up the Seine to Paris, where destruction was avoided only by
-buying them off. Towns which lay near the rivers or sea coast were
-invariably sacked. Sometimes the pirates, growing bolder, left their
-ships and rode for some distance inland. In 851, starting from Rouen,
-they pillaged Beauvais. In 855, after burning Angers, they took to
-the land and sacked Poitiers. In both cases, however, their return
-journey was successfully cut off by a French army. In 856 the Danes of
-the Seine made their winter quarters at Jeufosse, on the bend of the
-river between Vernon and Mantes, and within no great distance of Paris.
-Within the next few years, they established themselves in strong posts
-at Oissel, above Rouen, and at Melun, above Paris. The greater part of
-the last sixteen years of Charles the Bald (<i>d.</i> 877) was occupied in
-defending Paris against their annual forays, repairing the bridges they
-had destroyed, and so cutting off their return from expeditions up the
-Marne and Oise. But, although they were constantly checked, they always
-returned. They abandoned the siege of Paris in 885-6, but only after
-Charles the Fat had paid them off. The last great invasion of France by
-the Northmen was in 911, when,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_28">28</a></span> by the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte,
-Charles the Simple ceded the duchy of Normandy to Rollo.</p>
-
-<p>The actual settlement of the Northmen in England began in 851, eight
-years after the occupation of Noirmoutier. They wintered in Thanet, and
-sailed thence up the Stour and Thames, taking Canterbury and London.
-As in France, their landward excursions from their boats were less
-successful, and they were seriously beaten by &AElig;thelwulf at Ockley in
-Surrey. But failure did not hinder them from returning. As in France,
-the system of buying off their attacks was adopted—a ready inducement
-to repeated plunder. In 887 they were in the Humber, and dealt a final
-blow to the decaying power of Northumbria at York. Next year they
-invaded Mercia up the Trent, and established themselves at Nottingham.
-The years 870 and 871 were remarkable for their land operations. The
-defeat of the East Anglian king Edmund in Suffolk laid Mercia and
-Lindsey open to their ravages, and so established their power in what
-was to become the Danelaw; while in 871, within reach of the Danish
-camp on the Thames at Reading, occurred the great series of battles
-in Berkshire and Wiltshire, in which Alfred’s bravery was proved. The
-details of Alfred’s defence of Wessex against the Northmen are well
-known: the compromise effected at Wedmore in 878 preserved the south of
-England to Englishmen, but established the Danes north of a line which
-may roughly be represented by the course of the Welland, Soar, upper
-Trent, and Mersey.</p>
-
-<p>England, however, had to endure a long intestine warfare for years
-after the death of Alfred. The strenuous efforts of his children,
-Edward the Elder and &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d, prevented the men of the Danelaw from
-extending their power southwards. But the Northmen used persevering
-tactics, and not merely the enemy within, but fresh invasions from
-without, disturbed the peace of the monarchs of Wessex during the later
-part of the tenth century. After the disastrous reign of Ethelred the
-Redeless came a period of Danish rule over the whole of England; while
-the reigns of the last Saxon kings formed the prelude to the final
-invasion of the Northmen, the Norman conquest.</p>
-
-<p>The most interesting feature, from a military point of view, of the
-contest between Wessex and the Danelaw, is the systematic defence of
-the Midland rivers by <i>burhs</i> during the reign of Edward the Elder,
-either by himself or his sister &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d. &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d, who fixed
-her chief residence at Tamworth, on the edge of Staffordshire and
-Warwickshire, ruled over Mercia, and fortified her frontier between
-909 and her death in 921. Her brother died in 925: his activity in
-constructing<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_29">29</a></span> <i>burhs</i> began about 913. Of the construction of these
-fortresses two phrases are used: their builders either “wrought” or
-“timbered” them. Both words probably mean the same thing: the town
-or village to be fortified was enclosed within the usual wooden
-stockade.<a id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">34</a> The identity of a few of the <i>burhs</i> is uncertain; but
-the remainder may be classified as follows: (1) <i>Burhs</i> wrought by
-&AElig;thelfl&aelig;d on the river banks of her frontier: these include Runcorn and
-possibly Warburton on the Mersey, Bridgnorth and possibly Shrewsbury
-on the Severn, Tamworth and Stafford on tributaries of the Trent, and
-Warwick on the Avon. (2) Frontier <i>burhs</i> taken by &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d from the
-Danes were Derby and Leicester, both on tributaries of the Trent.
-(3) Eddisbury in Cheshire, an early hill fortress, was the site of
-one of &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d’s <i>burhs</i>: here the inference is that the existing
-hill fort was palisaded by her orders, and garrisoned as a camp of
-refuge. Of Edward’s <i>burhs</i>, Witham and Maldon on the Essex Blackwater,
-of which some probable traces remain, belong to class (1), as also
-does Thelwall, his fortified post on the Mersey. To class (2) belong
-Colchester, Huntingdon, and Tempsford, the first on the Colne, the
-two latter on the Great Ouse. None of Edward’s works bear any analogy
-to class (3), unless his last <i>burh</i>, Bakewell in Derbyshire, may be
-taken into account. But (4) Bakewell represents a push northward along
-a hostile border, and may be claimed, with Towcester, as belonging
-to a fourth class of <i>burh</i>, unconnected with a navigable river, but
-providing a constant menace to the enemy. (5) Towcester may, however,
-also be classed with Colchester as a Roman <i>burh</i> with stone walls.
-A sixth class of <i>burh</i> was riverine, like class (1), but with this
-difference, that it was double. There was one <i>burh</i> on one side, the
-other on the opposite side of the river. The cases are Hertford on
-the Lea, Buckingham and Bedford on the Ouse, Stamford on the Welland,
-and Nottingham on the Trent. At Hertford and Buckingham both <i>burhs</i>
-were the work of Edward. At Bedford, Stamford, and Nottingham, the
-northern <i>burh</i> was in the hands of the enemy, and Edward took it by
-converting the southern suburb into a fortified and garrisoned post.
-His proceedings were exactly analogous to those of Charles the Bald in
-862. He gained control of the navigable rivers by placing garrisons on
-both their banks; the natural places which he chose were the existing
-towns on the river, and the garrison, as at Nottingham, was formed out
-of the inhabitants.</p>
-
-<p>Some of these <i>burhs</i>, as we have seen, were in the occupation of the
-Northmen; and at a later date, when the frontier of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_30">30</a></span> west Saxon
-kingdom had been pushed back, and English kings were again placed on
-the defensive, Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford, and Leicester
-became known as the five <i>burhs</i>, the centre of Danish power in the
-Midlands. There is no reason to suppose that there was any essential
-difference between the <i>burhs</i> of Danes and Saxons—that the <i>burh</i>
-which &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d took at Derby was in any way different from her own
-<i>burh</i> at Tamworth. When the Danes first landed on a river bank or
-island and beached their ships, they constructed what is called in the
-Chronicle a <i>geweorc</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, a thing wrought. This probably consisted
-of a slight bank and ditch enclosing the landward side of their
-position. Where they raised permanent dwellings within the <i>enceinte</i>,
-the <i>burh</i> grew out of the <i>geweorc</i>, just as a Roman station developed
-out of a mere camp. However, it is unsafe to push the phraseology
-of the Chronicle too far, or to fasten a too technical meaning upon
-its words; and the fact remains that the term <i>geweorc</i> may be very
-well applied to a wrought <i>burh</i>. The Danish <i>burhs</i> at Huntingdon
-and Tempsford, the landmarks of their progress up the Ouse to recover
-Bedford in 921, are called indiscriminately <i>burh</i> and <i>geweorc</i>.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_031">
-<img src="images/i_031.jpg" width="505" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Map of Saxon and Danish Burhs<br />
-
-[The line from the Mersey to the Wash roughly indicates the Danish
-frontier.]</p></div>
-
-<p>Many of the <i>burhs</i> wrought or taken during the Danish war became,
-after the Norman conquest, sites of castles; and the presence of a
-Norman castle at such places has led to the still popular inference
-that the castle simply usurped the earthworks of the earlier
-stronghold, and that therefore the <i>burh</i> was equivalent to the later
-castle.<a id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">35</a> It is not surprising that all the five places where we hear
-of a <i>burh</i> on either side of the river should have been chosen for
-the foundation of later castles. But the castle earthworks of Hertford
-and Bedford, the castles of which there is record at Buckingham and
-Stamford, were private strongholds which formed part of the defences of
-one of the <i>burhs</i>, but were not identical with either. The Conqueror’s
-castle of Nottingham, greatly transformed in its present state, looked
-down from its sandstone cliff upon the northern <i>burh</i> where Edward
-welded together Englishman and Dane in one common work of defence and
-bond of citizenship.<a id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">36</a> But even were it not self-evident that the
-<i>burh</i> is identical with the <i>burgus</i> or <i>burgum</i> of Domesday and the
-“borough” whose organisation plays so large a part in English history,
-there is one fact which makes its<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_31">31</a><br /><a id="Page_32">32</a></span> identification with the castle
-impossible. At Hertford, Buckingham, Bedford, Stamford, Nottingham,
-there were two <i>burhs</i>, but there never has been more than one castle.
-When the Conqueror wrought a castle on either side of the river at
-York, he did not repeat Edward the Elder’s tactics literally: he
-applied them to a form of fortification of which Edward knew nothing.
-If the test by which the Norman castle is identified with the Saxon
-<i>burh</i> fails in these instances, we are obviously forbidden to make the
-identification in the cases of single <i>burhs</i> like Warwick or Tamworth.
-The great earthen mount and curtain wall which stand in the south-west
-corner of Tamworth, beside the Tame, are not the remains of &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d’s
-<i>burh</i>, although it is not improbable that they were raised on the site
-of her dwelling-house. Her <i>burh</i> is the town of Tamworth itself; and
-although her wall of palisades is gone, there are still traces of the
-ditch with which, in the eighth century, Offa had ringed the <i>burh</i>
-about.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_032">
-<img src="images/i_032.jpg" width="450" height="468" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Earthwork at Tempsford.</p></div>
-
-<p>There is no trace of any <i>arx</i> or citadel within these enclosures.
-Their defenders were the citizens. In France, for reasons sufficiently
-indicated, the art of fortification was more advanced. Roman traditions
-survived there without that abrupt break which the historical
-continuity of England had suffered. No fortress of stone and wood, such
-as that which Charles the Bald, in 869, built within the <i>enceinte</i>
-of the abbey of St Denis, is heard of in Saxon England. The state of
-society in which, as early as 864, Charles found it necessary, by the
-edict of Pistes, to forbid his vassals to raise private fortresses
-without royal authority, did not exist in England, and was only
-beginning to exist there two centuries later. In both centuries we
-have to deal with the same invaders, but with defenders whose state of
-social development was quite different.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_33">33</a></span> Although the private fortress
-or castle was introduced into England by the Normans, and although
-the type of earthwork associated with it was developed to its highest
-extent by Northmen, not only in Normandy and England, but also in
-Denmark, it is nevertheless probable that the earliest development
-of that form of earthwork took place on Frankish soil. The Danish
-<i>geweorc</i> or <i>burh</i>, where it can be traced with any certainty—and this
-is in very few cases—supplied accommodation for the force, and probably
-a harbour for its vessels, but no private stronghold belonging to a
-prominent leader. The earthwork called Gannock’s castle (<a href="#i_032">32</a>), close
-to the Ouse near Tempsford, is sometimes supposed to be the <i>geweorc</i>
-wrought by the Danes in 921. In plan, it very closely resembles a
-rather small mount-and-bailey castle of the usual early Norman type,
-and could have accommodated only a very small body of defenders. But
-the point in which it differs from the ordinary mount-and-bailey
-plan—the smallness of the mount, which is a mere thickening of the
-earthen bank, and the absence of a moat round its base—may show that
-here the Danes anticipated their Norman successors with a plan with
-which some of them may have gained acquaintance during marauding
-expeditions in France. This, however, is mere conjecture, and the
-utility of such a fortress for the immediate purposes of the Danes may
-well be questioned.<a id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">37</a> Of the private dwellings of the Danish leaders,
-and how far they may have approximated to the later type of the castle,
-we know nothing. St Mary’s abbey at York is on the site of Galmanho,
-the residence of the Danish earls outside the western wall of the
-Roman city, but nothing of its earthworks remain. If they were at all
-considerable, like those of a mount-and-bailey castle of Norman times,
-it seems strange that no trace of them should be left.</p>
-
-<p>The details of the doings of the Danish army, during the reign of
-Ethelred the Redeless (979-1016), are recorded at great length in
-the Chronicle. They show the old tactics, familiar for two hundred
-years: the long ships are brought to the nearest point convenient
-for a campaign of pillage; there the “army is a-horsed,” and they
-ride at their will inland, lighting their “war-beacons,” the blazing
-villages of the country-side, as they go. Year after year records
-its tale of disaster, until the partition of England in 1016 between
-Cnut and Edmund Ironside. The whole story of river and land warfare,
-of plundering and burning, of the paying of Danegeld as a temporary
-sop to the army, is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_34">34</a></span> in no way different from the record of the
-Danish operations in France during the ninth century. In France the
-Danish conquest was quicker, because the invaders had to deal from
-the beginning with a worn-out civilisation: the partition of France,
-owing to the superiority of the Danes to their opponents, was effected
-within seventy years of their first settlement. The power of Normandy,
-however, was checked by the rise of the Capetian dynasty in the later
-part of the tenth century: the Northmen were kept strictly to their
-Danelaw, and their subsequent expansion took place, not in France, but
-in England. On the other hand, in England, the Danish invaders of the
-ninth century had to contend with the rising power of Wessex and a race
-younger and more vigorous than the contemporary Gauls of Neustria.
-Their inroads were therefore checked and their conquest was delayed
-until the house of Wessex had run its natural course, and Englishmen
-and Danes had had time to be practically amalgamated into one nation.
-The glory of Wessex ceases with Edmund Ironside, the glory of the Danes
-with Cnut. Before Cnut died, the child William already had succeeded to
-his father’s duchy of Normandy, and thirty-one years after the death of
-Cnut, William was king of England, and, for all practical purposes, the
-inroads of the Northmen from Scandinavia were over.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_35">35</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III<br />
-<br />
-THE ENGLISH CASTLE AFTER THE CONQUEST</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">A Castle</span> is a private fortress, built by an individual lord as a
-military stronghold, and also as an occasional residence. In England
-at the time of the Norman conquest, this type of military work was
-known as <i>castel</i>, a word which is obviously the same as the Latin
-<i>castellum</i>. <i>Castrum</i>, <i>munitio</i>, and <i>municipium</i> are names which
-are frequently given to it by chroniclers of the eleventh and twelfth
-centuries. Its existence was the direct result of the consolidation of
-the feudal system. The lord separated his dwelling from those of his
-vassals: he defended it against the attacks of other individual lords
-who naturally would seek to aggrandise themselves at his expense: he
-also needed a stronghold which might be impregnable on occasion against
-those vassals themselves, and might be a perpetual reminder to them of
-their subject position. The castle rose within or as an addition to
-the <i>burh</i>, the independent stronghold of one person within the walled
-or stockaded town of the many. Thus, at one and the same time, it
-protected and overawed the <i>burh</i>. Or it rose by itself, like the Peak
-castle in Derbyshire, on a spot where no <i>burh</i> existed, and so in many
-cases drew a small community to seek its protection.</p>
-
-<p>An unlimited number of castles implies an unlimited number of
-independent magnates, uncontrolled by a supreme authority, and each
-ready to fly at the other’s throat. The feudal lord, however, was the
-king’s man, and his castle was therefore theoretically the king’s.
-We have already noticed the edict of Pistes (864), which ordered the
-destruction of all castles built without royal licence; and, save in
-periods of total anarchy, legislation of this type, safeguarding feudal
-order, was in operation during the middle ages wherever the feudal
-system was at the base of the constitution. The king was <i>de jure</i>, if
-not <i>de facto</i>, the owner of the castles of his realm.</p>
-
-<p>The castle or private fortress was a feature in French social life
-and warfare from at any rate the middle of the ninth century. But in
-England it was certainly an unfamiliar and almost as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_36">36</a></span> certainly an
-unknown feature, until the middle of the eleventh century. Danish
-pirates who up to this time had visited England, had come from the
-north and east, and passed on to France. There, in contact with the
-feudal system as it existed under the later Carolingian monarchs, they
-may have learned the use of the private fortress. At any rate when the
-Northmen came back upon England from their continental duchy, they
-brought with them the fully organised social system of the Continent,
-and its most powerful symbol, the castle.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_036">
-<img src="images/i_036.jpg" width="600" height="334" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Harold’s <i>aula</i>, from Bayeux Tapestry</p></div>
-
-<p>We have seen that, throughout the Saxon and Danish period, the
-<i>burh</i>, the home of the community, formed the unit, if the expression
-may be used, of military defence by fortification. The English or
-Danish nobleman lived, it may safely be assumed, in houses like
-the two-storied house in the Bayeux tapestry, where Harold and his
-friends are feasting on the upper floor, while the ground floor
-apparently forms a cellar or store-room (<a href="#i_036">36</a>).<a id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">38</a> It is possible that
-such a house, the prototype of the larger medieval dwelling-house,
-may sometimes have been protected by its encircling thorn hedge
-or palisade; but it was not a castle. In the eleventh and twelfth
-centuries, a castle meant to an Englishman a special type of fortress,
-of a construction and plan of a character more or less fixed. The
-loose phraseology which, in later times, applied the title of castle<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_37">37</a></span>
-indiscriminately to prehistoric camps and medieval manor-houses, was
-not yet customary.</p>
-
-<p>The first castles on English soil appear to have been raised by Norman
-favourites of Edward the Confessor before the Conquest, and to have
-excited alarm among the English population. In 1048 some foreigners or
-“Welshmen,” as the English called them, encroached on the territory of
-Sweyn Godwinsson in Herefordshire, constructed a <i>castel</i>—the first
-mention of such a thing in the Chronicle—and wrought harm to all the
-country round. That they were Frenchmen appears from the events of
-1052: one of Godwin’s demands to the king at Gloucester was that “the
-Frenchmen of the castle” should be given up, and in the same year
-“the Frenchmen of the castle” helped to defend the borders against a
-Welsh inroad. The very fact that the Frenchmen’s stronghold was known
-as “<i>the</i> castle” proves that it was at any rate an unfamiliar type
-of fortress. But, if it was the first, others were soon constructed.
-When Godwin returned from his outlawry in 1052, and forced himself
-back into Edward’s good graces, the Frenchmen in London left the city.
-The archbishop of Canterbury, Robert of Jumi&egrave;ges, made his way to
-the east coast: some fled westward to Pentecost’s castle, which is
-probably identical with the Herefordshire fortress, others northward
-to Robert’s castle, which is now identified with Clavering in Essex.
-The Herefordshire castle is supposed to have been at Ewias Harold, some
-twelve miles south of Hereford, where there is still the great mount of
-a Norman stronghold on the north-west side of the village.<a id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">39</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_038">
-<img src="images/i_038.jpg" width="600" height="284" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Hastings Castle: from Bayeux Tapestry</p></div>
-
-<p>These two may not have been the only castles in England before the
-Conquest. The reference to Arundel in Domesday Book, for example, seems
-to imply an origin almost as early for the castle there.<a id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">40</a> Ordericus
-Vitalis speaks of Dover as though there were already a castle there,
-when William the Conqueror stormed the town after Hastings.<a id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">41</a> But
-Ordericus is our authority for the important and explicit statement
-that, in 1068, “the fortresses, which the Gauls call <i>castella</i>, had
-been<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_38">38</a></span> very few in the provinces of England; and on this account the
-English, although warlike and daring, had nevertheless shown themselves
-too feeble to withstand their enemies.”<a id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">42</a> A statement of this kind
-at once disposes of the theory that the <i>burhs</i> of the Danish wars
-were castles; it could hardly be argued that such <i>burhs</i> were very
-few, or that the English had not taken advantage of them. As a matter
-of fact, when William came to England, his military policy consisted
-in the founding of castles, and many of these in places which had
-been and were <i>burhs</i>, where, if the <i>burh</i> and castle were one and
-the same thing, the foundation of a castle was quite unnecessary.
-<i>Arcem condidit</i>, <i>castellum construxit</i>, <i>munitionem firmavit</i>, are
-terms used over and over again to describe the making of these new
-strongholds. To William, the strength of a monarch lay in the castles
-which he controlled; in warfare the castle formed his natural base
-of operations. His first work on landing at Hastings was to throw up
-a castle (<a href="#i_038">38</a>). Harold, on the other hand, although, as the Bayeux
-tapestry shows us, he had seen something of castles and siege warfare
-in William’s company, trusted for his defence to the shield-wall of his
-men, and the protection of the banks and ditches of an old earthwork
-in advance of his position. In 1067, after his coronation, William
-stayed at Barking, close to the walls of London, while the city, the
-Lundenburh whose walls Alfred had restored, was being overawed by
-the construction of certain <i>firmamenta</i>—one of them, no doubt, the
-White Tower, the other probably Baynard’s castle, near the present<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_39">39</a></span>
-Blackfriars.<a id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">43</a> Again, we find him at Winchester, building a strong
-fortress within the walls of the city—a castle within a <i>burh</i>.</p>
-
-<p>William’s operations in 1068 and 1069 were of great military
-importance. In 1068 he quelled the resistance of Exeter. The city
-was still surrounded by its Roman walls, to which the inhabitants
-now added new battlements and towers. They manned the rampart walks
-and the projections of the wall,<a id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">44</a> which for eighteen days William
-endeavoured to undermine. When at last the keys of the city were
-surrendered to him, his first work was to choose within the walls a
-place where a castle might be raised; and, on departing, he left,
-as at Winchester, a constable in charge of the castle, the king’s
-lieutenant charged with the task of keeping the <i>burh</i> under. From
-Exeter a rebellion in the north called William to York. The insurgents,
-an irregular band of freebooters, had thrown up defences in remote
-places in woods and by the mouths of rivers; some were harboured in the
-larger towns, which they kept in a state of fortification. As William
-travelled northwards, he founded castles at Warwick and Nottingham.
-He constructed a fortress in the city of York, and on his way home
-founded castles at Lincoln, Huntingdon, and Cambridge. No sooner had
-he left York than the rebels again began to stir; a movement was made
-on behalf of the &aelig;theling Edgar, and Danish aid was called in. William
-Malet, the governor of York castle, was hard pressed by the enemy. The
-Conqueror came to his relief, and, as a result of this visit, founded
-a second castle in York. Both castles, however, were of little use
-when the Danes came. The garrison of one or both rashly advanced to
-fight the invaders within the city itself, and were massacred. It is a
-significant fact that the castles were left open and deserted; neither
-the men of York nor the Danes had any use for them. When William came
-north again on his campaign of vengeance he repaired both the castles.
-Shortly after, on his expedition to Wales, he founded castles at
-Chester and Shrewsbury.<a id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">45</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_040">
-<img src="images/i_040.jpg" width="600" height="493" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Lincoln; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>What do we find to-day at these places where William founded his first
-English castles? At Hastings, on the cliff which divides the old town
-from the modern watering-place, there are important remains of a later
-stone castle within lines<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_40">40</a></span> of earthwork which are, no doubt, William’s.
-The mount remains at the north-east corner of the enclosure: the later
-curtain wall has been carried up its side and over it. The present
-remains of the castle of Winchester are later than William’s day. At
-Exeter the gatehouse and much of the adjacent masonry of the castle are
-unquestionably of a very early “Norman” date. In London we have the
-White tower, probably much extended from William’s early plan, and not
-completed till his son’s reign. But the stone fortresses of London and
-Exeter were exceptional. When we come to his northern castles, we find
-that at Warwick, York, Lincoln, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and Shrewsbury,
-the plan of the castle consists of a bailey or enclosed space,<a id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">46</a> with
-a tall mount on the line of its outer defences, and on a side or at an
-angle of the <i>enceinte</i> remote<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_41">41</a></span> from the main entrance. At Nottingham
-the plan of the early castle is not so easy to make out. But, in
-the other cases, although, at various dates during the middle ages,
-additions were made in stone, the nucleus of the plan is a collection
-of earthworks, which takes this form—a <i>motte</i> or mount with a bailey
-attached. At Lincoln there are two mounts. At York there are two
-castles, one on either side of the river, but each with its mount. On
-the mount of the castle north-east of the river is a later stone keep;
-the mount of the south-western castle has never carried stonework, and
-its bailey is now almost filled up with modern houses.</p>
-
-<p>The presence of the double castle at York has been a great temptation
-to those who would identify the castle with the <i>burh</i>. The
-fortification of both banks of the river is, on the face of it, so like
-the system adopted by Edward the Elder, that the York castles have been
-often quoted as <i>burhs</i> of Edward the Elder’s date, and it has been
-concluded that similar earthworks must have existed at Nottingham,
-Stamford, and so on. This idea is quite untenable. Had William followed
-the example of Edward and &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d, he would simply have repaired or
-renewed the defences of the two divisions of the <i>burh</i> at York.<a id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">47</a>
-But what he had to provide against was the spirit of rebellion in the
-<i>burh</i> itself, as well as the possible use of the water-way by Danish
-pirates. Which castle he first founded at York we do not know. On the
-tongue of land which runs out between the Ouse and Foss, outside the
-<i>burh</i>, and between it and the river approach to the city, one castle
-rose. The other, a fortress known in later times as the Old Baile, was
-possibly from the beginning partly within the ramparts of the southern
-<i>burh</i>. Later, at any rate, the city wall was built across the foot
-of the outer side of its mount, and enclosed the bailey on two sides.
-Elsewhere, the distinction between William’s castles and the <i>burhs</i>
-within which they rose is very noticeable. At Lincoln the castle filled
-up an angle of the Roman city. At Cambridge, the mount rises on the
-highest point of a large enclosure—the original <i>burh</i>—surrounded by
-earthworks of early date. Further, if any documentary proof is needed
-of anything so self-evident as the distinct nature of the castle and
-the <i>burh</i>, Domesday is clear upon the point. Apart from the evidence
-which it gives us with respect to the borough or <i>burh</i>, it speaks in
-one place of the <i>burgum circa castellum</i>—the <i>burh</i> about the castle.
-The case in point is the castle of Tutbury in Staffordshire, a fine
-example of the mount-and-bailey<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_42">42</a></span> stronghold.<a id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">48</a> One important feature
-here is that the castle, very large in area, and with a ditch of great
-depth on two sides, was apparently raised on the site of an early
-hill-fort or <i>burh</i>, and that the actual <i>burh</i> about the castle, the
-modern village of Tutbury, has grown up under its protection on the
-slope towards the Dove.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_042">
-<img src="images/i_042.jpg" width="500" height="503" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Berkhampstead</p></div>
-
-<p>The castle, then, was a Norman importation into England. It was a
-stronghold with a definite plan, so that the word <i>castel</i> had no
-vague meaning to English ears. It is found in many cases in close
-proximity to a <i>burh</i>, or fortified dwelling of a community; but it
-was a royal stronghold, in charge of an individual, and its intention
-was at once to protect and to keep the <i>burh</i> in subjection. Or,
-again, it may occupy, as at Tutbury or Conisbrough, the whole site
-of an early <i>burh</i>; but in such cases the character of the <i>burh</i> is
-entirely changed by the presence of the castle, and the dwelling-place
-of the community is shifted to the outskirts of the enclosure. At
-York, Lincoln, and other places where a castle was constructed within
-part of a <i>burh</i>, Domesday tells us that the site was <i>vastata in
-castellis</i>—<i>i.e.</i>, that houses were taken down to make room for the new
-earthworks.</p>
-
-<p>A figure of eight, with the lower portion elongated and widened to form
-the bailey, may be taken as the normal form of the castle plan. Often,
-as at Berkhampstead (<a href="#i_042">42</a>), where the mount and bailey were surrounded by
-a broad wet ditch and outer earthworks, the bailey is much the larger
-portion of the figure on plan; and it was only in small and unimportant
-strongholds that the bailey formed, as at Mexborough, a mere forecourt
-to the mount. At Alnwick (<a href="#i_115">115</a>) the mount stood as part of the outer
-defences of the enclosure, on the slope to the river; but it was so
-placed that it divided a western or outer from an eastern or inner ward
-or bailey, and almost filled up the space between them. The arrangement
-at Berkeley (<a href="#i_186">186</a>) is somewhat<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_43">43</a></span> similar. If the larger mount at Lincoln
-(<a href="#i_040">40</a>) were removed to the centre of the present enclosure, and the lines
-of the curtain-wall returned inwards to meet it, the plan of Alnwick
-would be obtained. Possibly, however, both at Alnwick and Berkeley, the
-outer ward may form an extension of the earlier plan, or may have been
-merely a covering platform, like the outer earthworks at Hastings. The
-later stone defences have obscured the original designs in both cases.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_043">
-<img src="images/i_043.jpg" width="500" height="486" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Clun; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>Although the plan followed fixed and familiar lines, there were no
-fixed dimensions to the castle. The mount was intended to bear the
-strong tower or donjon: within the bailey were the ordinary lodgings
-of the garrison, and such domestic buildings as might be needed.
-The bailey, which inclined, on the whole, to be oval in form, was
-surrounded by a low earthen bank, outside which was a dry ditch of
-more or less depth, with a parapet or counterscarp on the further
-side. The mount was surrounded by its own ditch, which was joined at
-two points by the main ditch on the side next the bailey. The entrance
-to the castle was at the end of the bailey, opposite the mount. These
-dispositions might vary: the mount might be within the enclosure, even,
-as at Pickering, in its centre, and the position of the entrance might
-be different, if the site required it. There might be more than one
-bailey, and these might be set side by side, divided by an intermediate
-ditch, as on the fairly level site at Clun (<a href="#i_043">43</a>), or end on end, as on
-the ridge at Montgomery, or a small bailey might project as a kind of
-outwork common to mount and bailey alike.<a id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">49</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_44">44</a></span> The usual arrangement,
-however, was as described. The mount might be of any height, of
-enormous proportions, as at Thetford, or of more modest size, as at
-Brecon or Trecastle. It was usually entirely artificial; but positions
-were sometimes chosen in which the ground afforded natural help. The
-mount, for example, at Hedingham in Essex, on the levelled top of
-which the later square donjon was built, appears to be partly natural;
-while the great mount at Mount Bures, not many miles away, is wholly
-artificial. The bailey, again, might vary much in size. It might have
-a very large area, as at Lincoln and Tutbury, a moderate area, as at
-Warkworth (<a href="#i_049">49</a>) or Durham (<a href="#i_199">199</a>); or it might be small and compact, as
-at Trecastle (<a href="#i_044">44</a>). There are many cases, as at Clifford’s hill, near
-Northampton, where the mount is found by itself: in such instances, the
-bailey may have disappeared as the result of local cultivation, and
-only the more important part of the earthworks may have been left. But
-it is also probable that here and there the fortified mount with the
-tower on its summit would be all that was needed, and that the absence
-of a large garrison would render a bailey unnecessary. The size of the
-bailey, in any case, would depend upon the importance of the position
-and the size of the garrison required.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_044">
-<img src="images/i_044.jpg" width="600" height="353" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Trecastle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_045">
-<img src="images/i_045.jpg" width="600" height="293" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Castle of Rennes: from Bayeux Tapestry</p></div>
-
-<p>The mount, at any rate, was the essential feature of this type of
-fortress. The Bayeux tapestry gives us pictures of some of these
-mounts, the fidelity of which is demonstrated by the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_45">45</a></span> remains which
-we possess of such castles, and by some pieces of documentary
-evidence (<a href="#i_038">38</a>). Two points are noticeable: (1) The mounts portrayed
-are all either in Normandy and Brittany, or, like the <i>castellum</i> at
-“Hestengaceaster,” are the work of Norman hands. (2) The fortifications
-shown in connection with these mounts are of timber, not stone. The
-accuracy of the tapestry is not absolutely photographic, but the
-workers knew well the type of structure which they wanted to represent.
-Their work, in fact, whether the castle represented be Dol or Dinan
-or Bayeux or Hastings, gives us a repeated picture of the recognised
-type of castle mount. And the two points just noted lead us to the
-conclusions, (1) that the castle was foreign to England and Englishmen,
-and (2) that the time-honoured notion that the Englishman raised the
-earthworks,<a id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">50</a> and the Norman built stone castles upon them is open
-to objection, the fact being that the stone castle was an exception in
-Normandy itself. The picture of the Breton castle of Dinan (<a href="#i_046">46</a>) shows,
-as in a section, a large pudding-shaped mount surrounded by a ditch,
-with a low bank of earth on the side towards the bailey. On the top of
-the mount is a tower, clearly of timber. Round the edge of the mount,
-encircling the tower, is a stockade formed of uprights with stout
-hurdles between—a work to which C&aelig;sar’s<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_46">46</a></span> description of his breastworks
-at Alesia might well be applied.<a id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">51</a> Access to the mount is gained by
-a steep ladder, probably formed of planks with projecting pieces of
-wood nailed to them for foot-holds, which spans the ditch, and has its
-foot within the bailey. The mount itself—and this may be proved by many
-surviving examples—is too steep to be scaled with any ease; and the
-ladder, although affording the defenders an excellent communication
-with the bailey, is hardly to be climbed with impunity by the opposing
-force. The ladder ends in a wooden platform at the edge of the mount,
-which serves as a <i>propugnaculum</i> for the garrison, in front of the
-stockade. In the picture of the construction of the castle at Hastings,
-a timber tower and stockade are in course of erection. The pioneers are
-busy digging earth from the fosse for their nearly completed mount, and
-compacting the surface with blows from the flat of their spades (<a href="#i_038">38</a>).</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_046">
-<img src="images/i_046.jpg" width="600" height="317" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Castle of Dinan: from Bayeux Tapestry</p></div>
-
-<p>In France the mount was usually known as the <i>motte</i> from the turf of
-which it was composed, and the occurrence of the word Lamotte as part
-of a place-name is as tell-tale as a name like Mount Bures in England.
-But a common name for the <i>motte</i>, employed by medieval writers, was
-the Latin <i>dunio</i> or <i>domgio</i>, a debased form of the word <i>dominio</i>.
-This became in French <i>donjon</i>, and in English <i>dungeon</i>. The <i>motte</i>
-at Canterbury is still known by the corrupted name of the Dane John.
-The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_47">47</a></span> mount, the symbol of the dominion of the feudal lord, and the
-centre of his <i>dominium</i> or demesne, bore his strong tower; and to this
-tower the name of the mount was transferred. When the tower on the
-mount was superseded by the heavy and lofty rectangular or cylindrical
-tower of later times, the new tower kept the old name. By a strange
-transference of meaning, our English <i>dungeon</i>, frequently applied
-to the chief tower of a castle until the seventeenth century, became
-connected with the vaults or store-rooms in the basement of such a
-tower, and now reminds us less of the dominion of the castle builders
-than of the cruelty with which they are supposed to have exercised that
-dominion.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_047">
-<img src="images/i_047.jpg" width="600" height="347" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Colchester Castle: great tower or keep.</p></div>
-
-<p>It may safely be assumed that the very large majority of castles of
-the eleventh and early twelfth century were constructed on this plan.
-There were exceptions, and certainly several English castles have
-stonework of the period of the Conquest. London and Colchester (<a href="#i_047">47</a>)
-had rectangular donjons from the first. At Richmond (<a href="#i_093">93</a>) the stonework
-of part of the curtain and of the lower part of the rectangular
-tower-keep is unquestionably of the eleventh century, when the castle
-was constructed by Alan of Brittany. In several other places, in the
-curtain at Tamworth (<a href="#i_048">48</a>) and in part of the curtain at Lincoln, there
-is eleventh century stonework. But more will be said of these cases
-later. It is enough to say here that, in most cases, stonework forms
-a late Norman or Plantagenet addition to early Norman earthwork. At
-Newcastle part of the early mount<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_48">48</a></span> remained, side by side with the
-late twelfth century tower-keep, until within the last hundred years.
-Warkworth, most instructive of English castles, preserves the base of
-its mount and the area of its original bailey: the mount bears a strong
-tower-house of the early fifteenth century; on the line of the bank of
-the bailey is a stone curtain of about the year 1200; within the area
-is a series of elaborate and beautiful buildings of two or three dates
-(<a href="#i_049">49</a>). Warkworth is the epitome of the history of the castle, from its
-Norman origin to its practical identification, in the later middle
-ages, with the large manor house; and to Warkworth we shall return more
-than once.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_048">
-<img src="images/i_048.jpg" width="467" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Tamworth; Eleventh Century Stonework</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_049">
-<img src="images/i_049.jpg" width="400" height="258" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Warkworth; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>There are exceptional cases in which two mounts occur. At Lincoln (<a href="#i_040">40</a>),
-the smaller mount is at the south-east corner of the enclosure, and
-probably may have carried the original donjon. The larger mount, of
-formidable height and steepness, is west of the centre of the south
-side. Both mounts,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_49">49</a></span> as is usual, are half within and half without the
-line of the rampart. The stone curtain-wall has been brought up their
-sides, and the larger mount is crowned by a stone “shell” keep of the
-late twelfth century. The provision of this second mount was possibly
-due to the exposed position of the castle, which formed the outer
-defence of the city on the west and south-west, and needed its greatest
-strength on that side. At Pontefract and Lewes, again, there were two
-mounts, one at each end of the enclosure. At both places, the later
-stone keep was built in connection with the western mount, at the end
-nearest the town and the slope of the ridge on which it was built.
-The sites are rather similar, and, in either case, the eastern mount
-overlooked the river-valley defended by the castle. It is not certain
-that two mounts ever formed part of an original plan. The natural
-tendency would be to throw up the mount at first on the side nearer
-the valley, where the slope was steeper, and the labour required in
-construction would be less. An attack, however, on the town and castle
-would come most naturally from the higher ground to the west, which
-commanded the castle and its defences. A new mount would, in process
-of time, be constructed on this side, and the old mount would become
-of secondary importance. At Lewes (<a href="#i_050">50</a>), where the slope of the hill is
-abrupt, the western mount rises from a higher level, and commands a
-much wider stretch of country than the mount at the north-east angle of
-the enclosure. At Lincoln, where an enemy’s force had no advantage of
-higher ground, the larger mount simply occupies the most advantageous
-position, protecting the most exposed side of the enclosure, and
-commanding one of the most extensive views in England. The foot of one
-mount is little more than two hundred feet distant from the foot of the
-other; while, at Lewes and Pontefract, the length of the whole bailey
-lay between the mounts. Thus, while it is possible that, at Lewes and
-Pontefract, both mounts may be original, with the idea of strengthening
-the enclosure at either end with a donjon, two original mounts at
-Lincoln would not have this excuse; and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_50">50</a></span> we may infer that, at some
-date later than the foundation of Lincoln castle, the Norman lords
-of the fortress threw up a new mount at a point from which the slope
-of the hill and the approaches from the valley of the Trent could be
-commanded more thoroughly.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_050">
-<img src="images/i_050.jpg" width="450" height="311" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Lewes; Plan</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_050_2">
-<img src="images/i_050_2.jpg" width="392" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Builth; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The provision of more than one bailey, as at Clun (<a href="#i_043">43</a>), where two small
-baileys, separated by ditches, cover the south and west sides of the
-mount, was due, partly to the irregular nature of the site, and partly
-to the need for the multiplication of defences. Such an arrangement,
-inconvenient in time of peace, would be a considerable advantage in
-case of siege, when each bailey would provide a separate difficulty
-to the assailants, and a separate rallying point to the defenders. At
-Builth (<a href="#i_050">50</a>), where the whole area of the castle earthworks is small,
-and the ditches of mount and bailey are of considerable strength, the
-main bailey is a narrow segmental platform covering the south side of
-the mount. On the west side of the mount is a smaller and narrower
-platform, between which and the main bailey is a broad ditch, forming
-a cross-cut or traverse between<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_51">51</a></span> the ditches of the mount and bailey.
-As the enclosure is very nearly circular, with the mount north-west
-of the centre, this second platform is somewhat squeezed into the
-space, and the ditch between it and the counterscarp which runs
-continuously round both mount and bailey is very narrow. In the more
-usual instances, where the mount and its ditch form a regular circle,
-which intersects with the bailey and its ditch, a secondary platform,
-as has been noted, occurs outside the line of both ditches, and is
-surrounded by a ditch of its own, communicating with both. This is the
-case with the very symmetrical example of a mount-and-bailey castle
-at Mexborough, at Lilbourne in Northants, Hallaton in Leicestershire
-(<a href="#i_051">51</a>), and other cases. Here the secondary platform is an excrescence on
-one side of the meeting of the two circles. Such platforms were mere
-outworks where additional defence was necessary; it is possible that
-on them stone-throwing engines might be planted by the defenders, as
-the narrowness of the ditch would at these points bring the assailants
-more nearly within range than at any other point within the enclosure.
-Such engines would encumber the larger bailey, which would necessarily
-be kept as clear as possible for the operations of the main body of the
-garrison.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_051">
-<img src="images/i_051.jpg" width="532" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Hallaton; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The mount-and-bailey castle has been derived by some from a Teutonic
-origin,<a id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">52</a> but it is difficult to trace it with any certainty at
-an early period outside France and Normandy. There are many remains
-of these castles in Normandy itself. The famous castle of Domfront
-(Orne), founded originally by Guillaume Talvas (<i>d.</i> 1030), ancestor
-of the house of Bell&ecirc;me, possibly took this form: as at Newcastle, a
-rectangular tower of stone took the place, in the twelfth century, of
-the tower on the mount.<a id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">53</a> The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_52">52</a></span> writer of a monograph on the castle of
-Domfront enumerates five such mounts which exist or are known to have
-existed within the local <i>arrondissement</i>.<a id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">54</a> Two, at Sept-Forges and
-Luc&eacute;, remain intact, covered by plantations of trees. At Sept-Forges
-the church and castle were side by side, as may still be seen at Earls
-Barton in Northamptonshire.<a id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">55</a> At Luc&eacute; there are traces of a bailey.
-On the other hand, at La Baroche, a large mount seems to have borne the
-whole castle: one may compare with this the great mount of Restormel
-in Cornwall, which is the natural summit of a hill, artificially
-scarped and surrounded by a fosse, like a contour fort of early times.
-It is important to notice that on these artificial mounts of southern
-Normandy, there appears “no ruin, no trace of construction in masonry.”
-The inference is obvious. The buildings which they carried were of
-wood, and have yielded to the action of fire or the weather. On no
-other hypothesis can the speed with which castles were constructed in
-England after the Conquest, or the ease with which they were destroyed,
-be explained. William’s subjects in Normandy threw up fortifications
-against him with a speed which positively forbids us to imagine that
-they procured masons to work in stone. In 1061, Robert, son of Giroie,
-one of the powerful nobles of the Alen&ccedil;onnais, joined forces with the
-Angevins against William, and fortified his castles of La-Roche-sur-Ig&eacute;
-and Saint-C&eacute;n&eacute;ri. His cousin, Arnold, son of Robert, driven from
-the castle of &Eacute;chauffour, returned secretly and burned it.<a id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">56</a> The
-quickness with which the two castles at York were constructed,
-destroyed, and repaired, allowed no time for dressing stone.</p>
-
-<p>The points which our evidence leads us to accept may be recapitulated
-as follows:—(1) The castle was a foreign importation into England, of
-the period of the Norman conquest. (2) It consisted, in its simplest
-form, of a moated mount or <i>motte</i>, with a bailey or base-court
-attached. (3) Its earliest fortifications were entirely of timber, save
-in rare instances.</p>
-
-<p>We may now examine the evidence which, in default of actual remains,
-survives with regard to the timber constructions of these castles
-and their use. The tower on the mount first demands our attention.
-Apart from the pictures of the Bayeux tapestry, certain early twelfth
-century chronicles of northern France have preserved for us accounts
-of the main features of this structure and its <i>enceinte</i>.<a id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">57</a> Jean
-de Colmieu describes the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_53">53</a></span> castle of Merchem, close by the church, as
-<i>munitio quedam quam castrum vel municipium dicere possumus</i>. “It is
-the custom,” he says, “with the rich men and nobles of this district,
-because they spend their time in enmity and slaughter, and in order
-that they may thereby be safer from their enemies, and by their
-superior power either conquer their equals or oppress their inferiors,
-to heap up a mount of earth as high as they can, and to dig round
-it a ditch of some breadth and great depth, and, instead of a wall,
-to fortify the topmost edge of the mount round about with a rampart
-(<i>vallo</i>) very strongly compacted of planks of timber, and having
-towers, as far as possible, arranged along its circuit. Within the
-rampart they build in the midst a house or a citadel (<i>arx</i>) commanding
-the whole site. The gate of entry to the place”—the word used is
-<i>villa</i>, implying a place of habitation rather than a stronghold—“can
-be approached only by a bridge, which, rising at first from the outer
-lip of the ditch, is gradually raised higher. Supported by uprights in
-pairs, or in sets of three, which are fixed beneath it at convenient
-intervals, it rises by a graduated slope across the breadth of the
-ditch, so that it reaches the mount on a level with its summit and at
-its outer edge, and touches the threshold of the enclosure.” It will
-be noticed that the moated mount described here had no bailey. It was
-also obviously not merely a fortified stronghold, a place of refuge in
-time of war, but a definite residence of the local lord. The turrets
-round the timber rampart of the mount are mentioned as occasional, not
-invariable features of the design. The habitation within the rampart
-may be a strong tower or a mere house. The sense of the passage shows
-clearly that there was a doorway in the rampart, by which the house was
-approached from the bridge. Finally, the description is not applicable
-merely to a single castle, but is a generic description of strongholds
-in a particular neighbourhood.</p>
-
-<p>The domestic, apart from the military, character of the building,
-is emphasised in the story which follows the description. John of
-Warneton, the sainted bishop of Th&eacute;rouanne (<i>d.</i> 1130), was entertained
-here, when he came to hold a confirmation in Merchem church. After
-the confirmation was over, he went back to the castle to change his
-vestments before proceeding to bless the churchyard. As he returned
-across the sloping bridge, which at its middle point was about 35
-feet above the ditch, the press of the people who crowded to see the
-holy man was so great, and the old enemy, says the chronicler, so
-alive to the opportunity, that the bridge broke, and the bishop and
-his admirers, amid a terrible noise of falling joists, boards, and
-spars, were thrown to the bottom of the ditch.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_54">54</a></span> The castle was, in
-fact, the private residence of a man who, if he could indulge in the
-peaceful pleasure of entertaining his bishop, could not afford to live
-in an unfortified house. Private warfare with his neighbours was the
-business of his life, and he had to make himself as comfortable as he
-could within his palisade. Jean de Colmieu does not tell us whether
-the castle stronghold at Merchem took the shape of a tower or not; but
-Lambert of Ardres has left a description of the great wooden tower of
-three stories which the carpenter Louis de Bourbourg constructed about
-1099 for Arnould, lord of Ardres. The elaborateness of its design and
-plan is remarkable, and the <i>motte</i> which bore it must have been of
-considerable size. The ground-floor contained cellars, store-rooms,
-and granaries. The first floor contained the chief living-rooms—the
-common hall, the pantry and buttery, the great chamber where Arnould
-and his wife slept, with two other rooms, one the sleeping-place of the
-body-servants. Out of the great chamber opened a room or recess with a
-fire-place, where the folk of the castle were bled, the servants warmed
-themselves, or the children were taken in cold weather to be warmed.
-One may assume that the great chamber was at the end of the hall
-opposite to the pantry and buttery. The kitchen was probably reached,
-as in the larger dwelling-houses of later days, by a passage between
-these offices: it was on the same floor as the hall, but occupied a
-two-storied extension of the donjon on one side.<a id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">58</a> Below the kitchen
-were the pig-sty, fowl-house, and other like offices. The third stage
-of the donjon contained the bed-chambers of the daughters of the house:
-the sons also could sleep on this floor, if they chose, and here slept
-the guard of the castle, who relieved one another at intervals in the
-work of keeping watch. On the eastern side of the first floor was a
-projecting building, called the <i>logium</i> or parlour, and above this
-on the top floor was the chapel of the house, “made like in carving
-and painting to the tabernacle (<i>sic</i>) of Solomon.” Lambert speaks of
-the stairways and passages of the donjon, but his description of the
-projecting parlour and chapel is not sufficiently explicit, and his
-admiration may have magnified the proportions of the building. His
-description, however, is of great service when applied to the tower
-donjon of stone, the arrangements of which it serves to explain.
-Here, again, the fortress was clearly designed as a dwelling house:
-the supply of rooms, if it is not exaggerated, was quite remarkable
-for the age. The <i>motte</i> or donjon—Lambert gives it these alternative
-names—rose in the middle of a marsh, which Arnould converted<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_55">55</a></span> into a
-lake or moat by forming sluices: his mill was near the first sluice.</p>
-
-<p>No definite description is left of the defences of the bailey in a
-castle of this date. There is no doubt, however, that the scarp,
-or encircling bank of earth, was protected, like the summit of the
-mount, by a hedge or palisade of the traditional type. Such hedges
-were the normal defence of any kind of stronghold: the edict of Pistes
-ordered the destruction of all unlicensed <i>castella, firmitates, et
-haias</i>—castles, strong dwellings, and hedges. In 1225 Henry III.
-ordered the forester of Galtres to supply the sheriff of Yorkshire
-with timber for repairing and making good the breaches of the palisade
-(<i>palicii</i>) of York castle. The “houses” and “bridge” of the same
-castle—that is, the buildings within the bailey, and the drawbridge by
-which the bailey was entered across the ditch, were also of timber. As
-late as 1324 the stockade on the mount was still of wood, surrounding
-the stone donjon of the thirteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">59</a> This is an interesting
-example of the survival, until a late date, of primitive fortification
-in a strong and important castle. There is abundant evidence, in fact,
-that the Norman engineer put his trust, not in stone, but in his
-earthen rampart and its palisades. When, about 1090, the freebooter
-Ascelin Go&euml;l got possession of the castle of Ivry, he enclosed it “with
-ditches and thick hedges.”<a id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">60</a> In 1093, Philip I. of France and Robert
-of Normandy took the part of William of Breteuil, the dispossessed lord
-of Ivry, and laid siege to the fortified town and castle of Br&eacute;val
-(Seine-et-Oise). With the aid of a siege engine, constructed by Robert
-of Bell&ecirc;me, they were able to destroy the rampart and encircling
-hedges.<a id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">61</a> Br&eacute;val was in a wooded and remote district, where stone
-would have been hard to obtain in any case. The grand necessity, in
-places which were in danger of constant attack, was to provide them
-with adequate defences which could be constructed in the shortest time
-possible.</p>
-
-<p>Of the nature of the houses within the bailey, little can be said. They
-doubtless included shelters for the garrison of the castle, stables for
-their horses, and various sheds or store-houses. The hall, or building,
-which was the centre of the domestic life of the castle, was, from the
-earliest times, the chief building within the circumference of the
-bailey. We read of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_56">56</a></span> destruction of the <i>principalis aula</i> of the
-castle of Brionne in 1090, by the red-hot darts which were hurled upon
-its shingled roof;<a id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">62</a> and stone halls, as at Chepstow and Richmond,
-were built before the beginning of the twelfth century. But it is
-certain, on the other hand, that the donjon was, now and later, adapted
-to domestic as well as purely military uses; and it seems likely
-that the owner of the castle, in certain cases, was content with his
-dwelling upon the mount, until, at a later date, the strengthening of
-the whole enclosure with a stone curtain made it possible for him to
-raise a more convenient dwelling house within the more ample space of
-the bailey. In the larger castles, however, where there was a strong
-permanent garrison, a hall was a necessity for their entertainment.</p>
-
-<p>Where mount-and-bailey castles are found without a trace of stonework,
-it does not follow that they are necessarily of a date immediately
-subsequent to the Conquest. Many of these castles, founded by the
-Conqueror and his followers, became permanent strongholds, and in due
-course of time were fortified with stone walls and towers. Others were
-probably founded as an immediate consequence of the Conquest, and were
-abandoned in favour of other sites. Thus it has been thought that the
-earthworks at Barwick-in-Elmet, near Leeds, were abandoned by Ilbert
-de Lacy, when he fixed upon Pontefract as the head of his honour.<a id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">63</a>
-Trecastle may have been deserted by Bernard of Newmarch for Brecon, or
-it may have been held by a small garrison as the western outpost of his
-barony. But it is well known that, for a long time after the Conquest,
-in the period of constant strife between the Norman kings and their
-barons, a large number of castles came into existence in defiance of
-royal edicts. We know that, during the reign of Stephen, when every
-man did what was right in his own eyes, an almost incredible number of
-unlicensed or “adulterine”<a id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">64</a> castles were constructed. As a result
-of the agreement between Stephen and Henry II., many of these were
-destroyed, and the number of English castles was materially lessened.
-Later on, when the revolt of the Mowbrays against Henry II. took place,
-the victory of the king’s party was followed by the destruction of the
-Mowbray castles at Thirsk, Kirkby Malzeard, and Kinnard’s Ferry in
-the isle of Axholme, and of Bishop Pudsey’s castle at Northallerton.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_57">57</a></span>
-Of these four castles earthworks or traces of earthworks, but no
-stonework, remain. It is reasonable to suppose that the material of
-their fortifications was timber. Haste in the construction of castles,
-speed in their destruction, during the century following the Conquest,
-are easily explained if their works were merely of earth and wood.
-And it is thus possible that, when we meet with a mount-and-bailey
-fortress, unnamed in history and untouched by medieval stonemasons, it
-may be neither on a site chosen and then abandoned by an early Norman
-lord, nor a mere outpost of some greater castle, but a stronghold
-hastily entrenched and heaped up in time of rebellion, by some noble
-of the time of Stephen or Henry II., and dismantled when peace was
-restored, and the authority of the sovereign recognised.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_58">58</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV<br />
-<br />
-THE PROGRESS OF ATTACK AND DEFENCE</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> earthwork fortifications, the progress of which we have traced up
-to the Norman conquest, were of a very simple kind. It is obvious that,
-in the history of military architecture, any improvement in defence
-is the consequence of improved methods of attack. The stone-walled
-town of the middle ages, the castle or private citadel, with its
-curtain wall and the subdivision of its enclosure into more than one
-bailey, succeeded the palisaded earthwork as a natural result of the
-development of the art of siege. Against an enemy whose artillery was
-comparatively feeble the stockaded enclosure was effective enough:
-slingers and bowmen, working at close quarters, might do damage to the
-defenders, but the palisade on the bank, divided from the besiegers by
-a formidable ditch, was proof against missiles launched against it by
-individuals, and could be carried only by a determined rush, or if it
-were not sufficiently protected against fire. Modern warfare against
-uncivilised tribes has shown that a stronghold defended by a thick
-hedge is a serious problem to a besieging force. If, under modern
-conditions, the stockade is a barrier to troops equipped with powerful
-firearms, the difficulty which it afforded to the early medieval
-warrior is obvious.</p>
-
-<p>The age of firearms, however, which brought the death-blow to medieval
-siegecraft, was long in coming; and meanwhile the progress of the
-science of attack depended upon the improvement in methods which could
-be employed only in close proximity to the besieged stronghold, or
-within a very limited range. Engines for hurling stones or javelins
-increased in size and strength. Devices were brought into play for
-scaling or undermining the defences of the town or castle. The attack
-was directed against the defences rather than against the defenders.
-A casual stone might do injury to the medieval soldier, or an arrow
-might pierce between the joints of his harness; but his armour, which
-became more heavy and more carefully protected as the chance of risk
-from such missiles increased, made loss of life in the course of a
-siege a misfortune rather than an inevitable<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_59">59</a></span> contingency. His first
-anxiety, therefore, was to make the defensive works which sheltered
-him impregnable. As the enemy multiplied his designs against the
-palisaded enclosure, the palisade gave place to the stone wall; as
-the enemy’s means for prosecuting his attempts increased in power,
-the wall increased in height and strength; and at last, during the
-transitional epoch in which firearms gradually superseded the older and
-more primitive weapons of attack, the wall presented to the besieger
-a thoroughly guarded front which rendered his medieval siege tactics
-obsolete, and called for new developments in his craft.</p>
-
-<p>The progress of fortification under these conditions will be the
-subject of the remaining chapters of this book, with special reference
-to the castle, in the defences of which the military engineers of the
-middle ages displayed the epitome of their science. Before we proceed,
-however, to the growth of the stone-walled castle, some description is
-necessary of the improvement in siege-engines and methods of attack by
-which its development was governed. It must be kept in mind that the
-siegecraft of the middle ages advanced upon lines that were by no means
-new. Its engines, its devices for breaking down or scaling walls and
-towers, were not new inventions, but relics of Roman military science.
-With the decay of the Roman power in western Europe, these materials of
-warfare, unknown to the Teutonic conquerors of Britain, had fallen into
-disuse. Preserved in the east by the Byzantine empire, the inheritor of
-Roman civilisation, they became familiar to the barbarians who overran
-Europe in the dark ages; and their revival in the parts of Europe most
-remote from the historic centres of Roman influence was due in no small
-measure to the adoption of traditional siegecraft by the invading
-tribes which had come into conflict with Byzantine strategy. So far as
-England is concerned, the first advance in the art of attack was the
-direct result of the Norman conquest; while subsequent improvement in
-western Europe generally was primarily due to the knowledge of eastern
-warfare gained during the Crusades. A slight retrospect, under these
-conditions, is desirable, which will give us some insight into the
-methods of siegecraft during the period of whose strongholds and art of
-fortification we already have seen something.</p>
-
-<p>Many classical texts, from the time of C&aelig;sar to the latest days of the
-western Empire, supply us with authority for Roman military methods.
-No passage throws fuller light on their siege practice than C&aelig;sar’s
-description of his siege of Alesia in Burgundy, the hill fortress
-occupied by Vercingetorix.<a id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">65</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_60">60</a></span> The lines which were first drawn round
-the stronghold by C&aelig;sar were eleven miles in circuit, and communicated
-with three camps, on hills of a height equal to that of the hill of
-Alesia. Along the lines there were twenty-three <i>castella</i>, small
-forts to hold pickets, and temporary examples of the type of which
-the “mile-castles” of the Roman wall were permanent instances. The
-stubborn resistance of Vercingetorix and the prospect of the arrival of
-a relieving army, however, gave C&aelig;sar occasion to elaborate his lines,
-the character of which is very minutely described. They consisted of
-an earthen bank with a ditch 20 feet broad, 400 feet in front of it
-on the side towards the besieged stronghold. The ditch was dug with
-perpendicular sides: its distance from the bank was a precaution
-against sudden attacks of the enemy, and placed the bank out of the
-range of casual missiles. The space between the bank and ditch was not
-a level “berm,” but was furrowed by two ditches, 15 feet in breadth
-and depth, of which the inner was wet, the water of the neighbouring
-streams being diverted into it. Behind the inner ditch rose the earthen
-<i>agger</i> or bank, to the height of 12 feet. The <i>vallum</i>, the rampart
-on the top of the <i>agger</i>, was of a type common in early warfare and
-for many centuries later, consisting of a breastwork of interlaced
-twigs stiffened by a row of palisades. The hurdles of the breastwork
-were finished off with battlement-like projections: at intervals
-there were tall uprights with forked tops, which were called <i>cervi</i>
-or “stags,” and acted as <i>chevaux-de-frise</i> along the whole rampart.
-There were also towers, obviously temporary constructions of timber,
-at distances of 80 feet from one another. This, however, was not
-enough. C&aelig;sar aimed at holding his lines with as few men as possible,
-so as to allow the rest to do the necessary foraging at a distance. He
-therefore proceeded to sow the approach to the lines with pitfalls.
-Five ditches, 5 feet deep, were dug out and filled with upright stakes
-sharpened to a point and fastened together at the bottom by continuous
-cross pieces. In front of these were three rows of pits, 3 feet deep,
-arranged in a series of <i>quincunces</i> or saltires: in these were placed
-smooth sharpened stakes, so that little more than their points stuck
-out of the ground, and the pits were then covered over with twigs and
-brushwood. The eight rows formed by these obstructions were each 3
-feet apart. The whole arrangement, producing the effect of a row of
-fleurs-de-lys, was called <i>lilium</i>: to the stakes the soldiers gave
-the name of <i>cippi</i><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_61">61</a></span> or “grave-stones.” On the opposite side of the
-<i>vallum</i>, where an attack from a relieving army was expected, a similar
-arrangement was made. Also, in front of the <i>lilium</i>, wooden cubes
-with hooks fastened into them were hidden in the ground, bearing the
-appropriate name of <i>stimuli</i>.</p>
-
-<p>C&aelig;sar’s method of besieging Alesia was dictated by the probability
-that, with an enemy on both sides, he would have to stand a siege
-himself. After a doubtful battle, the Gallic army of relief made a
-night attack on the lines, in which they found to their cost the
-effectiveness of C&aelig;sar’s death-traps. They brought with them hurdles,
-with which to help themselves across the ditches, and scaling ladders
-and grappling hooks, with the help of which they might climb or pull
-down the rampart. Their weapons were slings, arrows, and stones, to
-which the Romans replied with extemporised slings and spears. They
-suffered two repulses, and then turned their attention to the weakest
-of C&aelig;sar’s camps, while Vercingetorix left Alesia to attack the
-rampart. His force brought hurdles with long balks of timber to form a
-footway across them, mantlets, or coverings under which an attacking
-party, sheltered from Roman missiles, could undermine or make a breach
-in C&aelig;sar’s earthwork by the use of a bore, and hooks with which to cut
-down the rampart on the top of the earthen bank. The attack was long
-and determined. The Gallic pioneers filled up C&aelig;sar’s fosses, so far
-as they could, with earth, and themselves raised a mound from which
-his devices of defence were easily seen. Where his lines were on level
-ground, they were too formidable to attack: on the steep slopes of the
-hills, on the tops of which his camps were pitched, there was more
-chance for an enemy. Here the fiercest fighting took place: the towers
-of the <i>vallum</i> were assailed with javelins, the ditch was filled, and
-an attempt was made to tear down the palisade and breastwork. Labienus,
-unable to hold the lines, sent a message to C&aelig;sar, whose intervention
-with his cavalry turned the day and brought about the total defeat of
-the Gallic army and the surrender of Vercingetorix.</p>
-
-<p>The account of the siege of Marseilles by Gaius Trebonius in
-<span class="smcap lowercase">B.C.</span> 49 gives us many of the methods employed by the Romans,
-and by Byzantine and medieval engineers after them, in the siege of a
-walled town.<a id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">66</a> Marseilles was no mere hill stronghold like Alesia:
-it was a strongly fortified seaport town, well equipped for war with
-engines which hurled pointed stakes 12 feet long against the besiegers,
-as they threw up their earthen bank round the landward side of the
-city. Trebonius<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_62">62</a></span> had to make the line of penthouses (<i>vine&aelig;</i>), by
-which his pioneers were protected, of more than ordinary thickness
-to withstand these missiles. In advance of the bank, a body of men,
-sheltered by a large penthouse (<i>testudo</i>) levelled the soil. While
-this leaguer was established on the landward side, Brutus gained a
-naval victory over the Massiliotes, who nevertheless continued to
-hold out against the besiegers. The right wing of the Roman army was
-especially open to attack from the city; and on this side the besiegers
-built a tower of brick, to serve as a base of operations and a refuge
-from attack. This tower, which was raised to a height of six stories,
-was built by workmen who were sheltered by hanging mantlets of rope.
-A roof was made of timber, covered with a layer of bricks and puddled
-clay, to protect it against fire, and with raw hides, to make it proof
-against darts and stones. As the tower grew, this roof, from which
-the rope mantlets depended, was raised by levers and screwed down as
-a covering to each story in succession. When it was nearly completed,
-a wooden penthouse known as the mouse (<i>musculus</i>) was constructed,
-consisting of a gallery 60 feet long, with a gabled roof, which was
-covered, like that of the tower, with bricks, clay, and hide. This
-was moved forward on rollers to the nearest point in the city-wall.
-It withstood the huge stones which were cast upon it; lighted barrels
-of pitch and resin, hurled from the wall, rolled off its sloping roof
-and were pushed to a safe distance by the men inside, armed with
-poles and pitchforks. Covered by their friends’ fire from the brick
-tower, the soldiers in the mouse were able to sap with their levers
-and wedges the foundations of the tower on the wall, and managed to
-effect a breach. The defenders submitted, and asked for a truce until
-C&aelig;sar arrived; but, taking advantage of the interval, they made a
-treacherous sally from the city, and, aided by a favourable wind,
-burned down the besiegers’ constructions, including the mouse and the
-brick tower, and destroyed their machines. Trebonius, however, lost no
-time in constructing, instead of his earthen bank, a strong wall of
-countervallation, composed of two parallel walls of brick, each 6 feet
-thick, with a timber floor above. This quickly brought the defenders
-to their senses, and they reverted to their old conditions of peace.
-In this account the devices which play the chief part are met again
-in numberless medieval sieges. The lines of countervallation, the
-successful sapping operation, appear, for example, in the tactics of
-Philip Augustus: the besiegers’ brick tower is met again in William
-Rufus’ timber castle at Bamburgh: the engines of war and the protected
-penthouses are commonplaces of medieval warfare.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_63">63</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The bare record of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle throws little light to
-speak of upon the strategy or military skill of the Danes. Nor does the
-lyric form of the songs which celebrate the fight at Brunanburh and
-the battle of Maldon allow of that definiteness of detail which the
-student requires. More definite, although not unencumbered by rhetoric,
-is the account which Abbo, the monk of Saint-Germain-des-Pr&eacute;s, gives
-of the siege of Paris by the Northmen in 885-6.<a id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">67</a> The city of those
-days was confined to the isle still known as La Cit&eacute;, and was united
-to its suburbs on the mainland by two bridges, where now are the
-Pont-au-Change and the Petit-Pont. The approach to each bridge was
-guarded, on the mainland, by a tower or <i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i>. The attack of
-the Normans was directed against the northern tower, the construction
-of which had not been finished. It is curious to notice how they
-concentrated themselves on single points in the defence, neglecting
-the prime necessity of closing all lines of communication to the
-defenders. They came up to the tower with their ships, which were seven
-hundred in number, not counting sailless boats, battered it with their
-engines, and hurled darts at its defenders. The tower was shaken, but
-its foundations stood firm: where the walls threatened to give, they
-were repaired with planks of timber, and the tower was raised by these
-wooden additions during a night to one and a half times its former
-height. At daybreak the Northmen again began the attack. The air,
-says Abbo, was full of arrows and stones flung from slings and from
-the <i>ballistae</i> or hurling machines. During the day the heightened
-tower showed signs of succumbing to the enemy’s fire and their mining
-efforts. Eudes, the brave defender of the town, poured down a mixture
-of burning oil, wax, and pitch, which quenched the enthusiasm of the
-besiegers, and cost them three hundred men. On the third day, the
-Northmen established their land camp on the northern bank of the river,
-near the church of Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois. The camp was probably a
-<i>geweorc</i> such as they wrought by the Thames or the Ouse, but it was
-girt, not with an earthen rampart, but with walls of clay mingled with
-stone. From this centre they cruelly ravaged the surrounding country
-during the remainder of the siege. Having thus established their
-base of operations, they returned to the attack of the tower. Their
-devices were the common devices of Roman warfare, which naturally would
-recommend themselves to the assailants of the dying Roman civilisation.
-We hear of the three great battering rams which they prepared, and
-moved up against the walls<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_64">64</a></span> under the shelter of wooden penthouses
-on wheels, of the bores brought up to undermine the tower by men
-moving under wicker mantlets covered with raw hides, of the <i>mangana</i>
-or stone-throwing machines used by the defenders, and of the forked
-beams let down from the tower to catch the heads of the battering-rams
-and render them powerless. Some of the Northmen worked at filling up
-the ditches with whatever came to hand, earth, leaves, straw, meadow
-grass, cattle, even the bodies of captives. Still the city held out,
-and Eudes managed to slip through the enemy’s lines and reach Charles
-the Fat with a request for relief. On his return the Northmen tried to
-intercept him: he got back safely into Paris, while a relieving force
-attacked the enemy and drove them back on their ships. When Charles
-the Fat arrived he established his camp on the southern slopes of
-Montmartre; but he was content, after a general attack upon the city
-had failed, to let the Northmen go, taking with them an indemnity of
-seven hundred pounds, and promising to leave the kingdom in March.
-They, however, made an attempt to reach the upper Seine in boats, as
-the larger vessels could not clear the bridges, and so proceed to
-pillage Burgundy. Their purpose was discovered: the defenders of Paris
-launched arrows at them from the walls, and a chance dart killed their
-pilot. For a time their onward course was checked, but a series of such
-assaults could not be sustained by the French. Eudes, elected king,
-neglected the conflict, and gave words for deeds. “Their barks,” says
-Abbo, “were in crowds on all the rivers of Gaul.” He ends his poem with
-a call to France to give proof once more of those forces which she had
-used in the past to conquer kingdoms more powerful than herself. “Three
-vices,” he cries, “are causes of thy ruin: pride, the shameful love of
-pleasures, the vain lust of gorgeous apparel.” The same words might
-have been said to the English a hundred and twenty-five years later,
-when Swegen and Thurkill were gripping London between their two armies.</p>
-
-<p>A short passage in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle affords some help to the
-question of Danish strategy. London bridge, like the two bridges of
-Paris, was an obstacle to the long Danish ships with their sails. In
-1016, however, the Danes managed to drag their ships round the south
-side of the bridge, apparently by making a ditch on that side of the
-river. They then proceeded to make entrenchments about the city, their
-headquarters being thus removed above bridge. There is no reason to
-doubt that the London which they thus beset was a stone-walled city,
-the Roman Londinium which Alfred had repaired. So was Paris, and so
-were a large number of the towns of France, whose walls<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_65">65</a></span> had been set
-in repair by their bishops or lay lords. We read of Saint Didier,
-bishop of Cahors 630-55, that he “enlarged, built, and made strong
-Cahors with abundant labour, and a notable work of defence, fortifying
-gates and towers with a girdle of walls compacted of squared stones.”
-In the next century the Saracen invaders of southern France restored
-the Roman walls of Narbonne, and checked the advance of Charles Martel
-into Spain.<a id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">68</a> But for the many instances in which the fortifications
-of Roman cities in France played a part in the warfare of this troubled
-epoch, there are few in England. The <i>burhs</i> of the Danish wars were,
-with the exception of London, Towcester, Colchester, and a few more,
-not stone-walled cities of Roman foundation, such as those which in
-France were the natural prey of the Norman marauders, but villages or
-small towns which had grown into existence for the most part since
-the Saxon conquest, and owed their strength to walls of timber. In
-France military art, as regards both fortification and siege-craft, was
-altogether on a higher plane. The break of continuity caused by the
-extinction of Roman civilisation in England produced a stage in the
-development of attack and defence to which contemporary French history
-affords no parallel. It is not till a later period that the finished
-methods employed by both sides in the siege of Paris were used in
-English warfare.</p>
-
-<p>The cases hitherto quoted refer to sieges of towns; and, as we have
-seen, the castle or private fortress which plays so prominent a part
-in medieval strategy was the result of the growth of the feudal
-system, and takes its place in history at a comparatively late period.
-A fortified town of Roman origin possessed its <i>arx</i> or citadel:
-this was, as it were, the keep of the walled enclosure, to which the
-defenders could retire if the outer defences of the town were taken. A
-castle, however, was a distinct enclosure, which frequently occupied
-a portion of the area of a walled town, but had its own outer lines
-of defence before the keep could be reached. The Norman conquerors of
-England, regarding the castle as the main seat of defence and object
-of attack, directed their attention to its fortification; and thus the
-defence of the town or village in or near which the castle stood became
-of secondary interest. We usually find that, where a castle forms
-part of the defences of an English walled town, the castle has been
-surrounded with a wall and provided with its necessary defences before
-a wall has been built round the town in place of the earlier palisade.
-In spite, however, of this change in the nature of the besieged
-stronghold,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_66">66</a></span> the object of attack was still a fortified enclosure.
-The methods of siege developed along the old lines; and the defences
-applied to the castle were those which, on a more extended scale, were
-applicable to the town.</p>
-
-<p>The warfare of the eleventh and twelfth centuries was to a great extent
-a succession of sieges of castles, by direct attack or by blockade. In
-1083 William the Conqueror, besieging Hubert of Maine in the castle
-of Ste-Suzanne, did not venture to attack the wooded precipice on
-which the castle stood, but entrenched his army within earthworks in a
-neighbouring valley. The blockade lasted three years, and the advantage
-lay much on the side of Hubert, so that eventually the Norman army,
-after a desperate attack had failed, withdrew.<a id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">69</a> The chief feature of
-the blockade was the construction of an opposition castle,<a id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">70</a> a method
-employed upon more than one occasion by William II., who, in 1088,
-compelled Odo to surrender Rochester castle by making two <i>castella</i>
-upon his lines of communication.<a id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">71</a> In 1095 William II. besieged
-Robert Mowbray in Bamburgh castle. The great rock, with its girdle
-of sea and marsh, did not lend itself to direct attack, and William
-compelled its surrender by building a “new fortress,” which took the
-form of a timber castle, probably of the ordinary mount-and-bailey
-type, and was nicknamed Malvoisin, the “ill neighbour.”<a id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">72</a> From
-this particular instance, the name of <i>malvoisin</i> has been applied
-generally, without sufficient reason, to the wooden towers which were
-sometimes constructed to shelter a besieging force. As a matter of
-fact, Malvoisin was merely one of many nicknames which were given, in
-individual cases, to such besiegers’ castles,<a id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">73</a> and was no more a
-generic term than is Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard.</p>
-
-<p>Until the end of the eleventh century, when the first Crusade
-taught western warriors the use of more advanced siege-engines, the
-methods of attack upon a castle seem to have been of a very simple
-description. Earthworks defended by timber could be gained by a
-rush and hand-to-hand fighting; while fire would always be fatal to
-a wooden stronghold ill provided against it. The Bayeux tapestry
-shows us none of those siege-machines which were employed more and
-more frequently against stone<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_67">67</a></span> castles during the next century; and,
-although the Conqueror’s army seem to have employed an elementary
-form of stone-throwing machine, handled, like the later cross-bow,
-by individual soldiers, and other devices more familiar in later
-times,<a id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">74</a> such machines can hardly have been common. It was, no doubt,
-their growing frequency at the beginning of the twelfth century which
-made stone walls imperative for the protection of a castle. We have
-seen <i>ballistae</i> and other siege-engines of Roman origin used by the
-Northmen at the great siege of Paris in 885; but such engines were
-certainly not in common use in western Europe before the period of
-direct contact with Byzantine civilisation. Ordericus Vitalis mentions
-the construction of such machines, a “belfry” on wheels and devices
-for hurling large stones, by Robert of Bell&ecirc;me’s engineer at Br&eacute;val in
-1093, as though they were a novelty, and says of the engineer himself
-that his sagacious ingenuity had been of profit to the Christians at
-the siege of Jerusalem.<a id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">75</a></p>
-
-<p>Suger’s detailed account of the attack made by Louis VI. upon the
-castle of Le Puiset in 1111 may be taken as a fair description of the
-methods employed by the besiegers and defenders of an ordinary castle
-of earthwork and timber. The king brought numerous <i>ballistae</i> to the
-attack, but we have no indication as to their precise nature: the main
-weapons employed were the bow, sword, and shield. The besieged came out
-of the castle to meet the king; but, amid a hail of arrows from both
-sides, were driven back through the main gateway, which was possibly,
-as at Tickhill,<a id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">76</a> the only stone defence of the enclosure. From the
-rampart of their stronghold, they hurled down wooden planks and stakes
-upon the king’s knights. The besiegers, throwing away their broken
-shields, made use of the missiles to protect themselves and force the
-gateway. Carts laden with dry wood smeared with fat were brought up
-to the doors, and a struggle took place, the royalists trying to set
-the wood on fire, the defenders trying to put the fire out. Meanwhile
-Theobald of Chartres made an attack on the castle from another quarter,
-attempting to climb the steep scarp of the bailey. His followers,
-however, were too hasty: many fell back into the ditch, while others
-were surprised and killed by horsemen of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_68">68</a></span> the enemy, who galloped round
-the defences of the castle to keep out intruders. The royalists had
-almost given up hope, when a priest, bare-headed and holding before
-him a piece of wood as an extemporised mantlet, reached the palisade,
-and began to tear away the planks which covered the spaces between the
-uprights. He was soon joined by others, who cut away the palisade with
-axes and iron tools. The royal army poured into the castle, and the
-defenders, taken between the entering force and Theobald’s men, retired
-into the timber tower on the mount, but surrendered in fear. The king
-burned the castle, but spared the donjon.<a id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">77</a></p>
-
-<p>The assault upon a stone castle or walled town was conducted by direct
-attempts upon the walls themselves, for which movable machines were
-necessary, and by throwing stones or inflammable materials into the
-besieged enclosure from stationary machines. The chief engine used
-directly against the walls was the battering-ram, an enormous pole,
-furnished with an iron head. Hung by chains within a wooden framework
-placed on wheels, it was brought up to the wall, and driven against
-it again and again. The men who worked the ram were protected by
-a pent-house with a rounded or gabled top, called the “tortoise”
-(<i>testudo</i>), which covered the machine and its framework. The roof of
-the “tortoise” was made very solidly, to resist missiles thrown from
-the ramparts, and the whole was covered with raw hides or some other
-incombustible material, as a precaution against fire thrown by the
-defenders (<a href="#i_069">69</a>).<a id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">78</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_69">69</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_069">
-<img src="images/i_069.jpg" width="358" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Battering-ram protected by pent-house and mantlets</p></div>
-
-<p>While the ram delivered its blows upon the face of the wall, sappers
-and miners, sheltered by a smaller pent-house, known as the “mouse,”
-“cat,” or “sow,” made their attack upon the foundations with the bore
-(<i>terebra</i>), a heavy pole with a sharp iron head, which slowly broke
-up the stonework and hollowed out a cavity at the foundation of the
-walls (<a href="#i_070">70</a>). This work was assisted by sappers, who, advancing to the
-wall beneath the shelter of inclined frames of timber or wicker-work,
-known as mantlets, which they wheeled in front of them, hacked away
-the stone-work with picks. When a sufficient hollow had been made, the
-miners underpinned the wall with logs, set fire to them, and retired.
-This device was constantly used throughout the middle ages to effect a
-breach, and was successful at Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_70">70</a></span> in 1204,<a id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">79</a> and on
-other occasions; but it obviously must have taken much time, and must
-often have failed of its purpose.</p>
-
-<p>Before, however, the movable engines could be brought to play upon the
-stonework, it was necessary to fill up the ditch in front of the walls.
-This work was done by soldiers, who, under the protection of mantlets,
-flung into the ditch all the loose material on which they could lay
-hands. When the Danes used their battering-rams against the northern
-<i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i> at Paris, the first thing which they attempted to do
-was to fill the ditch, using even the dead bodies of their captives
-when other material failed.<a id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">80</a> At Jerusalem in 1099, before Raymond
-of Toulouse could bring up his “timber castle”<a id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">81</a> to the walls, a
-deep natural hollow had to be filled. The work took three days and
-nights: every man who put three stones into the hollow was promised a
-penny.<a id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">82</a> Philip Augustus in February 1203-4 began his operations upon
-Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard by filling the ditch between the outer ward and his
-lines, while his catapults played upon the masonry from a distance and
-protected the workers between them and the wall.<a id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">83</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_070">
-<img src="images/i_070.jpg" width="450" height="239" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Bore protected by mantlets</p></div>
-
-<p>While the battering-ram, the bore, and the mine threatened the
-stability of the walls, parties of the besiegers attempted to force
-an entry into the stronghold. The simple method of bringing up fuel
-to the main gateway, and burning down the door, was frustrated, in
-process of time, by greater attention to the defences of the gateway,
-and the reinforcement of its doors by herses or portcullises.<a id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">84</a>
-Scaling-ladders<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_71">71</a></span> were moved up against the walls: the daring spirits
-who climbed these drew up with them other ladders, by which they could
-descend into the enclosure. Another method of scaling walls was by the
-movable “<a id="belfry">belfry</a>,” a tower of several stories, in each of which a number
-of men could be sheltered. The floor of the uppermost stage of the
-tower was approximately on a level with the top of the ramparts, and a
-drawbridge thrown out from it, when it was wheeled close to the wall,
-formed a passage for the besiegers. The occupants of the lower stages
-could mount by stairs to the top floor, and thus a considerable body
-of men could come to close quarters with the defenders (<a href="#i_072">72</a>).<a id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">85</a> These
-movable towers could be quickly constructed, where wood of sufficient
-scantling was procurable. Philip’s belfries at Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard
-were composed of tree-trunks, untouched by the plane: all that the
-carpenters had done to smooth them was to cut off the branches with
-an axe.<a id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">86</a> In early instances of the employment of such towers, they
-seem to have been chiefly used for bringing the small artillery of
-the besiegers close to the walls. At Marrah in 1098, the Crusader
-Raymond of Toulouse had a very lofty wooden “belfry,” of a height equal
-to that of the towers on the town wall, made upon four wheels. Huge
-stones were hurled and arrows shot from it upon the defenders of the
-walls, and grappling-irons were thrust out to catch unwary persons with
-their hooks. The walls were eventually climbed by scaling ladders of
-the ordinary kind: if there was a drawbridge in connection with the
-machine, it does not seem to have been used.<a id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">87</a> Antioch, earlier in
-the same year, was entered by scaling ladders.<a id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">88</a> The belfry used
-by Henry I. at Pontaudemer in 1123 was a movable tower, but was not
-used for purposes of scaling. It was actually 24 feet higher than the
-rampart: bow-men and arbalasters directed their arrows and bolts from
-it upon the defenders, while others threw stones down from it.<a id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">89</a> Not
-even at Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard is there much reason to suppose that Philip
-used his belfries to scale the walls. The miners and catapults did
-the chief work, by opening breaches in the masonry of the outer and
-inner wards: the middle ward alone was gained by an escalade, and this
-was effected by a small body of men, who<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_72">72</a><br /><a id="Page_73">73</a></span> climbed through unguarded
-openings in the substructure of the chapel, and so were able to unbar
-the gates of the ward to the main body of the army.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_072">
-<img src="images/i_072.jpg" width="358" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Besiegers scaling walls from movable belfry</p></div>
-
-<p>The great siege-engines, capable of shooting stones or bolts,
-which were often heated red-hot in an oven before delivery, from a
-considerable distance, did their work from the background. The men who
-looked after them were protected by a palisade, placed in front of the
-engines; this was the case with Philip’s engineers at Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard.
-These machines are often indiscriminately called “stone-throwers”
-(<i>petrariae</i>, <i>pierri&egrave;res</i>) or catapults; and accounts of them differ
-very considerably. It is clear that, in Roman and Byzantine warfare,
-the two main types of engine were the stone-throwing machine, known
-later as the mangon or mangonel, and the machine for shooting javelins,
-known as <i>ballista</i>.<a id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">90</a> The first consisted of an upright flexible
-beam between two solid upright posts. Cords were stretched from post
-to post and wound round the beam. The beam was then drawn back with
-the aid of winches and a stone placed in a hollow in its head; it was
-then suddenly let go, so that the twisted cords slackened, and the
-stone flew towards its mark, describing a high ellipse in its flight.
-The force by which the <i>ballista</i> was worked, depended, not on twisted
-cords, but on the tension of the cord which joined the two extremities
-of a great bow, and was attached to the movable grooved piece in
-which the javelin was placed. The tension released, the javelin was
-discharged. While the <i>ballista</i> could be discharged with a definite
-aim, the aim of the stone-throwing machine could be only general, and
-its chief use was to cast stones which, by their elliptic flight,
-dropped inside the walls of the besieged place.<a id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">91</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_074">
-<img src="images/i_074.jpg" width="450" height="441" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Engine for shooting javelins</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_074_2">
-<img src="images/i_074_2.jpg" width="600" height="363" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Stone-throwing engine</p></div>
-
-<p>The <i>ballista</i>, which was simply a huge bow, capable of shooting
-enormous bolts by the tension of a horizontal cord, was developed
-upon a small scale into the cross-bow or arbalast, which could be
-carried and managed by one man. The cross-bow was invented, or at
-any rate re-invented, in northern Europe towards the end<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_74">74</a></span> of the
-eleventh century, it was employed in the first Crusade, and struck
-the Byzantines as a novelty.<a id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">92</a> The development of the larger
-engines seems to have proceeded with a view to stone-throwing, and
-combinations of the machines mentioned above may have been employed
-for this purpose.<a id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">93</a> Viollet-le-Duc, in his elaborate reconstructions
-of siege-machines, shows, for example, a mangon with a central upright
-post, working on a pivot, in a slot near the top of which is fixed a
-javelin. This post is strengthened by two diagonal beams fixed to the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_75">75</a></span>
-back of the framework, which moves on the same pivot, at the foot of
-the machine. Between these the flexible beam which propels the javelin
-is fastened by a cord working through a pulley to a winch turned by
-a man, and a bundle of cords is tightly twisted round the central
-post and the beam (<a href="#i_074">74</a>). He also shows a large stone-throwing engine
-on a wheeled carriage, which, in addition to an apparatus of twisted
-cords held in place by a system of ratchet wheels, and bound round the
-movable beam, has a cord stretched round the back of the beam, and
-connected with two huge springs forming a bow. The centre of the bow
-is a massive upright framework of wood, which acts as a buffer to the
-beam, when it is allowed to fly<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_76">76</a></span> forward and discharge the stone (<a href="#i_074">74</a>).
-Minute as these reconstructions are, they seem to improve upon the data
-supplied by medieval writers and the pictures in MSS. Guillaume le
-Breton, the panegyrist of Philip Augustus, describes the stone-throwing
-machine used at the siege of Boves in 1185, as a great sling worked by
-several men, which threw immense rocks of great weight. The beam to
-which the projectile was attached worked on an axis, and was dragged
-backwards to the ground with ropes, and then set free.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_075">
-<img src="images/i_075.jpg" width="339" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Tr&eacute;buchet or Slinging machine</p></div>
-
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_076">
-<img src="images/i_076.jpg" width="539" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Tr&eacute;buchet with ropes attached to counterpoise</p></div>
-
-<p>This description suggests that the beam, balanced on an axis, and
-needing several people to attend to the discharge at one end, was
-worked by a counterpoise at the other. This was the case with the
-developed slinging machine, known as <i>tr&eacute;buchet</i>. A pole, working on
-a pivot between two upright stands, was weighted at one end with a
-heavy wooden chest, filled with earth, which kept the pole, when not
-in use, in a vertical position. To the other end was attached a long
-sling, capable of containing large stones. When the tension of the
-ropes which dragged the pole backwards and lifted the counterpoise was
-released, the counterpoise fell heavily, bringing the pole abruptly
-back into position, and the sling, describing a circle in the air, let
-fly the stone when it reached the summit of the arc (<a href="#i_075">75</a>). Variations
-of this form of catapult, which became general in the thirteenth
-century, are found (<a href="#i_076">76</a>); the machine known as <i>cabulus</i> which Philip
-Augustus used with excellent effect against the strong inner wall
-of Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, was possibly worked upon the principle of
-counterpoise.</p>
-
-<p>Against these modes and machines of attack the defenders of a castle
-had to contend. The obvious means of defence was to oppose to the enemy
-a thickness of wall which would be proof against the blows of the ram
-or the slow labour of the pick. But even the very strong inner wall
-at Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, which was constructed with the special object of
-resisting these engines,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_77">77</a></span> yielded to the miners, reinforced by the
-great slinging machine. In this instance the castle had undergone
-a long blockade; its communications had been cut off some months
-beforehand; and the garrison was greatly reduced in numbers. The lesson
-of the siege was that against a persistent and well-conducted blockade
-mere passive strength was of little avail. Here, too, the defenders,
-driven back from one bailey to another, seem to have renounced the
-opportunity of final shelter afforded them by the keep, and to have
-made an attempt to evacuate the castle by a postern before they fell
-into the hands of the enemy.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_077">
-<img src="images/i_077.jpg" width="600" height="461" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Aigues-Mortes</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_078">
-<img src="images/i_078.jpg" width="513" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carcassonne</p></div>
-
-<p>Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, however, and the castles of its period will be
-discussed in detail in the sequel. At present, we are concerned with
-the direct methods employed to meet the attack of siege-engines
-and attempts at escalade. Against the great catapults the besieged
-were practically powerless. The use of such machines upon the walls
-themselves was as dangerous to the stability of the masonry as their
-use by the enemy, and hastened the chance of a breach: they could not
-be employed from the interior of the enclosure, without endangering
-the defenders on the rampart.<a id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">94</a> The summit of the rectangular<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_78">78</a></span>
-keep of the twelfth century was never constructed as a platform for
-artillery: here, again, engineers probably feared the effect of the
-constant vibration upon a flat wooden roof, and were content to conceal
-their ridged roofs within high ramparts. The main arm of defence which
-could be employed by the defenders was the cross-bow. Their superior
-position upon the ramparts enabled them to throw down stones and
-burning material upon the assailants engaged at the foot of the wall,
-and the wheeled belfries formed a direct target for their arrows. The
-ram could<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_79">79</a></span> also be paralysed by letting down grappling-irons or beams
-with forked heads, which gripped and disabled it; or sacks of wool or
-earth could be lowered to meet its strokes. The assailants, however,
-worked under their defences of pent-houses and mantlets, the solid tops
-and sloping surfaces of which were specially devised against the shock
-of stones and arrows; while, as we have seen, their coverings were so
-protected that it was difficult for them to catch fire.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_079">
-<img src="images/i_079.jpg" width="316" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Parapet defended by hoarding, showing elevation, section through
-<i>hourd</i> and <i>coursi&egrave;re</i>, and method of construction</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_080">
-<img src="images/i_080.jpg" width="438" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Laval</p></div>
-
-<p>The first improvements in defence, designed to meet an improved attack,
-consisted in the protection of the ramparts. Behind the outer parapet
-of the wall was the rampart-walk, a level path along the top of the
-wall, which was sometimes protected by a parapet in the rear. From an
-early date in stone fortification, it was customary to break the upper
-portion of the parapet at intervals by openings called crenellations,
-through which it was possible for an archer to command a limited part
-of the field at right angles to the wall.<a id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">95</a> The crenellations,
-however, were narrow compared with the unbroken parapets between them,
-and, even in advanced examples of fortification like the ramparts
-of Aigues-Mortes (<a href="#i_077">77</a>) and Carcassonne (<a href="#i_078">78</a>), these unbroken pieces
-are still very broad, although they are pierced by arrow-slits. Even
-allowing for an arrow-slit between each crenellation, the foot of the
-wall could not be commanded from behind the parapet. In time of siege,
-then, it became customary to supply the walls with projecting wooden
-galleries, known as hoardings or brattices (<i>hourds</i>, <i>bret&egrave;ches</i>),
-which could be entered through the crenellations. The joists of the
-flooring passed through holes at the foot<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_80">80</a></span> of the parapet, and were
-often common to the outer gallery and an inner gallery (<i>coursi&egrave;re</i>)
-covering the rampart-walk. Both galleries had a common roof.<a id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">96</a> In the
-floor of the outer gallery, between the joists, were holes, through
-which missiles could be directed upon the besiegers at the foot of the
-wall; while slits in the outer face were still available for straight
-firing. The defenders of the ramparts were thus able to work under
-shelter, with some command both of the field and the foot of the wall.
-The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_81">81</a></span> defensive advantages of this scheme are obvious; but the galleries
-were also liable, although the usual precautions for their covering
-were taken, to destruction by fire, whether from arrows tipped with
-burning tow, or the more formidable red-hot stones flung by catapults.
-In any case, the catapults were a serious menace to their solidity.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_081">
-<img src="images/i_081.jpg" width="455" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Coucy; parapet of donjon</p></div>
-
-<p>The donjon and the towers of the <i>enceinte</i> were also bratticed
-at the rampart-level.<a id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">97</a> Indications of this practice are common
-in military architecture abroad. The cylindrical donjon of Laval
-(<a href="#i_080">80</a>), a work of the twelfth century, is covered with hoarding which
-is supposed to be contemporary with the tower. The stone corbels
-which carried the hoarding of the great thirteenth-century tower of
-Coucy remain; and a row of plain arches pierced in the tall parapet
-show how the gallery was entered<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_82">82</a></span> from the roof (<a href="#i_080">81</a>). The somewhat
-earlier round tower at Rouen was restored by Viollet-le-Duc on the
-lines of Coucy, with a conical roof and hoarding. The inner wall at
-Carcassonne and the curtain of Loches, among other examples, keep the
-holes in which the joists of the hoarding were fixed; and the walls
-of Nuremberg are still covered with inner galleries or <i>coursi&egrave;res</i>.
-The practice of supplementing stone walls with timber defences lasted
-till a late period; but, even before the end of the twelfth century,
-corbelled-out parapets with machicolations appeared in isolated
-instances. In subsequent chapters we shall see how military masons and
-engineers applied their architectural skill to meet the problems which
-siege-engines of greater strength and tactics more finished than those
-of the past forced upon them. We have now to deal with earlier efforts,
-which we have to some degree anticipated.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_83">83</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V<br />
-<br />
-THE BEGINNING OF THE STONE CASTLE</h2></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_84">84</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_084">
-<img src="images/i_084.jpg" width="454" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Map of principal castles in north-east England</p></div>
-
-<p>In Domesday Book some fifty castles are mentioned by name or
-implication; and the number was largely increased during the next
-hundred years. In view, however, of the large number of temporary
-private strongholds which came into being during the twelfth century,
-it is difficult to estimate the number of permanent castles until, in
-the later part of the century, Henry II. regulated and restrained the
-efforts of private owners to guard their property with fortresses. The
-castles included in Domesday do not represent the whole number which
-existed at that period; and of such important castles as Colchester and
-Exeter, which we know to have been founded before 1086, there is no
-mention. To estimate the strategic plan which governed the foundation
-of castles at its full value, we must therefore turn for a moment
-to the later period at which the defence of England by a connected
-system of these strongholds had been more thoroughly achieved. Here
-also, it is not altogether easy, in view of the destruction of older
-castles by Henry II., and the foundation of new ones at a later
-epoch, to estimate the exact state of the castles of England at the
-end of the twelfth century.<a id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">98</a> But, taking one special district, we
-may at least gain an approximate notion of its lines of defence as
-they existed about the year 1200. This is the north-eastern district
-of England, containing the main strategic approach to Scotland, and
-crossed by the rivers which descend eastwards to the sea. This was the
-scene of the rebellion of the Mowbrays and the invasion of William
-the Lion in 1174, in consequence of which four important castles
-at least, those of Kinnard’s Ferry on the lower Trent, Thirsk and
-Northallerton in the vale of Mowbray, and Kirkby Malzeard, on the
-highlands above the right bank of the Ure, were demolished.<a id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">99</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_85">85</a></span> The
-chief castles of this district will be found to guard the line of
-the rivers. On the Trent were Nottingham, on the north bank, and the
-bishop of Lincoln’s castle of Newark,<a id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">100</a> on the south; while the
-greater part of the lower valley of the river was commanded at some
-distance by the strongly-placed castles of Belvoir and Lincoln. On
-the borders of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, Tickhill<a id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">101</a> stood in
-advance of the Don, while the narrow passage of the Don, five miles
-west of Doncaster, was guarded by Conisbrough. These castles defended
-the approach from the high land on the west; the marshy country north
-and east of Doncaster, towards the Humber, although it often proved
-a refuge for freebooters, needed no permanent garrison. South of the
-Calder, opposite Wakefield, stood Sandal. To the east, below the
-junction of the Calder and the Aire, was Pontefract, in a position of
-great strength and importance.<a id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">102</a> There was no great castle on the
-Wharfe, although Harewood guarded the south bank of the river between
-Otley and Tadcaster, and at Tadcaster itself there was a castle, of
-which little is known; Cawood castle was simply a manor-house of the
-archbishops of York.<a id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">103</a> On the Ouse, almost in the centre of the
-shire, were the two castles of York, at the head of the tideway.
-Knaresborough was west of York, on the north bank of the Nidd. Each of
-the dales of the North Riding had its strong castle. In Wensleydale was
-Middleham, south of the Ure. Richmond, from its cliff at the mouth of
-Swaledale, commanded a vast tract of country, reaching to the Hambleton
-hills and the forest of Galtres, north of York. Barnard Castle stood
-in a strong position on the Durham bank of the Tees. The castles of
-the eastern part of the North Riding were Skelton and Castleton, both
-in Cleveland, and belonging to the house of Bruce. Helmsley stood at
-the entrance of Ryedale; Pickering and Malton were on the Derwent,
-and Scarborough guarded the coast. South of Scarborough, in the East
-Riding, the one castle of importance at this date was Skipsea, on the
-low coast-line<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_86">86</a></span> of Holderness, between Flamborough and Spurn heads.
-Returning to the border of Durham, and crossing the Tees, we find
-Brancepeth and Durham on the Wear. On the south bank of the Tyne was
-Prudhoe in Northumberland: north of the Tyne was the great fortress of
-Newcastle. Most of the castles and small strongholds of Northumberland
-were the growth of a later age. The principal castles at this period
-were Mitford on the Wansbeck, Warkworth on the Coquet, Alnwick on the
-Alne, Wark and Norham on the Tweed, and Bamburgh and Holy Island,
-castles on the seaboard. This list might be extended, but the most
-important fortresses east of the Pennine chain are included in it,
-and from it the strategic geography of this important district can
-be readily recognised. Of the thirty-four castles in this list, ten,
-including the gateway-tower at Newark, had rectangular tower-keeps, of
-which nine remain; Conisbrough and Barnard Castle (<a href="#i_087">87</a>) had cylindrical
-tower-keeps. Of the rest, in most cases, as at Sandal (<a href="#i_086">86</a>), the mounts
-remain, and in a few instances, as at Skipsea, there are remains of
-a shell-keep. The shell-keeps of Lincoln and Pickering are still
-excellent examples of their type. The masonry at York, Pontefract, and
-Knaresborough belongs to a later period; and in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_87">87</a></span> almost all instances,
-where masonry remains, it bears trace of substantial later additions.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_086">
-<img src="images/i_086.jpg" width="600" height="448" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Sandal Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_087">
-<img src="images/i_087.jpg" width="600" height="369" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Barnard Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>It will be noticed that castles which guarded passes through hilly
-districts were generally placed, like Middleham and Richmond, in
-comparatively open country at the foot of the pass. This was the
-case with Welsh castles like Brecon and Llandovery, or the tower of
-Dolbadarn, below the pass of Llanberis. The isolated position at the
-head of a pass was not easily victualled, nor was it so useful as the
-situation on more open ground, from which, as at Brecon or Middleham, a
-larger extent of mountain country could be commanded. Trecastle (<a href="#i_044">44</a>),
-at the top of the pass between Brecon and Llandovery, has already been
-mentioned as a site which was probably abandoned early: the tract which
-it commanded is limited compared with that within reach of Brecon, the
-point towards which all the valleys of the neighbourhood converge.</p>
-
-<p>In places where a castle formed part of the defences of a walled town,
-it was usually placed upon the line of the wall, so that the wall
-formed for some distance part of its curtain. This can be well seen
-at Lincoln, where the castle occupied the south-west angle of the
-older Roman city. The castle of Ludlow is in the north-west angle of
-the town, the wall of which joined it on its north face and at its
-south-west corner. At Carlisle the castle filled up an angle of the
-town, the town<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_88">88</a></span> walls meeting its south curtain at either end. In such
-cases, the castle, while defending the town, was also protected from
-it by a ditch, across which a passage was furnished by a drawbridge.
-The castle of Bristol stood upon the isthmus, east of the town, between
-the streams of the Avon and Frome, and, in this strong position, was
-joined by the city wall at either extremity of its west side. In 1313,
-when the citizens were in rebellion, they cut off the castle from
-the city by building a new wall on that side.<a id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">104</a> In the case of
-Bristol, the building of the castle made some alterations in the town
-wall necessary, as time went on, but, from the beginning, the castle
-occupied its place in the regular <i>enceinte</i>. If, at York, the castles
-were at first built, as seems to be the case, outside the defences
-of the town, the circuit was soon extended to include the castle, at
-any rate, upon the right bank of the river. Although the castle of
-Southampton is almost entirely gone, the points of junction of its
-curtains with the west wall of the town are quite clear. Similarly,
-the position of castles such as Shrewsbury, Leicester, and Nottingham,
-or close to the <i>enceinte</i> of the town, can be traced, although little
-is left of the walls. In foreign walled towns like Angers or Laval,
-the castle formed, as in England, a portion of the outer defences. In
-later castles like Carnarvon and Conway, the same relation to the plan
-of the town was preserved. There are exceptions, of which the chief is
-the Tower of London, within the Roman, but outside the medieval city
-wall. Chepstow is also outside the town, between which and the castle
-is a deep ravine: but in this case the town was of a growth subsequent
-to the foundation of the castle. A distinction must be drawn between
-castles founded in connection with fortified towns, in which the castle
-formed part of a general scheme of defence, as at Bristol and Oxford,
-and castles under the protection of which towns, like Chepstow, grew
-up, and were subsequently fortified. A good example of this latter
-class is Newcastle, in which the relations of town and castle are
-exactly opposite to those at Chepstow. When the castle was founded by
-the Conqueror, the place, once garrisoned by the Romans, and for a time
-inhabited by a colony of English monks, was probably an inconsiderable
-village. The town which grew up on the site took its name from the
-castle, and was walled in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The
-walls, however, were brought down to the banks of the Tyne at some
-distance east and west of the castle, which was thus contained entirely
-within their circuit. At Norwich, a place of no great importance before
-the Conquest, the castle is also entirely within the line of the old<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_89">89</a></span>
-city wall. One of the best examples of the connection between a walled
-town and a castle is at Launceston, where the borough of Dunheved grew
-up within a narrow area which was virtually the outer ward of the
-strong hill-fortress.</p>
-
-<p>The establishment of a castle upon a permanent site was followed,
-sooner or later, by the building of stone fortifications. This work
-was often very gradual. We have seen that even a castle so important
-as that of York retained part of its timber stockade as late as 1324.
-This, however, was an exceptional case. The walls and towers of
-medieval castles show, as might be expected, a considerable variety of
-masonry; but the epoch at which their fortification in stone became
-general may be said to be the third quarter of the twelfth century. In
-1155 Henry II. resumed castles and other royal property into his own
-hands, and ordered the destruction of the unlicensed castles which had
-risen during the civil wars of the previous reign.<a id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">105</a> This step was
-followed unquestionably by much activity in strengthening the defences
-of the castles which were left.</p>
-
-<p>At the same time, there are many substantial remains of stone
-buildings in castles earlier than this era. Stone donjons or keeps
-were certainly exceptional in England before the reign of Henry II.,
-although there are a few important examples of an earlier date. It
-cannot be disputed, however, that a certain number of castles were
-provided with a stone curtain-wall<a id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">106</a> and other stone buildings not
-long after the Conquest. Curtain-walls thus built would follow the line
-of the earthen bank surrounding the bailey, and take the place of the
-timber stockade. They were at first of the simplest form. An edict of
-the council of Lillebonne in 1080 laid down the rule, so far as the
-Norman duchy was concerned, for constructing the defences of private
-castles; and, although the details refer primarily to the ordinary
-timber structure, they also have a bearing on the construction of early
-curtains of stone. No ditch was to be deeper than the level from which
-earth could be thrown by the digger, without other help, to the soil
-above. The stockade was to follow a course of straight lines, and to
-be without <i>propugnacula</i> and <i>alatoria</i>—<i>i.e.</i>, projecting towers and
-battlements, and rampart-walks or galleries.<a id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">107</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_90">90</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The earliest type of curtain-wall would be strictly in accordance with
-these rules—a strong wall of stone surrounding the bailey, and climbing
-the sides of the mount to join the defences of the donjon. We read
-of the destruction by Louis VI. of France of the stone fortification
-with which the house of the lord of Maule was surrounded;<a id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">108</a> and the
-edict already quoted applies to fortifications on level ground, and
-includes, not merely castles, but strong private houses, which might
-not necessarily follow the castle plan. The edict, however, proceeds
-to forbid altogether the construction by private persons of castles
-on rocks or islands. The reason of this is obvious. Such isolated
-strongholds might become, in the hands of private owners, a centre
-of rebellion against the suzerain. In 1083, Hubert of Maine held out
-successfully against the Conqueror in his rock castle of Ste-Suzanne
-(Mayenne) on the Erve, “inaccessible by reason of the rocks and the
-thickness of the surrounding vineyards.”<a id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">109</a> William II. in 1095
-besieged Robert Mowbray in his castle on the well-nigh impregnable
-rock of Bamburgh, with considerably better fortune.<a id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">110</a> Such rocks
-formed, as it were, natural mounts which made the construction of the
-ordinary mount-and-bailey castle upon them unnecessary. The hardness
-of the soil, moreover, made the construction of earthworks difficult
-or impossible. The natural method of defence would be to raise a stone
-wall which enclosed the stronghold.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_91">91</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_091">
-<img src="images/i_091.jpg" width="600" height="432" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">BAMBURGH CASTLE: great tower</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_091_2">
-<img src="images/i_091_2.jpg" width="600" height="430" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">BAMBURGH CASTLE</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_093">
-<img src="images/i_093.jpg" width="339" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Richmond; great tower</p></div>
-
-<p>Neither at Ste-Suzanne nor at Bamburgh (<a href="#i_091">91</a>) is there existing
-stonework earlier than the twelfth century. Of the castle of
-Saint-C&eacute;neri-le-G&eacute;rei (Orne), which we know to have been fortified
-with stone walls before the end of the eleventh century,<a id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">111</a> only
-indistinguishable masses of masonry remain to-day. On the other hand,
-there are a certain number of castles on rocky and isolated sites, the
-walls of which may be fairly attributed, in whole or part, to the later
-half of the eleventh century. The most important example is Richmond
-castle in Yorkshire (<a href="#i_091">91</a>), on a high promontory of rock above the Swale.
-The shape of the enclosure is triangular. The most conspicuous feature
-of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_93">93</a></span> castle is the splendid square tower or donjon, which was
-completed between 1170 and 1180, and stands on the north side of the
-<i>enceinte</i>, at the head of the approach from the town. The curtain,
-however, west of the donjon, contains “herring-bone” masonry,<a id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">112</a> and
-is of a rough construction which affords the greatest contrast to the
-regularly dressed and closely jointed masonry of the great tower. The
-tower, on three sides, forms an outward projection from the curtain,
-of great size and strength, and is a structure of one period from the
-ground upwards. But, on entering the castle, it is at once obvious
-that the lower part of the south wall of the tower is formed by part
-of the earlier curtain. In the middle of this section of the work is a
-wide doorway, with a round-headed arch of two unmoulded orders, which
-now forms an entrance into the basement of the tower. The capitals
-of the jamb-shafts of this archway are of an unmistakably eleventh
-century character, with volutes at the upper angles, and a row of
-acanthus leaves round the bell. This type of capital is seen in such
-buildings as the two abbey churches at Caen, the nave of Christchurch<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_94">94</a></span>
-priory, the west front of Lincoln minster, and other fabrics completed
-before 1100, and is a sure guide to the date of the work in which it
-occurs. It would appear, then, that the masonry of this archway and
-much of the curtain is the work of Alan of Brittany, earl of Richmond,
-who certainly founded the castle, and died in 1088.<a id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">113</a> The castle
-contains more work of his date, of which something will be said in the
-sequel.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_094">
-<img src="images/i_094.jpg" width="536" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Ludlow; Entrance to inner ward</p></div>
-
-<p>When the great tower of Richmond was built, an entrance<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_95">95</a></span> was made on
-the first floor, from the rampart-walk of the curtain. It is quite
-clear that, up to this time, the archway just described had been the
-main entrance of the castle, and had probably been covered on the
-side next the town by a rectangular building, which formed the lower
-stage of a gateway-tower or gatehouse, lower than the present donjon.
-This is borne out by a comparison with the keep at Ludlow, where it
-is quite clear that an eleventh century gatehouse was converted at a
-later period into a keep, by walling up the outer entrance (<a href="#i_094">94</a>). A
-new entrance to the castle, as at Richmond, was made in the adjacent
-curtain, where it could be easily commanded by the tower. The date of
-the lowest stage of the donjon is revealed, as at Richmond, by the
-details of capitals and shafts, which in this case belong to an arcade
-in the east wall of the inner portion (<a href="#i_095">95</a>).<a id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">114</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_095">
-<img src="images/i_095.jpg" width="450" height="419" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Ludlow; Wall arcade in basement of great tower</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_096">
-<img src="images/i_096.jpg" width="449" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Ludlow; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The site of Ludlow (<a href="#i_096">96</a>), like that of Richmond, is a rocky peninsula,
-where a stone curtain, for which material existed on the spot, formed
-the obvious means of defence. There was no mount and no keep. Exeter,
-again, is an early example of a stone-walled castle upon a rocky site,
-where a gateway with a tower above formed the principal entrance.
-Such sites were protected naturally by the fall of the ground on the
-steeper sides; the side on which approach was possible was covered by
-a ditch cut in the rock. The ditch would be crossed by a drawbridge,
-let down from the inner edge, next the gateway. The gatehouse itself
-would be a building of two or more stages; at Ludlow the upper stage,
-as completed, was considerably loftier than the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_96">96</a></span> lower.<a id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">115</a> At Exeter
-there were probably three stages. A single upper stage remains at
-Tickhill. At Lewes and Porchester there is clear evidence of an upper
-chamber. The gatehouse at Porchester, as at Ludlow, was the entrance
-to an inner ward, divided by a ditch from the large outer ward,<a id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">116</a>
-which, at Porchester, represented the greater part of the <i>enceinte</i> of
-the Roman station, and contained the priory church and buildings. In
-these early gatehouses, the lower stage was closed at either end by a
-heavy wooden door, and was covered by a flat ceiling of timber. There
-was no arrangement for a portcullis. At Ludlow the lower stage appears
-to have been divided into an outer porch and inner hall by a cross
-wall, in which there must have been a door; but communication between
-these parts was also obtained by a narrow barrel-vaulted passage in the
-thickness of the east wall, which, opening from the outer division,
-turned at right angles to itself in the direction of the length of the
-wall, and, with another right-angled turn, opened into the inner hall
-(<a href="#i_095">95</a>). This passage was guarded by doors, which opened inwards at either
-end.<a id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">117</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_97">97</a></span> When the outer doorway of the gatehouse was blocked, the
-lower stage was covered in with a pointed barrel-vault.<a id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">118</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_097">
-<img src="images/i_097.jpg" width="432" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Porchester; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>As already indicated, the details of these gatehouses are very simple,
-and it is only where an attempt is made at ornament that their date
-can be fairly judged. Thus at Porchester, the entrance archway, masked
-by defensive work of a more advanced period, consists of an unmoulded
-ring of <i>voussoirs</i>, divided from the jambs by plain impost-blocks. The
-outer bailey or base-court of the castle, which is still surrounded by
-the Roman walls with their semicircular bastions, has two gatehouses.
-These occupy the sites of the west and east gates of the Roman
-<i>enceinte</i>, and the east or water-gate is in part Roman. The western
-gatehouse was rebuilt at a date contemporary with the enclosure of the
-castle proper within the north-west quarter of the Roman station, and
-was much altered at a later period. The archways of the Norman building
-remain, and show no attempt at ornament, the inner one alone having
-impost-blocks below the arches. The work at Porchester is usually
-attributed to the early part of the twelfth century, and the ashlar
-facing of the side walls of the inner gateway appears to be of that
-date. A similar severity of detail is seen in the parallel case of
-Lewes, where the original gatehouse was also covered in the fourteenth
-century by a barbican (<a href="#i_098">98</a>). The great gatehouse of three stages, at
-Newark castle (<a href="#i_099">99</a>), was the work of Alexander, bishop of Lincoln from
-1123 to 1148, whose uncle,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_98">98</a></span> Roger, bishop of Salisbury (1107-39),
-appears to have built the gatehouse at Sherborne. The archways of the
-lower stage at Newark are of great width, and are as simple in detail
-as those at Porchester. The outer or northern wall of the tower is
-faced with finely-jointed ashlar, and the archway on this side has a
-hood-moulding, with billet ornament.<a id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">119</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_098">
-<img src="images/i_098.jpg" width="502" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Lewes; Barbican</p></div>
-
-<p>The position of the gatehouse in relation to the curtain varies. At
-Richmond, Porchester, and Exeter the inner face of the gatehouse was
-flush with the curtain. At Ludlow, Newark, and Tickhill it was partly
-outside, but mostly inside the curtain. At Lewes the projection was
-wholly internal. Its measurements also vary. Porchester was 23 feet
-in length by 28 feet in breadth: Exeter and Lewes were about 30 feet,
-Tickhill about 36 feet square: Ludlow was 31 feet broad, but was some
-feet longer. The area of the gatehouse at Newark is larger than any,
-and the general proportions and elevation<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_99">99</a></span> were those of a rectangular
-donjon rather than a mere gateway-tower.<a id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">120</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_099">
-<img src="images/i_099.jpg" width="313" height="450" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Newark; Gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<p>Stress has been laid on the occurrence of early stone fortifications
-on rocky and precipitous sites, where the ordinary earthworks were at
-once impracticable and unnecessary. It will be noted, however, that
-the gatehouses which have been described are not found wholly in such
-positions. Tickhill and Lewes were mount-and-bailey castles with strong
-earthworks. Porchester is on level ground, open to Portsmouth harbour
-on two sides, and defended by a ditch on the sides towards the land:
-the site was already walled, but the rectangular keep appears to stand
-upon the base of an earlier mount, which may have been thrown up so
-as to enclose the Roman tower at the north-west angle of the station.
-Newark (<a href="#i_157">157</a>) stands on a moderate height above the meeting of the Devon
-and an arm of the Trent, with a deep ditch on the north and east sides
-towards the town. There was no castle here before Alexander began to
-build in or about 1130; and his work from the beginning consisted of
-a rectangular enclosure without a mount, in which the gatehouse had
-something of the importance of a keep. The necessity of defending the
-entrance of the castle, whatever the nature of the site might be, led
-to the construction of stone gatehouses at an early date; and, at
-Tickhill or Lewes, the gate-towers were probably constructed at a time
-when the mounts and embankments of the bailey were still defended by
-timber.</p>
-
-<p>Stone curtains which display “herring-bone” masonry may generally
-be assumed to be early in date. It has been customary to look upon
-“herring-bone” masonry as indicative of pre-Conquest work, and many
-buildings have been described as “Saxon” on the strength of this detail
-alone. On the other hand, it never occurs in direct association with
-details which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_100">100</a></span> may be regarded as definite criteria of pre-Conquest
-masonry; and the dimensions, apart from other features, of churches
-in which it is found in any quantity, usually afford suspicion of its
-post-Conquest origin.<a id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">121</a> Its use in castles, which, as has been
-shown, were a Norman importation into England, demolishes its claim to
-be regarded as a distinctive sign of Saxon work; and its employment
-in Normandy, especially in the donjon of Falaise, where almost the
-whole of the inner face of the walls shows “herring-bone” coursing,
-may be set against any theory which would attribute it to English
-masons after the Conquest.<a id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">122</a> It was used by Roman builders, and
-much of it may be seen in the towers of the <i>enceinte</i> at Porchester.
-Saxon builders, however, did not copy Roman methods of walling, and
-the surest criterion of Saxon work is the thin wall, wholly composed
-of dressed stone, or of rag-work without facings. Norman builders,
-coming from a country where the continuity of Roman influence was never
-broken, used the ordinary Roman method of a compound wall, in which
-a solid rubble core was faced with ashlar on one or both sides. It
-is only natural that in early stone castles, which were constructed
-as quickly as possible, the facing should be of a rough description,
-of coursed rubble or of “herring-bone” courses laid in thick beds
-of mortar. At a subsequent date, when masonry was added to already
-fortified sites, the work could be pursued in a more leisurely manner.
-The most striking example of “herring-bone” work in an English castle
-is in the cross-wall of the great tower at Colchester (<a href="#i_101">101</a>), which is
-unquestionably a building of the eleventh century. Here the work was
-evidently hurried on, with the object of securing the greatest amount
-of strength in the least possible time, and Roman tiles were re-used in
-large quantities as bonding courses for the rubble walls, and for the
-“herring-bone” coursing of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_101">101</a></span> dividing wall. At Richmond, as has been
-noted, there is a certain amount of “herring-bone” work in the curtain.
-The castle was founded on an entirely new site by Alan of Brittany:
-earthworks were out of the question, and the date of the older masonry
-of the stone wall is beyond dispute.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_101">
-<img src="images/i_101.jpg" width="600" height="286" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Colchester; Cross-wall</p></div>
-
-<p>A very remarkable example of “herring-bone” walling is the curtain-wall
-at Tamworth (<a href="#i_048">48</a>). The castle was founded by Robert Marmion after the
-Conquest on the low ground at the meeting of the Tame and Anker, the
-town, the fortified <i>burh</i> of &AElig;thelfl&aelig;d, being on higher ground to the
-north. Marmion’s fortress took the mount-and-bailey form. The bailey
-was a triangular platform of earth, raised artificially above the level
-of the river bank, with its apex towards the confluence of the streams.
-The mount was on its west side, and was divided from it by a ditch. The
-defences on the side next the town were of stone. Here the curtain-wall
-remains in very perfect condition, crossing the ditch and climbing
-the mount, with a sloping rampart-walk along the top. The inner face
-is composed entirely of “herring-bone” courses, alternating with one,
-two, and sometimes three, layers of thin horizontal stones. This
-appearance of more than one horizontal course is very unusual.<a id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">123</a>
-It is obvious that the site, being commanded by the town, would be
-materially strengthened by a stone wall on that side: on the south
-side, scarping and ditching would have been sufficient, and there is
-no trace of stone-work of an early period here. The original entrance
-was at the north-eastern angle of the enclosure, and probably took the
-form of a stone gatehouse.<a id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">124</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_102">102</a></span> Other instances of “herring-bone” work
-in curtain-walls that may be mentioned here are at Corfe, Hastings,
-and Lincoln. Corfe was built on an isolated hill, which was scarped
-and ditched, something after the manner of a “contour” fort of early
-days: the portion of the curtain in which “herring-bone” coursing is
-found follows the natural line of the edge of the hill. Hastings is
-a fortress on a steep promontory: the mount, on the east side of the
-enclosure, was defended by a deep ditch, and covered by a large outer
-bailey with formidable earthworks. The curtain, on the east and north
-sides of the inner ward, is chiefly of the thirteenth century; but part
-of the north curtain, forming the north wall of the castle chapel, is
-of “herring-bone” construction. Lincoln, as we have seen, was a large
-mount-and-bailey fortress, surrounded by earthworks, which, on the west
-side, enclosed portions of the wall of the Roman city. “Herring-bone”
-masonry is seen here and there in the west and north curtains, which
-have been raised on the top of the earthen banks.<a id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">125</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_103">
-<img src="images/i_103.jpg" width="377" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Chepstow; Hall</p></div>
-
-<p>The battlemented parapet with which the curtain-wall of a castle is
-usually crowned, generally may be assigned, in its present state,
-to a later repair and heightening of the curtain. This is the case
-at Lincoln, where the parapet and upper part of the wall are of the
-thirteenth century. It has been seen that the edict of Lillebonne
-in 1080 forbade the defence of the curtain by flanking towers,<a id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">126</a>
-rampart-walks, and other aids to defensive warfare; and, as a matter
-of fact, the full development of the fortification of the <i>enceinte</i>
-belongs to a later period. At the same time, towers projecting beyond
-the line of the curtain are found in some of our early Norman castles
-of stone. The line of the early curtain at Richmond is unbroken by
-contemporary towers, and closely follows the edge of the rock on which
-it is built. But at Ludlow (<a href="#i_096">96</a>) where the inner ward is the original
-castle, founded probably by Roger de Lacy after 1085, the curtain is
-flanked by four original towers in addition to the gatehouse, which has
-been described. The shape of the ward is that of a triangle with convex
-sides, the base of which, on the side of the outer ward and the town,
-faces south and west. Some thirty feet to the east of the gatehouse, a
-tower, in the basement of which an oven was inserted at a later date,
-capped the south-west angle of the enclosure, projecting southwards as
-far as the edge of the ditch. The west curtain continued in a line with
-the west wall of this tower for some sixty feet, until it was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_103">103</a></span> broken
-by a small postern tower. At the apex of the triangle, projecting to
-the north-west, was another tower, the remaining tower being at the
-north-east angle, with its north wall in a line with the north curtain.
-All these towers are, roughly speaking, rectangular in shape, but the
-outer angles of the north-east and north-west towers are chamfered.
-The original openings were round-headed loops with wide inward splays.
-Although the curtain was thus supplied with several projections, more
-towers would be needed to flank it perfectly, and large portions of the
-wall, particularly on the north and east sides, were left without more
-protection than could be given by their own strength.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_104">104</a></span> Oxford castle is
-another instance of early walling, where the tall rampart tower which
-commanded the river and the castle mill still remains.<a id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">127</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_104">
-<img src="images/i_104.jpg" width="600" height="239" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Chepstow; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_106">106</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_106">
-<img src="images/i_106.jpg" width="600" height="401" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">LUDLOW CASTLE: inner bailey</p></div>
-
-<p>Of the stone buildings which existed within the enclosures of early
-Norman castles, the traces which remain are comparatively few, and in
-most cases work of an altogether later period has taken their place.
-The great hall for the common life of the garrison, such as Robert
-d’Oily built in Oxford castle in 1074, would be indispensable. At
-Ludlow there can be little doubt that the original hall stood on the
-site occupied by the present hall, much of the east wall of which is
-apparently of the same date as the curtain. The two lower stages of
-the oblong keep at Chepstow are the hall (<a href="#i_103">103</a>), with the cellar below,
-founded by William, son of Osbern, before 1071. Although the upper
-stage was transformed in the thirteenth century by the insertion of
-traceried windows in the north wall, and of an arch between the da&iuml;s
-and the body of the hall, the walls are of eleventh century masonry,
-and the plain arcade which went round them is clearly visible on the
-north and west sides. In the south wall of the cellar are the loops
-which lighted it; these have lintel-heads with arch-shaped hollows
-cut in the soffits. The hall and cellar at Richmond, which occupy the
-south-east angle of the bailey, appear to be those built by Alan of
-Brittany before 1088. A few additions took place here at the end of the
-twelfth century,<a id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">128</a> but the windows in the north wall of the hall,
-which are of two lights, with edge-rolls in the jambs, are clearly
-of early date. When, for a time,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_107">107</a></span> the great stone tower became the
-fashionable form of keep, a great hall formed part of its internal
-arrangements; but this was the hall of the lord’s private dwelling, and
-was used by the garrison only in time of siege. Domestic buildings,
-including a great hall, may sometimes have been constructed of timber
-within the bailey, and at the end of the twelfth century were probably
-superseded by permanent buildings of stone, like the halls at Warkworth
-or at Oakham. As at Richmond, such halls would be placed against or
-close to the curtain, to leave the interior of the bailey as open as
-possible. In case of siege, freedom of movement within the area of
-the castle was essential, and the bailey formed the natural base of
-operations. The hall at Chepstow was on the highest and narrowest part
-of the rocky promontory on which the castle stands, at the head of the
-bailey; its south wall formed part of the curtain overhanging the great
-ditch between the castle and the town (<a href="#i_106">106</a>).<a id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">129</a></p>
-
-<p>Norman castle-builders were careful to provide chapels within their
-fortresses. In several cases, the chapel within the bailey appears to
-have been the first building of stone raised inside the enclosure. The
-small chapel at Richmond, in a tower of the east curtain, is almost
-beyond doubt that which was granted by Alan of Brittany to St Mary’s
-abbey at York about 1085. The details are very rude in character: there
-is a plain wall arcade, supported on shafts, the capitals of which
-have rough voluting and no abaci. The same type of capital is found in
-the wall arcading of the original gatehouse at Ludlow (<a href="#i_095">95</a>), and also,
-though with more finished ornament, in that of the circular nave of St
-Mary Magdalene’s chapel (<a href="#i_108">108</a>) within the same castle. Certain details
-in the chapel at Ludlow, especially the bands of chevron ornament round
-the arches, seem to indicate that the nave is later than the eleventh
-century. The arch which divided the nave from a rectangular chancel
-ending in a half octagon, is of advanced twelfth century date; and it
-is clear that the chancel must have been built or remodelled at a later
-date than the building of the nave. The aisled chapel at Durham castle,
-which now forms part of the basement of Bishop Pudsey’s building along
-the north side of the bailey, has groined vaults, cylindrical columns,
-and capitals with voluted crockets and square abaci, which may be
-safely ascribed to 1075 or a little later. The capitals may be compared
-with those of the original gateway arch at Richmond. The classical
-spirit which is so noticeable in them, and is derived directly from
-the contemporary work of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_108">108</a></span> Normandy, is also apparent in the capitals
-of the crypt of the castle chapel at Oxford. Oxford castle was founded
-in 1071, Durham in 1072. At Hastings, the first of the Conqueror’s
-castles, there is, as has been said, much herring-bone work in the
-north wall of the chapel nave and in the vice or turret-stair of
-the central tower. Such definitely architectural detail as is left,
-however, belongs to a rebuilding of the later part of the twelfth
-century.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_108">
-<img src="images/i_108.jpg" width="377" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Ludlow; St Mary Magdalene’s Chapel</p></div>
-
-<p>The importance of the castle chapel in Norman times, and indeed
-throughout the middle ages, deserves a note. Chapels were often
-richly endowed, and, as at Hastings, Bridgnorth,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_109">109</a></span> and Leicester,
-were sometimes founded as collegiate establishments, with a dean and
-canons. The collegiate church of St Mary at Warwick, founded by Roger
-of Newburgh, the second Norman earl, probably had its origin in a
-castle chapel, removed to a new and enlarged site within the town. The
-greatest of these collegiate chapels, although one of the youngest,
-was St George’s at Windsor, founded by Edward III. The chapels at
-Hastings, Bridgnorth, and Leicester were churches of some size and
-importance; and their chapters, like those of the secular cathedrals,
-usually consisted of royal clerks, generally non-resident, whose
-duties were served by vicars. As royal chapels, they were exempt from
-episcopal jurisdiction; and the term of “free chapel,” which was given
-to them, became applied in course of time to chapels founded in private
-castles and even upon manors.<a id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">130</a> In most cases a castle chapel was
-served by a single priest, either the incumbent or his vicar. The
-incumbent of the free chapel of St Michael in Shrewsbury castle,
-usually a royal clerk holding his grant from the king, and inducted
-by the sheriff as the king’s officer, held the church of St Julian in
-Shrewsbury as parcel of his cure.<a id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">131</a> Where the Norman castle and
-parish church stood side by side, as at Earls Barton or Higham Ferrers
-in Northamptonshire, the lord of the castle and his household would
-doubtless attend the church. But the foundation of a chapel within
-the castle was a common thing, even when the church, as at Ludlow or
-Warwick, was at no great distance; and in later years, when chantry
-foundations became usual, castle chapels increased in number. Thus
-at Ludlow, a second chapel, served by two chantry priests, was built
-within the outer bailey about 1328;<a id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">132</a> and a college of eight chantry
-priests was founded in 1308 by one of the Beauchamps in his castle of
-Elmley in Worcestershire.<a id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">133</a></p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_110">110</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI<br />
-<br />
-THE KEEP OF THE NORMAN CASTLE</h2></div>
-
-<p>We have seen that there were two types of early Norman castle in
-England. There was the ordinary mount-and-bailey castle, with its
-defences of earthwork and timber; and there was the castle founded
-on a rocky site, in which there was no mount, and the defences were
-of stone. In the first instance, the strongest position, the mount,
-was occupied by the donjon or keep. In the second case, as at Ludlow,
-the wall was defended by a strong gatehouse and a certain number of
-towers; but at first there was, strictly speaking, no keep. During
-the first half of the twelfth century, an era of constant rebellion
-against the Crown, private owners constructed castles in very large
-numbers, for purposes of aggression and self-defence. The second half,
-the age of the first Plantagenets, was an era of consolidation, during
-which the building of castles was methodised under royal control.
-Unlicensed fortresses disappeared, leaving only their earthworks to
-mark their place. The permanent castle of stone became the rule; and
-to this period, the second age of our medieval military architecture,
-belong some of our most formidable and imposing castles. The aim of the
-builders, during this epoch, was to strengthen to the best of their
-ability that point in the plan which would form a centre of ultimate
-resistance to an attack from without. This point was the keep.<a id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">134</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_111">111</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_111">
-<img src="images/i_111.jpg" width="385" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">CARISBROOKE: steps to keep</p></div>
-
-<p>The keep of Norman and early Plantagenet days was virtually a castle
-within a castle. In the mount-and-bailey castle, there was generally
-only one entrance to the enclosure. If the besiegers forced this and
-entered the bailey, a ditch divided them from the mount, the most
-formidable part of the defences. Here the defenders could concentrate
-themselves for a last struggle, in which the advantage, unless the
-siege could be prolonged indefinitely, was distinctly on their side.
-Even where the mount was of inconsiderable height, it commanded the
-bailey<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_113">113</a></span> and the ditch at its base. Its sides were too steep to
-allow of its being climbed without some artificial means of foothold.
-A chance arrow, tipped with burning tow, might reach the palisade
-round the summit of the mount, and set it alight in a dry season; but
-the defending party had all the advantage of being able to discharge
-their missiles downward and into a large portion of the bailey. Their
-disadvantage lay in the possibility of a prolonged blockade by a large
-force, and in consequent scarcity of ammunition and victuals. The
-danger of fire could be minimised by covering the wooden defences with
-skins newly flayed or soaked in water; but the work of renewing these
-in case of a long siege would be difficult.</p>
-
-<p>The wooden donjon on the mount took the form of a square tower
-surrounded, at the edge of the mount, by a palisade, and approached,
-as has been described already, by a steep wooden bridge, which crossed
-the ditch into the bailey. But it is obvious that the existence of a
-castle in any given place as a permanent centre of royal influence must
-lead to the abandonment of wooden defences in favour of defences of
-more lasting material. The stone curtain first took the place of the
-palisade in the defences of the bailey, and was built across the ditch
-and up the sides of the mount, ceasing, as can be seen at Berkhampstead
-(<a href="#i_042">42</a>) or Tamworth, at the level of the summit. The next step was to
-replace the palisade of the mount with a stone wall of circular or
-polygonal shape. In some instances where this was done, it is possible
-that the old wooden tower was left within the enclosure. Cases in which
-a new tower of stone was built upon the mount are rare. Builders would
-hesitate to charge the surface of the artificial hillock with the
-concentrated weight of a large square tower. The encircling curtain
-was much better adapted to the plan of the mount, and distributed
-its weight more successfully over the edge of the surface. But, with
-the building of a stone wall round the summit, the necessity of a
-tower would be removed. Just as, in castles like Exeter and Ludlow,
-there was from the first a stone wall without a definite keep, the
-enclosure being virtually a keep in itself, so, in the more limited
-area of the mount, the encircling wall formed the keep, and, in the
-larger examples, sheltered upon its inner side buildings, usually of
-timber, which afforded the necessary cover for the defenders, while
-their roofs, abutting on the wall below the summit, left room for the
-rampart-walk and the wooden galleries which were fitted to the curtain
-in time of siege.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_114">
-<img src="images/i_114.jpg" width="600" height="597" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Cardiff; Keep</p></div>
-
-<p>This was the genesis of the so-called “shell” keep, which converted
-the summit of the mount into a strong inner ward, the centre of which
-was clear of buildings, and gave more chance<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_114">114</a></span> of concentration to the
-defenders than the narrow passage between the wooden tower and the
-palisade, into which the angles of the tower would have projected
-awkwardly. One of the best examples of the type which remains is the
-keep upon the larger of the two mounts at Lincoln, a polygon of fifteen
-faces on the outside, twelve on the inside. The wall has lost its
-parapet, but retains its rampart-walk; it is 8 feet thick, and keeps
-its height of 20 feet perfect round the whole of the enclosure. The
-masonry is ashlar of late twelfth century character, and each of the
-external angles is capped by a flat pilaster buttress. The marks on the
-inner face of the walls indicate that the enclosure was surrounded by
-timber buildings, with which two small mural chambers communicated, in
-the thickness of the outer curtain where it joins the keep. The doorway
-of the keep is in the north-east face of the wall, which is pierced by
-a segmental-headed archway, with a semicircular covering arch on the
-outer face. This doorway, defended by a wooden door with a draw-bar,
-was approached by a stone stair made in the side of the mount. At the
-present day the ditch<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_115">115</a></span> at the foot has been filled up, and the stairs
-are modern, but originally the ditch must have been crossed by a
-drawbridge at the foot of the stair, which, when drawn up, would have
-left the mount isolated from the bailey. There was a small doorway
-in the south-west face of the keep wall, probably intended to be a
-postern, through which an exit could be gained in emergencies.<a id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">135</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_115">
-<img src="images/i_115.jpg" width="600" height="403" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Alnwick; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The shell of masonry upon the mount, however, was by no means the
-universal form taken by the keep. Sometimes, as at York, the timber
-defences of the mount survived until a comparatively late period,
-when their place was taken by a tower of a form in keeping with the
-principles of fortification of the day.<a id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">136</a> At Alnwick (<a href="#i_115">115</a>) the
-base of the great mount, with a considerable portion of its ditch,
-remains between the two wards of the castle. The present cluster of
-towers and connecting buildings upon the mount, surrounding a somewhat
-dark and confined courtyard, is in large part a nineteenth century
-reconstruction of the fourteenth century house of the Percys<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_116">116</a></span> which
-occupied the site. The outer and inner archways, however, of the
-gatehouse through which the keep is entered, are twelfth century work,
-and agree very well in date with the large remains of Norman masonry
-which can be traced in the curtains of both wards. It is probable that,
-about the middle of the twelfth century, Eustace, son of John, who
-died in 1157, surrounded the whole of the present enclosure with stone
-walls, and, levelling the mount to its present height, built in stone
-the earliest domestic buildings of the castle, upon the enlarged site
-of the earlier wooden donjon and palisade. The appearance of Eustace’s
-buildings must have been very different from that of the mansion of the
-Percys; and we may assume that he defended the summit of the levelled
-mound by a thick curtain, against which his hall and other domestic
-apartments were placed.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_116">
-<img src="images/i_116.jpg" width="447" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Beaugency</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_117">
-<img src="images/i_117.jpg" width="600" height="383" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Falaise</p></div>
-
-<p>In France and Normandy, the rectangular donjon of stone began
-to supersede the wooden tower at an early date. At Langeais
-(Indre-et-Loire), Fulk the Black, count of Anjou, built a stone donjon
-as early as 992.<a id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">137</a> Three walls of this structure are left: it
-was oblong in form and was composed of a basement and upper floor.
-The masonry is largely faced with courses of small cubical stones,
-following the manner inherited by the Romanesque builders of France
-from their Roman predecessors: tiles are introduced in the arched heads
-of the windows in the upper stage, which are not mere loops, but have a
-considerable outward opening. This keep was obviously intended to be at
-once stronghold and dwelling-house. Such a building was a translation
-into stone of a wooden construction like the tower-house on the motte
-at Ardres. It is built on a promontory above a small stream, and is
-defended by a ditch on the landward side. Many<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_117">117</a></span> of these stone towers
-remain in Normandy and the country round the Loire; and, as a rule, are
-earlier in date and larger in area than most of the similar buildings
-in England. The tower of Beaugency (Loiret) is an oblong on plan,
-measuring about 76 feet long by 66 feet broad (<a href="#i_116">116</a>): the present height
-is 115 feet. The date indicated by the masonry is about 1100.<a id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">138</a> The
-fabrics of the towers of Falaise (Calvados) and Domfront (Orne) may be
-attributed to Henry I. In or about 1119 he systematically garrisoned
-his fortresses at Rouen and other places, of which Falaise was
-one.<a id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">139</a> Domfront, from 1092 onwards, was his favourite castle.<a id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">140</a>
-Its strong position gave it an exceptional advantage as a base of
-operations; and in 1101, when Henry ceded his Norman possessions to his
-brother Robert, he kept Domfront for himself.<a id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">141</a> After the battle of
-Tinchebray (1106) Henry was lord of Normandy, and restored order in
-the duchy by razing the unlicensed strongholds built under Robert’s
-weak rule.<a id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">142</a> The tower of Domfront, however, and possibly that of
-Falaise, were not built until 1123.<a id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">143</a> At<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_118">118</a></span> Domfront the castle is a
-large enclosure, occupying the highest point of a long hill which has
-a gradual eastward slope, but rises in an abrupt cliff from a narrow
-valley on the west, and descends steeply on the north and south. A
-deep ditch, through which the modern road from Caen to Angers has been
-carried, divided the castle from the town. The great tower lies to the
-east of the centre of the castle enclosure, so as to command the ditch
-and the town beyond. Only the north-west angle, with a portion of the
-adjacent walls, remains perfect. The height slightly exceeds 70 feet.
-The area of the whole structure is 85 feet by 70, not counting the
-buttresses and plinth. At Falaise (<a href="#i_117">117</a>) the great tower occupies nearly
-the whole of the summit of the isolated cliff on which it stands, the
-town occupying the hilly but lower ground on the north side. The length
-of the tower is a little less than that of Domfront, while the breadth
-is slightly greater. The height is about the same.</p>
-
-<p>The tower of Domfront, like that of Beaugency, stood within a walled
-castle, where the capture of the bailey would have exposed the tower
-directly to the besiegers. It was therefore built with an exclusive
-view to strength, and its window openings, even upon the second floor
-above the basement, were small and narrow, those on the first floor
-being mere loops. On the other hand, the tower of Falaise stands high
-above the curtain-wall by which the ascent from the town was protected.
-Its outer face is of ashlar throughout, and the window openings of the
-two upper stages, far above the reach of stones and arrows, are double,
-divided by shafts with carved capitals. Both towers were separated into
-three parts by cross-walls; but the two upper stages at Falaise are
-now undivided, and at Domfront, above the basement, there remain only
-indications of such a division.</p>
-
-<p>Returning to England, we may safely assert that, with very few
-exceptions, our rectangular towers belong to a period which bears, from
-the historical point of view, a close likeness to the period of Henry
-I.’s fortifications in Normandy. Henry II. pursued the same policy of
-destroying unlicensed castles and strengthening royal strongholds;
-and his building operations took the form of providing his castles
-with towers, such as already were a chief feature of the castles of
-Normandy and Maine, but were certainly very exceptional in England. The
-approximate date of several of these towers can be obtained from the
-entries in the Pipe Rolls for the reign of Henry II.<a id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">144</a></p>
-
-<p>Henry II., like the Conqueror, directed his attention to the defence
-of the main water-ways of his kingdom. The castles of the coast and
-of the Welsh and Scottish frontiers were also<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_119">119</a></span> chief objects of his
-care. The Pipe Rolls of 1158-9 and 1160-1 contain accounts of large
-sums spent on the castle of Wark-on-Tweed, at the extreme north-west
-corner of the kingdom.<a id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">145</a> In 1158-9 occur charges for the tower of
-Gloucester,<a id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">146</a> at the head of the Severn estuary; and in the same and
-following years are many mentions of the castle and tower of the great
-littoral stronghold of Scarborough.<a id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">147</a> Berkhampstead, commanding the
-approach to London from the north-west, was an object of substantial
-expense in 1159-60 and 1161-2.<a id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">148</a> In 1160-1 &pound;215. 18s. 5d. was spent
-in the fortification of the city of Chester:<a id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">149</a> work was also done
-at Oswestry,<a id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">150</a> and other accounts show that attention was paid to
-the victualling of castles on the Welsh border at Clun and Ruthin.<a id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">151</a>
-Accounts, beginning in 1164-5, refer to the strengthening of Shrewsbury
-castle.<a id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">152</a> Sums were spent on the tower of Bridgnorth, which
-commanded the defiles of the Severn between Shrewsbury and Worcester,
-in 1168-9 and following years;<a id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">153</a> and mentions of Hereford,<a id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">154</a>
-Shrawardine,<a id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">155</a> and Ellesmere,<a id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">156</a> testify to the care with which
-the western frontier of the kingdom was protected. Of the coast
-castles, apart from Scarborough, Dover has a constant place in these
-accounts. For example, in 1168-9, 40s. 6d. was paid for the hire of
-ships to bring lime from Gravesend to Dover, and &pound;34. 5s. 4d. was spent
-on the work for which this was required.<a id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">157</a> Southampton castle was
-repaired in 1161-2,<a id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">158</a> and a well was made there in 1172-3.<a id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">159</a> The
-tower of Hastings was in progress in 1171-2.<a id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">160</a> In 1165-6 &pound;256. 4s.
-9d. was spent upon the castle of Orford, the great stronghold of the
-Suffolk coast, which was an object of large yearly expense down to
-1171-2.<a id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">161</a> On the line of the upper Thames, continual sums were spent
-on the palace-castle of Windsor: the wall of the castle is referred
-to in 1171-2 and 1172-3.<a id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">162</a> Work was done at Oxford and a well made
-in 1172-3 and 1173-4.<a id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">163</a> Hertford castle was maintained to guard<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_120">120</a></span>
-the Lea.<a id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">164</a> In addition to Dover, the castles of Rochester,<a id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">165</a>
-Chilham,<a id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">166</a> and Canterbury<a id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">167</a> protected the main routes to the
-narrowest part of the Channel. The chief fortress of the vale of
-Trent was at Nottingham, where large sums were spent in 1171-2 and
-1172-3.<a id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">168</a> Of the inland castles of the north, the tower of Newcastle
-cost some &pound;385 between 1171-2 and 1174-5<a id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">169</a> This forms a contrast to
-the small sum spent on the tower of York—&pound;15. 7s. 3d.—in 1172-3:<a id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">170</a>
-it is clear, from the Pipe Rolls of later reigns, that this was merely
-a wooden structure.<a id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">171</a></p>
-
-<p>However, there are earlier instances of towers which are of first-class
-importance, and these must be briefly described before we dwell upon
-the characteristics of the donjons of the second half of the twelfth
-century. We have seen that William the Conqueror, immediately after his
-coronation, began the construction of certain strongholds in connection
-with the city of London.<a id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">172</a> His first work was probably to enclose
-within a palisade the undefended sides of the bailey, the east side of
-which was covered by a portion of the Roman city-wall. Before the end
-of his reign, the White tower had been begun as a principal feature
-of the castle, and was completed in the reign of William Rufus, who
-in 1097 built a wall about it.<a id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">173</a> This tower is therefore at least
-as early in date as most of the early square towers of Normandy and
-the adjacent provinces, and is considerably earlier than the towers
-of Falaise and Domfront. A tradition attributes the design to the
-direction of Gundulf, bishop of Rochester 1077-1108, who is also said
-to have been the builder of the donjon-like tower at Malling in Kent,
-originally attached to the church of St Leonard, and of the tower, the
-ruins of which remain, on the north side of the quire of Rochester
-cathedral.</p>
-
-<p>The White tower is at present 90 feet in height, and is therefore
-much lower than the nearly contemporary tower of Beaugency. Its area,
-however, is far greater, covering an oblong of 118 feet from east to
-west by 107 feet from north to south. It is four stages in height, and
-was built of rubble masonry,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_121">121</a></span> ashlar work being confined entirely to
-the pilaster buttresses and windows, and the plinth. Modern repairs
-have made the original appearance of the tower hard to reconstruct.
-The entrance was upon the first floor, and was never covered by a
-fore-building: this entrance seems to have been in the western part
-of the south wall. A well-stair or vice, in a round turret at the
-north-east corner, was the chief means of communication between all the
-floors; but vices were also made from the second floor to the roof in
-the square turrets of the north-west and south-west angles. There is
-also a square turret above the place which would ordinarily be occupied
-by the south-east angle; but the south wall, throughout its height, is
-continued into an apsidal projection, which is curved round to meet the
-east wall. The two upper stages of this projection form the apse of
-St John’s chapel, with its encircling gallery. The faces of the tower
-and the apse are strengthened by flat buttresses at regular intervals,
-which are gathered in at a string on the level of the floor of the
-uppermost stage, and again at the level of the roof. There are no
-window openings in the basement, which was originally used for stores.
-The window openings of the first and second floors were originally
-narrow loops, with wide internal splays, but have been considerably
-enlarged, with some damage to the appearance of strength which the
-tower once possessed. The openings in the aisle of the chapel on the
-second floor, however, were wider than the rest. The third floor, being
-out of the range of ordinary missiles, had wide window openings: the
-two openings in the south wall of the larger room on this floor are
-double. The greatest thickness of the walls of the basement is 15 feet:
-the walls of the uppermost stage are from 10 to 11 feet thick.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_121">
-<img src="images/i_121.jpg" width="450" height="463" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">White Tower; Plan of Second Floor</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_122">
-<img src="images/i_122.jpg" width="600" height="454" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">White Tower; St John’s Chapel</p></div>
-
-<p>The tower is divided internally into two parts by a longitudinal wall,
-east of the centre, 10 feet thick.<a id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">174</a> Thus in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_122">122</a></span> basement there
-is a large western chamber, 91 by 35 feet, and on every floor above
-there is a corresponding room, the dimensions of which increase with
-the thinning of the outer walls to a maximum of 95 by 40 feet. The
-eastern chamber, however, is divided into two parts by a cross-wall,
-considerably to the south of the centre. There is thus in the basement
-and each floor an oblong north-eastern chamber, into which access is
-obtained from the main well-stair. In the basement there is a doorway
-in the longitudinal wall between this and the western chamber; but,
-on each of the upper floors, the communication is maintained by five
-openings in the wall. Apart from the recesses of the loops, and the
-mural lobbies which lead to the vices in the turrets, there are only
-two mural passages, one in the first and one in the second stage,
-communicating with garde-robes; but the wall of the third floor is
-pierced all round by a gallery, with a barrel vault, in the thickness
-of the wall, which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_123">123</a></span> communicates at either end with the broad gallery
-above the aisles of St John’s chapel.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_123">
-<img src="images/i_123.jpg" width="360" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Tower of London; St John’s Chapel</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_123_2">
-<img src="images/i_123_2.jpg" width="364" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Christchurch</p></div>
-
-<p>The south-eastern quarter of the tower contains, in the basement, the
-sub-crypt of the chapel, known in later days as “Little Ease.” On the
-first floor is the upper crypt, which, as well as the sub-crypt, has a
-barrel vault, and ends in an apse. The second floor is the ground-floor
-of the chapel and its aisle or ambulatory, which is divided from the
-nave by plain round-headed arches springing from cylindrical columns
-with capitals, those of the eastern columns famous for the Tau-shaped
-plaques left uncarved between their volutes, those of the western
-columns scalloped (<a href="#i_122">122</a>). The nave of the chapel rises through the
-third floor to the barrel vault. The aisles have groined cross-vaults:
-the gallery above them on the third floor is covered by a half barrel
-vault. This gallery, as before mentioned, is connected in its north
-and west walls with the mural gallery of the main chambers. The ground
-floor of the chapel communicated with the north-eastern chamber through
-a doorway in the cross-wall; but the main entrance was through a short
-mural lobby from the western chamber, which led into the west end of
-the south aisle. At a late date a vice was made in the thickness of the
-wall from this lobby to a doorway in the basement, by which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_124">124</a></span> access was
-obtained to the chapel from the later domestic buildings adjoining the
-south side of the tower.</p>
-
-<p>The well of the tower, a most necessary feature in case of siege,
-was in the floor of the western chamber of the basement, near its
-south-western angle, and was cased with ashlar. Only three fireplaces
-remain, all in the east wall, two on the first, and one on the second
-floor: the smoke escaped through holes in the adjacent wall. The use of
-the rooms on the various floors is uncertain, and it is possible that
-they may have been separated by wooden partitions into smaller rooms.
-The basement chambers, however, were obviously store-rooms; and the
-great western chamber on the third floor was used by many of our kings
-as a council-chamber. The first-floor rooms may have been intended for
-the use of the garrison, while the larger room on the second floor was
-probably the great hall of the tower, and the smaller room the king’s
-great chamber. The upper room, next the council-chamber, may have been
-for the use of the queen and her household. Accommodation, suited to
-the scanty needs of the times, was thus provided for a large number
-of persons; and the great size of the chapel alone indicates that the
-tower was intended as an occasional residence for the royal family.
-The palace hall at Westminster, however, was in building, when Rufus
-made his wall round the Tower; and it is clear that the cold and dark
-interior of the fortress was planned mainly with a view to defence, and
-with little respect for comfort.</p>
-
-<p>The great tower of Colchester castle (<a href="#i_047">47</a>), which is of the same date as
-the White tower, covers an even larger area. The internal measurements
-of the ground-floor, excluding the projections at the angles, are 152
-feet north and south by 111 feet east and west. This, the greatest of
-all Norman keeps, has unfortunately lost its two upper stages, and,
-with them, the chapel, which, like that in the White Tower, was built
-with an apsidal projection covering the junction of south and east
-walls. The crypt and sub-vault of the chapel, however, remain. In this
-respect, and in the division of the floors into larger and smaller
-chambers by a cross-wall running north and south, the likeness between
-these two great towers is very marked. The rectangular projections,
-on the other hand, which cap three of the angles of the tower at
-Colchester, are far more prominent than those of the Tower of London,
-and form small towers in themselves; and, even at the angle where the
-apse of the chapel is extended eastward, the south wall has been built
-of a thickness to correspond with the projections at the north-east
-and north-west angles. That at the south-west angle differs in plan<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_125">125</a></span>
-from the rest, being longer from east to west and wider on its western
-face than the others. Its south face also is recessed from the level
-of the south wall of the tower, but projects in a large rectangular
-buttress at the point where it joins the main wall. This south-west
-tower contained the main staircase. The entrance was on the ground
-floor, immediately east of the buttress just mentioned, and not, as in
-most rectangular keeps, upon the first floor. The ashlar with which
-the exterior of the tower was cased has been stripped off, and the
-rubble core of the walls, with its bonding courses of Roman tiles, is
-now exposed. Below the ground floor the walls spread considerably:
-this can be seen upon the north and west sides, where the hill drops
-towards the river, and the upper part of the solid foundation is above
-ground. Between the angle towers the walls are broken, on the east and
-west sides, by two rectangular buttresses of slight projection: on the
-north side there is only one, and on the south side none. The ground
-floor and first floor were lighted by narrow loops, splayed inwardly
-through about half the thickness of the wall. In each of the east,
-north, and west walls of the ground floor there are three of these.
-The south wall has only two: one lights the well chamber on the east
-of the entry, while the other, at the opposite extremity of the wall,
-lights the sub-vault of the chapel. The wall between the two, being on
-the side of the tower most open to attack, is of great solidity, and
-is unbroken by opening or buttress. In each face of the first floor,
-exclusive of the angle towers and apse of the chapel, there were four
-loops. The window openings of the upper stages were probably larger.
-One of the most striking features of this tower is the plentiful use of
-Roman tiles among the masonry, especially in the cross-wall, where they
-are arranged in a very regular and beautiful series of “herring-bone”
-courses (<a href="#i_101">101</a>). This employment of Roman material gave rise to a
-tradition, not yet wholly extinct, that the tower was a Roman building.
-It need hardly be said that nothing would be more natural than for the
-Norman masons to adopt the economical principle of applying to their
-own use material which lay ready to hand among the ruins of the Roman
-station.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_126">126</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_126">
-<img src="images/i_126.jpg" width="600" height="321" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Dover</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_127">
-<img src="images/i_127.jpg" width="558" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Clun</p></div>
-
-<p>The towers of London and Colchester are exceptional in their date and
-in the hugeness of their proportions. Although the towers of the later
-part of the twelfth century have many features in common with them—the
-division by means of cross-walls, the well-stairs in one or more of the
-angles, the pilaster buttresses projecting from the outer walls, and
-the mural galleries and chambers—no tower was subsequently attempted
-upon their scale. The tower of Rochester (frontispiece), which appears
-to have<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_127">127</a></span> been begun somewhat earlier than 1140, and is therefore
-intermediate in date between these two exceptional examples and the
-later towers, is 113 feet high to the top of the parapet, and is 70
-feet square (exterior measurement) at its base. The tower of Dover
-(<a href="#i_126">126</a>), built in the early part of the reign of Henry II., measures
-98 by 96 feet at the base. The walls, however, have the exceptional
-thickness of 24 to 21 feet, so that the internal measurements are
-considerably reduced, while the height to the top of the parapet is
-only 83 feet. The towers of London and Colchester are also exceptional
-in the importance given to the chapel in their plans. The great
-prominence of the angle turrets at Colchester is an unique feature,
-while the position of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_128">128</a></span> the main entrance upon the ground floor,
-although not unique, is very unusual.</p>
-
-<p>The later towers differ from those of London and Colchester in the
-fact that they were additions to enclosures already existing, instead
-of being the nucleus of a castle founded for the first time. Although
-they have a general family likeness, neither their position on the
-plan, which was necessarily dictated by the nature of the site, nor
-the details of their arrangements, are uniform. Most of the castles in
-which they occur are divided by a wall, built across the enclosure from
-curtain to curtain, into an outer and inner ward or bailey. The tower,
-standing at the highest point of the inner ward, was placed so as to
-command both these divisions of the castle. If the outer ward were
-entered, the besiegers were confronted by a second line of defence, the
-wall of the inner ward, in conjunction with which the great tower, with
-its superior height, could be used by the defenders. Finally, if the
-inner ward were taken, the tower still remained as a formidable refuge
-for the garrison.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_128">
-<img src="images/i_128.jpg" width="453" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Guildford</p></div>
-
-<p>Where a new tower keep was added to castles of the usual type, whose
-main defences consisted of an earthen mount and banks, it was often
-raised, as at Canterbury and Hastings, on a new site, independent
-of the mount, which was probably avoided as affording insufficient
-foundation. Thus, at Rochester, the old mount of the eleventh century
-castle, now known as Boley Hill, remains at some distance from the
-later enclosure. But there were cases, and possibly more than are
-generally recognised, in which the mount was utilised for a tower. At
-Christchurch the comparatively small keep was built entirely upon the
-artificial mount. The keeps of Norwich and Hedingham (<a href="#i_135">135</a>), two of the
-grandest of their class, were built upon mounts, which, if in great
-part natural hills, had been scarped and heightened by art. The mounts
-at Guildford and Clun (<a href="#i_127">127</a>) are artificial. In both these last cases
-the summit of the mount was converted into a shell keep, surrounded
-by a wall; but on the eastern side<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_129">129</a></span> of this enclosure a tower, of
-respectable if not large dimensions, was made. The tower at Clun was
-built against the east slope of the mount, the basement being entirely
-below the level of the summit of the earthwork. This is also partly the
-case at Guildford (<a href="#i_128">128</a>), where the tower is placed across the eastern
-edge of the mount. The inclusion at Kenilworth of artificial soil
-within the basement of the keep has led to the suspicion that the mount
-of the castle was reduced in height, and the tower built round the
-lower portion (<a href="#i_132">132</a>).</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_129">
-<img src="images/i_129.jpg" width="600" height="489" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Scarborough; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>At Guildford and Clun the combination of a shell of masonry with a
-tower keep produced the effect of a small inner ward—which is virtually
-what a shell keep is—with a tower upon its <i>enceinte</i>. Frequently,
-as at Scarborough (<a href="#i_129">129</a>) and Bamburgh the tower keep stood upon the
-line of the curtain between the two wards. At Scarborough it actually
-stands athwart that line, but its greater projection is towards the
-inner ward, from which, of course, it was entered. The towers at
-Norham (<a href="#i_157">157</a>) and Kenilworth fill up a corner of the inner ward, but
-have no noticeable projection beyond the curtain. This is also the
-case at Porchester (<a href="#i_131">131</a>), where the north-west angle, in which the
-keep stands, is also the north-west angle of the Roman <span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_131">131</a></span>station.<a id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">175</a>
-Some, however, of the finest of these towers, Rochester, Dover, and
-Newcastle, stood wholly detached within the inner ward, although, as
-at Rochester, near enough to the curtain to enable the defenders to
-command the outer approaches from the upper stages.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_130">
-<img src="images/i_130.jpg" width="491" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Map of Rectangular Keeps</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_131">
-<img src="images/i_131.jpg" width="383" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Porchester</p></div>
-
-<p>From the point of view of dimensions the towers may be divided into two
-classes. There are the towers proper, such as Clun, Corfe, Guildford,
-Hedingham, Helmsley, Newcastle, Porchester, Richmond, Rochester, and
-Scarborough, in which the height is greater than the length or breadth.
-Such towers are approximately square; and to them must be added Dover,
-in which, however, owing to the immense thickness of the walls, the
-height is less than the length or breadth. In one case, Porchester
-(<a href="#i_131">131</a>), the measurement from north to south exceeds that from east to
-west by 13 feet, and at first was also in excess of the height; but
-the tower was raised to nearly twice its height not long after the
-completion of the original design. The second class is composed of
-keeps, of which one or both of the dimensions of the ground-plan exceed
-the height, without the exceptional circumstances which governed the
-proportions of Dover. Such keeps are noticeably oblong in shape. At
-Castle Rising and the tower of Bowes in Yorkshire the height is less<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_132">132</a></span>
-than either the length or breadth. At Kenilworth (<a href="#i_132">132</a>) the length from
-east to west exceeds the breadth by nearly 30, and the height by 7
-feet. Middleham, from north to south, measures approximately 100 feet
-by 80 from east to west: its height is only 55 feet, which, though it
-surpasses the 50 feet of Bowes and Castle Rising, is much less than
-the 80 feet of Kenilworth. Its length and breadth, however, make up an
-area far surpassing the 87 by 58 feet of Kenilworth, the 82 by 60 feet
-of Bowes, and the 75 by 54 feet of Castle Rising. The foundations of
-another keep of this class remain at Duffield in Derbyshire. Bamburgh,
-69 by 61 feet, but only 55 feet high, is another member of the class.
-Another great Northumbrian keep, Norham, although its height is 90
-feet, is oblong in plan; and its measurement from east to west comes
-within 4 feet of the height, so that it stands on the border between
-the second and the first class.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_132">
-<img src="images/i_132.jpg" width="600" height="413" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Kenilworth</p></div>
-
-<p>The internal divisions of the keeps are not uniformly the same, and
-do not always correspond to the height. The usual arrangement in the
-loftier keeps, as at Hedingham, Porchester, Rochester, and Scarborough,
-is a basement with three upper floors; but at Corfe, which is 80 feet
-high, as at Guildford, which is only 63 feet high, there are only two
-upper floors. At Dover, 83 feet high, and Newcastle, 75 feet high,
-the second floor was surrounded by a mural gallery, high above the
-floor-level,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_133">133</a></span> so that the second and third floors were combined into
-one lofty room.<a id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">176</a> At Norham, however, there were four upper floors.
-Kenilworth, only 10 feet lower, had a lofty basement with only one
-floor above it. At Bowes there were two floors. At Middleham and Castle
-Rising, there was one main floor; but, by the subdivision of the rooms
-on this stage, a second floor was made in portions of the building.
-As a rule, the walls grow thinner as they rise: this was achieved by
-rebating the inner face at each floor to provide a ledge for the floor
-timbers. In exceptional cases, there is an off-set on the exterior of
-the tower; and at Rochester the walls are thinned from 12 feet at the
-base to 10 feet at the top by a slight exterior batter. At Porchester
-the walls are 11 feet thick at the base: this is reduced to 7 feet at
-the first floor, and, by an off-set at the level of the original roof,
-to 6 feet in the upper stage. The thickest walls, next to those at
-Dover, appear to be at Newcastle, where their thickness at the first
-floor is 14 feet.</p>
-
-<p>Many of these towers, such as Rochester and Dover, are built of
-rag-stone or coursed rubble, with dressings of ashlar. The masonry
-at Guildford (<a href="#i_128">128</a>) is extremely rough, and “herring-bone” coursing
-is extensively used: the date of the tower, however, to judge by its
-internal details, is not earlier than the third quarter of the twelfth
-century.<a id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">177</a> On the other hand, not a few have their walls cased with
-ashlar. Hedingham and Porchester are noble examples from the east and
-south of England; Bridgnorth and Kenilworth from the midlands. Of the
-towers of Yorkshire, Bowes, Richmond, and Scarborough have ashlar
-casing; Middleham is of rubble with ashlar dressings. Ashlar facing
-is used throughout at Bamburgh, Newcastle, and Norham: at Norham the
-ashlar is of two distinct kinds, small cubical stones being used in one
-part, and larger stones in another.<a id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">178</a> As at Colchester, Dover, and
-Kenilworth, the foundations of the larger towers spread considerably,
-and rise above ground in a battering plinth, into which the
-buttresses at the angles and on the face of the walls die off without
-interruption. At Newcastle there is a roll<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_134">134</a></span> string-course above the
-plinth, and at Bamburgh (<a href="#i_091">91</a>) the plinth is moulded with a very imposing
-effect. Where the tower is built on an uneven site, as at Middleham
-or Scarborough, the plinth appears only on the faces where the ground
-falls away from the tower.</p>
-
-<p>The angles of the tower were always strengthened by rectangular
-pilaster buttresses of the ordinary twelfth century type, formed by
-thickening the two adjacent walls. In most cases these meet, forming
-a solid exterior angle. Occasionally, as at Guildford, Hedingham,
-and Rochester, a hollow angle is left between them, which, at Castle
-Rising and Scarborough, is filled by a shaft or bead. Above the line
-of the parapet the angle buttresses are continued into square turrets.
-Within one or more of these angles, there was a vice. At Newcastle
-(<a href="#i_139">139</a>) the angle buttresses are of such breadth and projection as to
-form distinct towers: this is even more noticeable at Kenilworth, where
-there are angle towers not unlike those at Colchester. On the faces of
-the tower between these angles there were usually one or more pilaster
-buttresses of slight projection. These varied in number according to
-the plan and site of the tower. At Dover there is one on each face,
-with the exception of the side which is covered by the forebuilding.
-At Kenilworth there are four on one face, three on another, two on a
-third: the remaining wall has disappeared. At Porchester there is one
-on each of the west and north faces, none on the east or south: when
-the tower was heightened, neither angle nor intermediate buttresses
-were continued upwards. It is worthy of note that one of the angle
-towers at Newcastle is polygonal, not rectangular, in shape. This
-points to a transition in methods of fortification, of which more will
-be said hereafter. The south-east angle at Rochester is rounded; but
-this is the result of a repair of the tower which took place in the
-thirteenth century.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_135">135</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_135">
-<img src="images/i_135.jpg" width="395" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">HEDINGHAM: great tower</p></div>
-
-<p>As the main object of these towers was defensive, their external
-architectural features were generally confined to their excellent
-masonry. A moulded plinth, as at Bamburgh, is of very rare occurrence.
-At Norwich and Castle Rising a wall is arcaded or recessed: this,
-however, is quite contrary to the usual practice. String-courses,
-where they were used, were generally confined to the buttresses, as
-at Kenilworth; although in a few cases, as at Richmond, they were
-continued along the wall. The necessary window openings were few and
-small. Here, however, a distinction must be made. It has been remarked
-already that the donjon of a castle sometimes formed the residence of
-its lord as well as a strong tower in time of war. The towers of London
-and Colchester were certainly planned upon their liberal scale with
-this double end in view; and, destitute of comfort as they<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_137">137</a></span> seem
-to us to-day, the upper floors of the White Tower were at any rate
-well lighted. Similarly, at Rochester, there was a large provision
-of single-light windows in the floors above the basement. And, as
-a rule, while the basement was lighted by a very few narrow loops,
-set high in the wall, and the first floor, which was not above the
-range of missiles, was lighted sparingly by narrow loops with wide
-internal splays, the second floor, which formed the main apartment, had
-much larger windows. These, as in the Tower of London, or at Dover,
-Hedingham, and Scarborough, were sometimes of two lights, divided by
-an intervening shaft or piece of wall. At Newcastle, where the second
-floor, owing to the thickness of the walls, in which separate chambers
-are contrived, is very dark, there is a wide single opening in the
-intermediate buttress of the east face, which externally has a moulded
-arch and jamb-shafts (<a href="#i_139">139</a>). At Richmond, a tower the single object
-of which seems to have been defence, the window openings, with one
-exception, are narrow loops with internal splays; and, of all twelfth
-century towers, this was probably the darkest and least comfortable
-(<a href="#i_093">93</a>).<a id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">179</a></p>
-
-<p>The main entrance of the tower was usually on the first floor,
-although sometimes, as at Dover, Newcastle, and Norwich, it was on
-the second floor, and led directly into the main apartment. It was
-obviously unsafe to make an entrance in the basement, where the doors
-could be easily forced or burned. At the same time, there is, as we
-have noticed, a basement entrance at Colchester, where the approach
-was protected by a strong ditch. The rocks on which Bamburgh and
-Scarborough stand made the position almost impregnable, and in both
-cases the main doorway of the tower is on a level with the soil of the
-ward in which it stands.<a id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">180</a> When the outer opening of the original
-gateway at Richmond was removed to make way for the new tower, the
-inner opening was left, forming a direct communication between the
-interior of the castle and the basement: this also was permitted by the
-natural strength of the site; but the main entrance to the tower was
-in the south-east corner of the first floor, from the rampart-walk.
-At Ludlow, both openings of the gateway were walled up (<a href="#i_094">94</a>), and a
-stair was made to the first floor against part of the west wall of the
-tower.<a id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">181</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_138">138</a></span> Even in the tower on the mount at Guildford, the main
-entrance was on the first floor (<a href="#i_128">128</a>). Where the doorway led into
-the chief apartment of the tower, it received special architectural
-treatment. That at Newcastle is a wide opening with a semicircular
-arch of three orders and shafts in the jambs: it has been rebuilt, but
-probably follows the original design closely. On the other hand, the
-first-floor entrance at Kenilworth, which led into the main room, is
-exceedingly plain, with a segmental arch, and a semicircular relieving
-arch in the wall above.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_139">139</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_139">
-<img src="images/i_139.jpg" width="395" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">NEWCASTLE: great tower</p></div>
-
-<p>Entrances on upper floors were necessarily approached by stairs,
-which were habitually placed against the wall, at right angles to
-the entrance, and sometimes, as at Dover, Newcastle, and Rochester,
-turned the angle of the wall in their descent. These were usually
-covered by a structure known as the fore-building, which provided a
-formidable covered approach to the main entrance. The fore-building
-formed a substantial annexe to the tower, and has some variety of plan.
-Indications of it are found in its simplest form at Scarborough, where
-it was of two stages. The lower stage was a vaulted passage against
-the south wall, from the end of which the basement doorway was entered
-at right angles; the upper stage was entered by a doorway from the
-first floor of the tower. The entrance passage was closed by wooden
-doors; if these were forced, an attacking party would still have some
-difficulty and danger in breaking into the tower, while missiles,
-hurled upon them through a hole in the floor of the upper stage, would
-make retreat from the passage a delicate matter. The fore-building at
-Kenilworth was also of two stages, enclosing an entrance stair, which
-led to the doorway on the first floor. The arrangement at Rochester was
-more complicated. Here the stair began against the north-west angle
-buttress, where it was covered by a small tower of two stages, the
-lower containing the doorway, the upper communicating with a vaulted
-chamber in the angle of the first floor of the tower. The stair then
-turned the angle, and, protected by an outer wall some 6 feet high,
-rose along the north wall of the tower to a drawbridge, with a deep
-pit below. At the further side of the drawbridge, the east part of
-the north wall was covered by a building in three stages. The middle
-stage, entered from the drawbridge, contained a chamber, in which was
-the main entrance to the first floor of the keep. The lowest stage was
-a vault, which communicated with the basement of the tower; the upper
-stage, entered from the second floor of the tower, contained a room,
-which may have been a chapel. At Dover and Newcastle the fore-buildings
-were even more elaborate, including a lower tower which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_141">141</a></span> protected
-the entrance and right-angled turn of the stair, a middle tower which
-covered the stair half-way up, and an upper tower at the head of the
-stair, beyond the platform from which the second floor was entered.
-The basement of the fore-building at Newcastle was the castle chapel;
-the lower tower was, as at Rochester, simply a gate-tower; the middle
-tower formed a covering to a second gateway on the stair; and the
-upper tower contained a vaulted guard-room commanding the platform of
-entrance. At Dover, the upper tower, solid at the base, had vaulted
-chambers on the first and second floors; the middle tower enclosed a
-well, the mouth of which was contained in a chamber entered from the
-platform in front of the main doorway of the keep; while the lower
-tower formed a large projection at the south-west angle of the keep,
-containing upon its first floor a covered landing for the stair, from
-which opened to the east a room, probably an oratory, and to the west
-a porter’s lodge. Upon the second floor was the chapel of the keep,
-entered from the main apartments. A vault in the basement of the lower
-tower of the fore-building communicates with the basement of the keep
-through another vault, which is common to the keep and fore-building.
-Similarly, the vault at the first-floor level of the upper tower
-communicates with the main first floor through another common vaulted
-chamber. The Dover fore-building is thus an integral portion of the
-keep.</p>
-
-<p>Of all existing fore-buildings, that at Castle Rising (<a href="#i_143">143</a>) is in the
-best state of preservation. Here the main entrance to the keep is on
-the east face of the building, near its north end. The stair, which
-had a timber roof, ascends by the side of the east wall, straight from
-the ground. There is a gateway at its foot, and another gateway at a
-landing half-way up. The upper flight of stairs, which was also roofed
-with timber, passes through a third gateway into the upper floor of
-a tower, which, as at Rochester and Norwich, covers the main doorway
-of the keep, and is not placed, as at Dover and Newcastle, beyond the
-doorway. Each of the doorways of the fore-building has a rounded arch
-with an edge-roll, and shafts with cushion capitals in the jambs. The
-main doorway of the keep has five orders, the four outer orders being
-shafted, and the arch having rich late Norman mouldings. The chamber
-at the head of the stair is vaulted in two bays, but originally had a
-timber roof. There is a vaulted chamber beneath it.</p>
-
-<p>There is an exceptional arrangement at Porchester (<a href="#i_131">131</a>), where the
-stair, instead of being covered by the fore-building, is set outside
-it, against its eastern face. From the landing at the head there is a
-straight passage, between the first-floor rooms<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_142">142</a></span> of the fore-building,
-to the main entrance of the tower; while, from the same landing,
-another flight of stairs leads to the northern rampart-walk of the
-castle. Another exceptional fore-building is found at Berkeley
-(<a href="#i_142">142</a>). Here, however, the exception consists in the fact that it is
-a fore-building, not to a tower, but to a shell-keep of peculiar
-construction. The mount of the early Norman castle was reduced in
-height, and its base, forming a platform some 20 feet above the ground,
-was enclosed within a wall, 8 feet thick, which is strengthened by
-pilaster buttresses and rises to a height of 60 feet. Against the
-south-east face of this wall is a narrow fore-building. The stair,
-which was covered by a timber roof, passes through the lower stage of
-a gateway-tower, and ascends to a platform, from which, after another
-gateway has been passed, the interior of the shell is entered. The room
-upon the first floor of the gateway-tower is entered from the platform
-by a narrow ledge above the stair.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_142">
-<img src="images/i_142.jpg" width="450" height="289" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Berkeley</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_143">143</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_143">
-<img src="images/i_143.jpg" width="403" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">CASTLE RISING: stair of forebuilding</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_145">
-<img src="images/i_145.jpg" width="600" height="479" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Rochester; internal cross-wall</p></div>
-
-<p>As the main doorway of a tower-keep was set in the outer face of a
-thick wall, a narrow passage had to be traversed before the interior
-of the tower was reached. At Castle Rising, the wall is comparatively
-thin, and the doorway is recessed deeply, so that the tower is
-entered directly. In most cases, the keep was divided internally into
-two parts by a cross-wall, which reached from the basement to the
-summit.<a id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">182</a> This wall was often central, as at Porchester, Rochester,
-and Scarborough; but in towers which are oblong in plan, as at Castle
-Rising and Middleham, it divided the keep into two unequal rectangles.
-At Bowes, as also in the Norman keep of Domfront,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_145">145</a></span> it was so far from
-being central that it cut off only a narrow oblong from the interior,
-the large main room on the first floor of Bowes being left nearly
-square. In a square keep, the cross-wall was frequently opposite the
-main entrance, and parallel with the fore-building. At Hedingham,
-Lancaster, Porchester, and Scarborough, it is at right angles to the
-fore-building, so that the main entrance is, as in the oblong keep
-of Castle Rising, in an end, and not in a side of one of the rooms.
-The cross-wall at Scarborough was not continued to the second floor;
-and, on the first floor, a transverse arch took its place, throwing
-the two main rooms into one. A great transverse arch, perhaps the
-finest architectural feature in any of our tower-keeps, also spans the
-second floor at Hedingham, in place of the cross-wall (<a href="#i_147">147</a>). On the
-second floor at Rochester, the cross-wall is represented by two pairs
-of rounded arches, divided by a central block of wall containing the
-well-shaft (<a href="#i_145">145</a>). But a cross-wall was not an universal feature of a
-tower-keep. Neither Clun nor Guildford, towers of moderate size, have
-one; and, of the greater keeps,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_146">146</a></span> Newcastle, Richmond, and Kenilworth
-have undivided interiors. This is remarkable in a keep of the area of
-Kenilworth: at Newcastle and Richmond the walls are so solid that the
-interior space is comparatively small, while at Newcastle additional
-room was supplied by unusually spacious mural chambers. At Castle
-Rising, in addition to the main cross-wall, each of the divisions
-of the keep has a smaller cross-wall at its extremity, cutting off
-additional apartments from the main rooms, and allowing in one place
-the insertion of an upper floor.</p>
-
-<p>Of the divisions of the tower, whether divided by a cross-wall or not,
-the basement was probably used for the storage of arms and provisions.
-It sometimes contained the opening of the well of the keep.<a id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">183</a> The
-first floor, where there was no other, contained the main apartment or
-hall. In the loftier type of keep, this was on the second floor, and,
-as we have just seen, the substitution of an arch or arcade for the
-cross-wall sometimes converted this floor into one large apartment. At
-Dover and Porchester, as in the Tower of London, the division into two
-apartments was maintained, and there is only a small doorway through
-the cross-wall. The second room, in these instances, probably formed
-the “great chamber” or private apartment of the lord of the castle when
-in residence. Where the hall was on the second floor the first floor
-was probably set apart for the garrison in time of siege and for the
-servants. The provision for private bedrooms was, in those days of
-publicity, extremely small; but where, as at Dover and Newcastle, the
-thickness of the wall allowed of several large mural chambers, some of
-them may have been devoted to this purpose; and in some keeps, as at
-Hedingham, an upper floor above the main apartments was provided, which
-doubtless served this end.<a id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">184</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_147">147</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_147">
-<img src="images/i_147.jpg" width="357" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">HEDINGHAM</span>: doorway of great tower</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_147_2">
-<img src="images/i_147_2.jpg" width="360" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">HEDINGHAM</span>: second floor of great tower</p></div>
-
-<p>For the purpose of communication between the floors, the example of
-the towers of London and Colchester was followed. A well-stair was
-constructed in one of the angles from the basement to the summit of
-the tower, and had an entrance to each floor through a short passage
-in the thickness of the wall, or sometimes in the embrasure of one of
-the windows. This single stair was the only means of approach to the
-basement. At Dover there are two such stairs; and, in a few instances,
-there are small outer doorways to the basement,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_149">149</a></span> which may be
-original, like the postern, high above the ground at Newcastle, or may
-have been cut at a later date, like the entrance to the basement from
-the fore-building at Kenilworth. The two stairs at Dover are diagonally
-opposite to one another. At Rochester a second stair, also diagonal to
-the other, begins at the first floor and ascends to the roof. The main
-stair at Guildford starts in an angle of the first floor: the basement
-was probably entered by a trap-door and ladder, but later, probably in
-the thirteenth century, a doorway was cut through the wall into the
-basement below the main entrance. At Scarborough, although the main
-entrance was at the basement level, it merely opened on a stair leading
-to the first floor: the stair to the basement, if there was one, seems
-to have been in one of the angles which has been destroyed. In the
-keeps of Richmond and Ludlow, owing to the preservation of the older
-gatehouses in whole or in part, the arrangements are exceptional. The
-basement at Richmond (<a href="#i_093">93</a>) had, as we have seen, its own entrance from
-the interior of the castle; but there was also an inserted stair, now
-blocked, in one of its angles from the first floor. The main stair of
-the tower, however, started to the left of the main entrance on the
-first floor, and continued upwards straight through the south wall to
-the level of the second floor, where it stopped. The stair from the
-second floor to the roof started from a point above the first floor
-entrance, and also ran through the whole thickness of the south wall
-above the lower stair, opening on the rampart at a point above the
-entrance to the second floor.<a id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">185</a> At Ludlow, as a consequence of the
-transformation of the gatehouse, the original straight stair from the
-basement to the floor above, in the thickness of the east wall, was
-blocked up, and the basement was entered only by a trap-door in the
-first floor.<a id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">186</a></p>
-
-<p>The various floors of the tower-keep were of timber, and vaulted
-chambers, even in the basement, were an exception. The basement at
-Newcastle has an original vaulted roof, on eight ribs springing from
-a central column: the vaulting of the basement at Richmond, also from
-a central column, is an insertion. At Norham the basement is divided
-by the cross-wall into two parts, one of which has a cross-wall of
-its own, dividing it into two chambers, both barrel-vaulted: the
-other division has four bays of groined vaulting, divided by plain<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_150">150</a></span>
-transverse arches. The basement at Bamburgh was also vaulted in three
-chambers, the largest of which had a central arcade of three arches,
-from which ribs were struck to the outer wall and cross-wall. The two
-chambers of the basement at Middleham were also vaulted, one from a
-central arcade of five bays. But these northern examples are quite
-exceptional; and, even at Castle Rising, where the architectural
-treatment of the various portions of the building is unusually
-elaborate, and the larger chamber of the basement is divided by a row
-of columns, vaulting was confined to the small subdivisions which
-support the lesser first-floor chambers already mentioned.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_152">152</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_152">
-<img src="images/i_152.jpg" width="397" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">NEWCASTLE</span>: chapel</p></div>
-
-<p>Mural chambers, made in the thickness of the wall, were necessarily
-vaulted, the usual form employed being the barrel-vault, which sprang
-from the wall without any dividing string-course. Otherwise, the only
-apartment which had a stone roof was the chapel, frequently found in
-connection with the tower-keep. It must be added, however, that the
-chapel hardly ever occupies any part of a main floor in the keep, and
-that at Castle Rising, where it is in an angle of the first floor,
-the chancel alone is vaulted, and is constructed in the thickness of
-the wall. Chapels on the scale of those of London and Colchester were
-never again attempted in a keep. According to the usual theory, chapels
-in castles and houses were planned so that no room used for secular
-purposes should be above them; and their position in a keep was usually
-upon the upper floor of a tower in the fore-building, communicating
-with the adjacent floor of the main structure. The altar was always
-placed against an east wall, and the distinction between nave and
-chancel was usually kept. Thus at Rochester, where all three stages of
-the tower of the fore-building are vaulted, the top floor was probably
-a chapel, the nave of which was entered directly from the second floor
-of the keep through a mural passage, while the chancel communicated
-through a small vaulted lobby and a short stair with the main stair of
-the keep.<a id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">187</a> At Dover the chapel, with ribbed vaulting, and a chancel
-arch of two orders with chevron moulding and jamb-shafts, occupies
-the upper floor of the lower tower of the fore-building. The walls of
-chancel and nave are arcaded, which is a very usual feature in a castle
-chapel, but does not appear at Rochester. The entrance from the second
-floor of the keep at Dover was through a mural chamber and a passage
-along the west wall of the chapel, which led to the chapel doorway on
-the left hand, and a small vaulted room, possibly a vestry, on the
-right. At Porchester, again, the south<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_153">153</a></span> chamber on the first floor of
-the fore-building was the chapel, approached from the passage which led
-through the fore-building to the main doorway. The chapel at Newcastle
-(<a href="#i_152">152</a>) is in an unusual position, in the basement of the fore-building,
-and is entered through a passage from the foot of the main stair. It
-also had originally an outer doorway, which communicated directly with
-the outer stair of the fore-building near its foot—another unusual
-feature. The ribbed vaulting, wall-arcading, and chancel arch, are of
-remarkably excellent workmanship, and the “water-leaf” ornament of the
-capitals of the wall-arcade bears a close resemblance to that of the
-capitals of the contemporary Galilee of Durham. As the fore-building
-at Newcastle is against the east wall of the keep, the longer axis of
-the nave of the chapel runs north and south, and is at right angles
-to that of the chancel. The chapel is thus <span class="sans"><b>T</b></span>-shaped: the altar
-was placed on one side of the chancel, against the east wall, and was
-practically invisible from the nave. It is probable that the constable
-of the castle and his family or friends occupied the western part of
-the chancel, facing the altar, while the nave was used by the garrison
-and servants.<a id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">188</a></p>
-
-<p>Roomy chapels, like those at Newcastle and Old Sarum, were not merely
-the chapel of the great tower, but of the whole castle. On the other
-hand, the ordinary chapel of a tower-keep provided less accommodation,
-and seems to have been intended for the lord of the castle or his
-deputy and their immediate household. At Guildford the chapel of the
-keep is a mere oratory, formed by two mural chambers at right angles
-to one another, in the south-west angle of the first floor. The main
-body of the chapel, covered with a barrel-vault, is in the west wall;
-the space for the altar, arranged so that the priest faced eastwards,
-is in the south wall, and is covered by a half-barrel-vault set at
-right angles to the longer axis. The nave, which is thus quite out of
-sight of the altar-chamber, has a wall-arcade of late twelfth-century
-character, supplying a valuable clue to the real date of this rudely
-built and archaic-looking keep. Although a chapel or oratory in the
-keep was not uncommon, it was on the whole a luxury. At Richmond and
-Ludlow no provision was made for one; the chapels of the castles, which
-remain in both cases, were of earlier date than the conversion of the
-gatehouse into a tower. It is not unlikely that the name of chapel may
-have been given in later days to rooms in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_154">154</a></span> keeps and fore-buildings
-which were intended for quite other purposes.<a id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">189</a></p>
-
-<p>Although, in time of siege, cooking in the keep itself would sometimes
-be necessary, no special part of the tower was set aside as a kitchen.
-Castle Rising is an exception, where the room cut off at the north-west
-angle of the first floor seems to have served this purpose, and a
-circular chimney-shaft was hollowed out in the angle itself.<a id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">190</a>
-Fireplaces are found in most tower-keeps, though not on all floors.
-Rochester and Dover were well provided in this way, while, on the
-other hand, the tower of Porchester was without any apparent means
-of artificial warmth. The fireplaces at Dover in the cross-wall are
-of great size; those at Rochester are numerous, but small, and have
-arches decorated with the thick and roughly-cut chevron ornament which
-also appears in the arcade of the cross-wall on the second floor. The
-original fireplaces at Newcastle are in the large mural chambers on the
-first and second floors. The main apartment here was probably warmed by
-a brazier on the floor; and this may have been a common method, as it
-was in the halls of private houses. A vent for the smoke must have been
-made in the roof.</p>
-
-<p>Water, in view of the straitened circumstances of a siege, was a
-necessity in a keep, and, where there are no remains of a well, it
-is safe to assume that one has been filled up. In a mount-keep like
-Guildford, the well may have been inside the shell which walls in the
-front part of the mount. The wells of the Tower of London and Castle
-Rising were in the basements. At Colchester there is a well-chamber in
-the south wall of the basement, to the right of the entrance-passage.
-But in the later keeps the pipe of the well, a cylinder lined with
-ashlar, was often carried up through the thickness of a wall to the
-upper floors, which thus received their supply of water directly,
-without the necessity of a journey to the basement. At Kenilworth it
-was in the south wall, close to the south-west angle, with an opening
-on the basement and first floor. It is in the east wall at Newcastle,
-near the north-east angle: it has only one opening, at the well-head
-on the second floor, and is reached by a mural passage from the main
-apartment. There are two wells at Dover, one in the middle tower of
-the fore-building, with an opening at the level of the second floor,
-the other in the south wall of the keep, with its only opening<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_155">155</a></span> on the
-second floor, in a mural chamber to the left of the main entrance. The
-pipe at Rochester is in the centre of the cross-wall, and was carried
-up to the third floor, with an opening in the north chamber of each
-stage.</p>
-
-<p>Mural chambers have been noticed incidentally. Some keeps, even of the
-largest size, have their walls unpierced, save for window openings:
-this is the case with Corfe. Porchester, in spite of its great size,
-contains only two, which were used for the common and necessary purpose
-of garde-robes or latrines. On the other hand, the exceptionally
-massive walls of Dover contain a large number of such chambers, most
-of which are of considerable size: the position of the garde-robes
-here is not easy to determine. At Newcastle advantage was taken of
-the thickness of the walls to construct large chambers in connection
-with the first and second floors: that in the south wall of the second
-floor, known as the “king’s chamber,” has an original fireplace, and
-is well lighted. A doorway at its north-west corner leads into a
-garde-robe in the west wall. The number of mural chambers at Newcastle
-is small compared with that at Dover, but the walls were freely pierced
-with passages and galleries. A stair, made through the upper part of
-the south and west walls to the ramparts, seems to have been abandoned
-during the progress of the work: the notion that it was deliberately
-intended to lead a body of the enemy, who might have entered the tower,
-into a <i>cul-de-sac</i>, is fanciful, but it certainly might have had
-this unintentional effect. At Dover, Hedingham, Newcastle, Norwich,
-and Rochester, where the hall or apartments on the second floor were
-of unusual height, galleries were made in the walls round the upper
-part of the stage. The gallery at Dover was not continued round the
-north-west angle of the tower, but a passage, now blocked, was made
-through the cross-wall from north to south, so that the east room on
-this floor was completely surrounded by a gallery. The gallery at
-Rochester surrounds the whole tower, communicating with the vices in
-the south-west and north-east angles, and opening upon the interior of
-the tower in no less than fourteen places, each of which corresponds to
-a loop in the outer wall. Where the arcade which, on the second floor,
-takes the place of the cross-wall, joins the east and west walls, the
-floor of the gallery is raised by a few steps, to provide the adjacent
-arch with a solid abutment. The arrangement of the mural galleries at
-Bamburgh, which, owing to the modern alterations of the interior of the
-tower, is rather obscure, seems to have been very like that at Dover,
-with a passage through the cross-wall between two divided rooms upon
-the second floor. The gallery at Hedingham, like that at Rochester, is
-complete, and this floor,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_156">156</a></span> which is still roofed, is admirably lighted
-(<a href="#i_147">147</a>). In cases where a mural chamber served as a garde-robe, as at
-Guildford, Porchester, and the tower of the Peak, the outer wall, in
-which the seat was contained, was slightly thickened and corbelled
-out at this level, and a vent made below the seat. At Kenilworth the
-north-west turret seems to have been used entirely as a garde-robe,
-the lower part of the basement forming a pit for the refuse.<a id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">191</a> The
-garde-robes at Castle Rising are contained in a vaulted chamber in the
-west wall of the first floor, the vents opening upon the recesses by
-which the outer face of the wall is broken up.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_157">157</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_157">
-<img src="images/i_157.jpg" width="600" height="426" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">NORHAM: great tower</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_157_2">
-<img src="images/i_157_2.jpg" width="600" height="370" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">NEWARK CASTLE</p></div>
-
-<p>The roof of the tower-keep was of timber with an outer covering of
-lead, and was some feet below the level of the encircling rampart-walk
-on the top of the outer walls. The rampart-walk had a parapet upon its
-outer face, which at regular intervals was lowered to form embrasures.
-The solid portions of the parapet were of much greater breadth than
-the embrasures: the familiar type of battlemented parapet, in which
-the embrasures are of equal width with the solid “cops” or <i>merlons</i>
-between them, belongs to a later date. From the rampart-walk stairs
-led into the summits of the angle turrets, which were some feet above
-the level of the parapet. The original arrangement of the roof can be
-gathered only from the marks left against the inside of the walls. In
-towers with a cross-wall, like Rochester, each of the divisions was
-covered, as a general rule, by a roof of more or less high pitch. A
-central gutter ran along the top of the cross-wall, and side gutters
-along each of the lateral walls, which were drained through spout-holes
-made in the outer walls, which carried the rampart-walk. At Porchester,
-where, as already noted, the tower was heightened, there was originally
-a high-pitched central roof, with lean-to roofs against each of the
-lateral walls, and gutters above the centre of each of the two interior
-chambers. This curious arrangement seems to suggest that the cross-wall
-itself was added when the tower was heightened, and that the gutters
-originally were supported by timber struts in the second or attic stage
-of the tower. When the tower was raised, a flat roof was planned and
-possibly laid, and, by a curious and unique device, for which it is
-hard to find an adequate reason, the parapets of the east and west
-walls were slightly gabled. The present roof, however, is formed in
-the usual way, with two gables and central and side gutters. In towers
-without a cross-wall, like Ludlow, Newcastle, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_159">159</a></span> Richmond, the
-covering was a single high-pitched roof. In any case, the roof was
-below the level of the rampart-walk, and was not intended to form a
-free field for the defence of the tower: the occupation of the roof of
-the tower for purposes of defence was not contemplated until a somewhat
-later period than that at which the rectangular tower-keep was in
-general fashion. At Rochester, and probably in many other instances,
-the inner side of the rampart-walk was protected by a rear-wall, lower
-than the parapet. The parapet at Rochester was 2 feet broad and 8 feet
-high: the rear-wall had a breadth of 3 feet, and the rampart-walk of 4
-feet. A foot of wall was left for the springing of the roofs and for
-their side-gutters. The roof at Newcastle was re-laid in 1240; but here
-and at Dover the insertion of comparatively modern vaults makes the
-original arrangement difficult to trace. The present roof of Richmond
-is modern, with a skylight to give light and air to the dark room on
-the second floor: the height of the outer walls above the roof suggests
-that the original roof was of unusually high pitch or rose above an
-intermediate attic. The angle turrets formed elevated platforms,
-approached from the rampart-walk by stone stairs. Their elevation
-afforded a greater command of the proceedings of the enemy at the foot
-of the tower; and their solid construction may sometimes have allowed
-the defenders to employ them for stone-throwing engines, without
-interference with the operations of the soldiers on the somewhat narrow
-rampart-walk.</p>
-
-<p>It has already been shown that, if the main object of these towers
-was defensive, many of them seem to have been planned with a degree
-of comfort which indicates that their builders had an eye to their
-permanent use as the principal residence within the enclosure of the
-castle, and that, in the towers built during the reign of Henry II., a
-compromise between their military and domestic character was effected.
-It is clear, however, that, in the cases of Richmond and Ludlow, the
-converted gatehouse-towers were planned simply as military strongholds.
-Their position, in both these instances, was exposed to direct attack,
-while the early domestic buildings occupied a more sheltered position
-on the further side of the inner ward. The tower-keep can never have
-formed a convenient residence, even where, as at Hedingham, it was
-well lighted, or, as at Dover, was unusually roomy. New methods of
-fortification led to its general disuse, and although, in certain
-parts of England, the type persisted upon a small scale until the end
-of the middle ages, the period during which the fashion of building
-rectangular tower-keeps was pursued was comparatively short.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_160">160</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII<br />
-
-<br />THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION: CYLINDRICAL TOWER-KEEPS</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> development of the castle during the twelfth century was governed,
-as has been explained, by the methods of attack which its defenders
-had to meet. The strong fortresses of the reign of Henry II., with
-their stone curtains and rectangular keeps, opposed to the enemy a
-solid front of passive strength which defied attack. Sufficiently
-provisioned, a small garrison was capable of holding out against a long
-blockade, and tiring the patience of the assailants, whose artillery
-could make but little impression upon the masonry of the castle. At
-the same time, the stone castle with the rectangular tower-keep does
-not represent a final point in the perfection of fortification. The
-early Plantagenet castles were, on the contrary, merely a departure
-from the ordinary type of castle, composed of earthwork and timber, in
-the direction of an organised system of permanent stone castles. They
-belonged to a transitional period; for, even while they were being
-built, improvements upon their most striking feature, the rectangular
-keep, were suggesting themselves. During the last twenty years of the
-twelfth century, lessons learned by the Crusaders from the traditional
-methods of fortification employed in the Eastern empire exercised
-a profound influence upon the military architecture of France and
-England; and the application of these lessons during the thirteenth
-century entirely altered the defensive scheme of the castle, until
-the plan of masterpieces of fortification like Caerphilly and Harlech
-presented an entire contrast to the plan of defensive strongholds like
-Norham and Scarborough.</p>
-
-<p>The first necessity which had governed the development of
-fortification was that of enclosing the defended position so as to
-present an adequate barrier to attack. The bailey was surrounded
-with its palisade; while the palisaded mount, with its wooden tower,
-commanded—that is, overlooked—the operations of the defenders within
-the bailey, and provided a second line of defence, if the bailey were
-taken. As siege-engines increased in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_161">161</a></span> strength, stone-work took the
-place of stockading. The bailey was encircled by a stone wall with a
-certain number of towers on its circumference. It was sometimes divided
-into an outer and inner ward by a cross-wall, or, as at Ludlow (<a href="#i_096">96</a>),
-a large outer bailey was added to it, which formed a courtyard for
-barracks and stabling, and a protection in time of war for dwellers on
-the outskirts of the castle and for their flocks. A wall superseded
-the palisade round the mount, or a strong tower was built, either
-in connection with the mount or on a new site, which commanded the
-whole enclosure. Thus the passive strength of the castle was ensured.
-But stone walls and towers, however strong, were in themselves an
-insufficient protection, unless the defenders could keep themselves
-fully informed of the movements of the enemy. It was necessary that
-they should be able to command the field in which the besiegers worked,
-and especially the foot of the wall or tower on which the attack was
-concentrated. The battering-ram, the scaling-ladder, and the mine must
-be kept under constant observation. A first step towards this was the
-establishment of projecting towers along the wall at intervals. These
-flank the wall—that is, the outer face of the wall between them can be
-overlooked and protected by bodies of men posted upon the projection on
-either flank. At first, however, the system of flanking was far from
-perfect; and therefore the next step was in the direction of improving
-it, so that every portion of the outer surface of the <i>enceinte</i> might
-be covered by the fire of the defenders. This improvement, which we are
-about to trace, was effected gradually, (1) by a change in the form of
-the flanking defences themselves; (2) by their multiplication at more
-frequent intervals. The first of these changes begins to be noticeable
-during the later years of the twelfth century: the second was brought
-to pass in the first half of the thirteenth century, and led to further
-developments in the arrangement of the lines of defence.</p>
-
-<p>The rectangular form of the keep and of the towers on the curtain was
-in two respects a drawback to the defence of the castle. In the first
-place, the salient angles of the masonry were liable to destruction
-by sap and mine. The parallel jointing of the stonework made the
-removal of fragments of stone by the bore or pick at these points a
-comparatively easy, if still laborious, task. In the second place, the
-angles of a tower or curtain, which were thus points of danger, were
-precisely the places which the defenders were least able to command
-satisfactorily. Each face of a rectangular tower commands the field
-immediately in front of it: the range of shot, from the point of view
-of each marksman, is in a direction at right angles to the face of
-the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_162">162</a></span> tower. Strictly speaking, the foot of the whole curtain and its
-towers lies within a “dead angle,” as vertical fire from the rampart is
-impossible; but the wooden galleries attached to the rampart obviated
-this difficulty. But, if the lines of two adjacent faces of the tower
-are produced, it will be seen that the space contained by these is
-out of the defenders’ range, and within it miners can work securely,
-while the main attack is directed against the faces of the rectangle.
-One obvious concrete illustration of this is seen at Rochester. When
-King John, in 1215, besieged the castle, he directed against it his
-stone-throwing engines. Finding that progress by this means was slow,
-he set his miners to work. A breach was made in the outer curtain, and
-the miners continued their operations on the tower, and eventually,
-after much difficulty, broke their way through it.<a id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">192</a> We can see
-to-day that the south-east angle of the tower has been rebuilt, and
-that the form of the reconstructed turret is round, and not square.
-This, no doubt, marks the place where the breach was made: the repairs
-are evidently part of the work taken in hand by Henry III. in 1225.</p>
-
-<p>A further weak point in the defences of the castle was the insufficient
-flanking of the curtain. In the eleventh century, as we have seen,
-flanking towers were discouraged by feudal over-lords, who rightly
-recognised the danger which a strongly fortified castle, in the hands
-of rebels, might mean to themselves. As time went on, stone curtains
-were provided with towers; but these were not many in number, and,
-so long as the rectangular form of tower continued in fashion, long
-spaces of straight wall were left between the projections. The risk of
-providing too many salient angles was probably recognised by military
-engineers. From the flanking towers the adjacent part of the wall could
-be covered by the artillery of the defence; but, where a long interval
-existed between two towers, the wall mid-way was out of effective
-range. To protect these unflanked points in time of siege, a body of
-defenders would have to be kept on each spot. A twelfth-century castle,
-therefore, to be thoroughly defended, needed a large garrison to cover
-its numerous weak points. Any attempt to concentrate the defence upon
-one threatened spot might lead to the weakening of the defence at other
-points, of which the enemy would not be slow to take advantage.</p>
-
-<p>Added to this was an inherent drawback in the normal plan of the
-castle. Its wards and keep provided a system of successive lines of
-defence, which caused an enemy immense trouble<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_163">163</a></span> to pierce, but could
-not offer a combined resistance to him. In many castles, like Norham
-or Barnard Castle, the inner ward and keep were placed at a distant
-angle of the enclosure, and were protected from external attack by
-steep outer slopes and a river at their foot. In such cases, the wall
-of the outer ward offered the first resistance: the inner ward did
-not come into action until the enemy had entered the outer ward, and
-the defenders had to retire to the inner enclosure. If the inner wall
-was breached or stormed, the keep gave the defence its last shelter.
-At Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, as has already been described, the chief feature
-of the siege was the capture of ward after ward: the defenders, in
-despair, did not even attempt to resort, as a final resource, to
-the keep. Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard was in its own day a model of scientific
-fortification. Its fall was therefore a very striking example of the
-disadvantage of successive lines of defence, of which only one could
-be effectively used at a time. It is true that here and there, as
-at Rochester, the keep was placed so near the curtain of an outer
-ward that the exterior of the castle could be commanded from its
-battlements, and its artillery could be brought into play over the
-heads of the defenders of the curtain. At Richmond, the great tower
-commands the one side of the castle from which attack was possible,
-and was thus placed in the very fore-front of the defence. But such
-arrangements were happy ideas which occurred to individual engineers,
-and do not imply any systematic advance in the science of defence.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_163">
-<img src="images/i_163.jpg" width="600" height="261" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The experiences of the earliest Crusaders brought the warriors of
-the west face to face with methods of defence far superior to those
-employed in England and France. The city-wall of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_164">164</a></span> Antioch gave them an
-example of a perfect system of flanking defences; and, in the triple
-<i>enceinte</i> of Constantinople they saw how successive lines of defence
-could be used in co-operation. At Antioch the wall was flanked at
-frequent intervals by fifty towers. Each of these, rising above the
-curtain, commanded not only its space of intermediate wall, but the
-rampart-walk as well. The rampart-walk, moreover, passed through the
-towers, which were protected by strong doors. To gain the whole line
-of wall, therefore, it was necessary to occupy the towers, each of
-which could be converted into a separate stronghold, isolating the
-intermediate rampart-walk. The siege was badly conducted, the Crusaders
-limiting themselves to a strong position between the city and the
-Orontes, and allowing the defenders to hold their communications on
-two sides of the city open for some five months. Posts of observation
-were eventually established on the two neglected sides; but the actual
-capture of the city was due to the treachery of one of the commanders
-of the Turkish garrison, who admitted a body of Franks into one of the
-towers in his charge. They made their way into seven more towers, and
-so gained access to the city.<a id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">193</a> The three walls of Constantinople
-surrounded the whole city: each was higher than the one outside it,
-so that all three could be used simultaneously by the defenders.<a id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">194</a>
-Against such a system of concentric defence, the besiegers were
-manifestly at a disadvantage.</p>
-
-<p>These lessons from the east, stimulating though they were, did not
-produce their full practical effect for some generations in the
-west. Our engineers had to pass through a long epoch of gradual
-experiment before they could arrive at a finished system of flanking
-or of concentric lines of defence. The traditional mount-and-bailey
-plan provided the foundation of the plan of the stone castle. The
-traditional importance of the keep as the ultimate place of refuge
-dictated the arrangement of ward behind ward, culminating in the great
-tower. Meanwhile, the improvement of flanking defences led more and
-more to the concentration of engineering skill upon the curtain, so
-that the keep gradually took a place of secondary importance. As an
-obvious result of further improvement, the keep was dispensed with,
-and the whole attention of the engineer was directed to combining the
-defences of the castle into a double or triple line of simultaneous
-resistance to attack. These steps took time: the transition from one to
-the other was effected by no sudden revolution, but by work along old
-lines, a work of revision and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_165">165</a></span> improvement, until the finished product
-formed an almost complete antithesis to the source from which it was
-derived.</p>
-
-<p>The earliest signs of transition in England are seen in the
-strengthening of the masonry by the reduction and elimination of
-salient angles. It is obvious that, if a rounded or polygonal form is
-given to a projecting tower, or if the angle of a rectangular tower is
-rounded off, a wider field will be commanded by the artillery of the
-defence. The new range will be a large segment of a circle radiating
-from the centre of the tower, instead of a rectangle in front of each
-face. The sectors at the angles within which an attacking party can
-work securely will be thus eliminated, and the chances of the success
-of a mine will be less. The masonry also will offer much greater
-resistance to the battering or boring engines of the enemy. The joints
-are no longer parallel, but radiating, so that it becomes much harder
-work to force out stones and effect a breach. The obtuse angles of
-polygonal towers, with the joints of the masonry in the alternate faces
-running in oblique directions to each other, have a much greater power
-of resistance than the right angles of the ordinary twelfth-century
-tower.</p>
-
-<p>The general use of circular and polygonal forms is first found in
-connection with the principal tower of the castle, the keep. The
-main object was at first, no doubt, the greater cohesion imparted
-to the masonry: the scientific advantages, from the point of view
-of artillery, probably were not realised till later. In France the
-cylindrical donjon appeared at an earlier date than in England: that
-at Ch&acirc;teau-sur-Epte (Eure) is said to have been begun in 1097.<a id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">195</a>
-The tower of Houdan (Seine-et-Oise) is a cylinder flanked by four
-cylindrical turrets: it was built during the reign of Louis VI.
-(1108-37),<a id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">196</a> and the form shows that the builders looked, not merely
-to the strength of the masonry, but to the reduction of the enemy’s
-chances of successful attack. The majority, however, of such donjons
-in France belong to the second half of the twelfth century and the
-beginning of the thirteenth, and were contemporary with our rectangular
-towers. But the engineers of Henry II., to whom we owe so many of our
-stone keeps, were certainly acquainted with the possible benefits of
-forms other than square. The keep of Orford in Suffolk was probably
-built between 1166 and 1172,<a id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">197</a> and is therefore earlier in date than
-many rectangular keeps.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_166">166</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_166">
-<img src="images/i_166.jpg" width="476" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conisbrough; Keep</p></div>
-
-<p>Internally, it is cylindrical; externally, a polygon of twenty-one
-sides, with three very large rectangular turrets projecting from it.
-It has a basement and two main floors, and is entered by a two-storied
-fore-building, which forms a southward continuation of the eastern
-turret. The sloping base of the tower is continued round the turrets,
-and greatly strengthens their angles; while the turrets themselves
-are so placed as to flank the whole tower and fore-building very
-effectively, and to provide additional room in the interior. This
-combination of the rectangular and polygonal forms is, for its date, an
-unique departure from the ordinary type of English tower-keep. But it
-must be remembered that the shell-keep on the mount usually took the
-form of a cylindrical or polygonal wall strengthened by buttresses; and
-at Orford, where the tower appears to stand upon the base of a levelled
-mount, we may have a conscious adaptation of this form to the heavier
-and loftier tower. At Gisors (Eure) the older donjon was an octagonal
-tower, built on a mount, and surrounded by a circular wall. The tower
-was probably built by Henry II. between 1161 and 1184,<a id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">198</a> within
-the somewhat earlier shell, and took the form which was best suited
-to the artificial soil on which it stood. But there are at least two
-instances of English rectangular keeps in which a slight departure from
-the normal form was made for obvious purposes of additional strength,
-without reference to an artificial site. At Newcastle the north-west
-turret is octagonal, with very obtuse angles. In the small tower of
-Mitford, on the Wansbeck above Morpeth, the north wall is built with an
-obtuse salient angle, so that the tower forms an irregular pentagon.
-The date of this tower cannot be fixed with certainty, but it probably
-belongs to the second half, at any rate, of the twelfth century;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_167">167</a></span> and
-it can hardly be doubted that the object of this peculiar device was to
-give the defenders better command of the angles of the tower which were
-exposed to attack from the inner ward.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_167">
-<img src="images/i_167.jpg" width="600" height="588" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conisbrough; Keep. Plans</p></div>
-
-<p>Somewhat later than these is the noble cylindrical keep of Conisbrough
-(<a href="#i_166">166</a>), which is attributed to Hamelin Plantagenet, a natural brother of
-Henry II., and husband of Isabel, heiress of William, earl of Surrey.
-Hamelin died in 1201: the tower was built, as the architectural details
-show, during the last quarter of the twelfth century. It is a regular
-cylinder; and to its circumference are applied six bold buttresses,
-which narrow slightly outwards,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_168">168</a></span> and rise above the parapet in turrets.
-The whole is built of dressed stone in large rectangular blocks, the
-fine condition of which, after more than seven hundred years, is
-extraordinary. The construction is unusually solid: the thickness of
-the wall in the basement exceeds 20 feet. On the first floor it is
-just under 15 feet: in the two upper floors it is reduced by internal
-off-sets, until, at the rampart level, 75 to 80 feet above the ground,
-it is 12&frac12; feet. In addition to this the buttresses, which project
-9 feet at the basement level and 8 feet above, are not used, like the
-turrets at Orford, to contain additional rooms, but are built solid.
-The chapel, however, was formed by constructing a chamber in the
-eastern buttress upon the third floor.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_168">
-<img src="images/i_168.jpg" width="391" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conisbrough; Fireplace</p></div>
-
-<p>The tower of Conisbrough, like that of Orford, was intended for
-residential as well as defensive purposes; but light and comfort were
-sacrificed to military necessities. The entrance, as usual, was upon
-the first floor, but there is no trace of any<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_169">169</a></span> fore-building, nor is
-the original means of approach at all clear. The basement was simply
-a domed well-chamber and store-room: the only approach to it from the
-first floor was an opening in the centre of the guard-chamber, over
-which was probably the windlass by which buckets were lowered into the
-well.<a id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">199</a> The first floor was a guard-chamber: there were no windows,
-and the only means of admitting daylight was through the open door on
-the far side of the passage through the wall. On the right-hand side of
-this passage, a curved stair mounts through the thickness of the wall
-to the second floor, which it enters by a landing in the embrasure<a id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">200</a>
-of a loop on the north side. This floor was the hall of the keep.
-There is a large fireplace (<a href="#i_168">168</a>) in the west wall, with a spreading
-chimney-breast, and a lintel of joggled stones resting on triple
-shafts with carved capitals. In the wall between the fireplace and the
-entrance is a rectangular recess, containing a small sink, which was
-drained through the wall. There are two windows, the loop close to the
-entrance, and a double window opening to the south-east. The embrasures
-are barrel-vaulted: that of the double window has a stone bench on all
-three sides, and stands three steps above the floor of the hall. This
-window was not glazed: the upright between the two rectangular openings
-has at the back a rounded projection, through a hole in which the bolt
-of the shutters passed, and the fastening was further secured by a
-wooden draw-bar. On the north-east side of the hall a winding passage
-with two turns and a flight of steps leads through the thickness of the
-wall to a garde-robe.</p>
-
-<p>To reach the third floor, the hall had to be crossed to a recess in
-the direction of the south-west buttress. From this point a curved
-staircase mounted through the wall to the embrasure of a loop in
-the south-east face of the third floor. The apartment on this floor
-contained a smaller fireplace, immediately above that on the second
-floor, and treated with similar architectural ornament. The flue of
-the lower chimney runs up through the wall behind that of the other:
-the common chimney-top projects from the rampart-walk above. There is
-also upon this floor a trefoil-headed recess with a sink. There are two
-windows, the loop in the south-east face, and a double opening, similar
-to that below, looking south. This room corresponded to the “great
-chamber,” which is found in the larger houses of the middle<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_170">170</a></span> ages. On
-its east side the chapel, an irregular hexagon, vaulted in two ribbed
-bays with a transverse arch between, was constructed in the eastern
-wall and buttress. The details of its beautiful capitals, like those of
-the fireplaces, show elementary foliage of the water-leaf type, such as
-is found in the chapel of the tower at Newcastle (<a href="#i_152">152</a>). Chevron is used
-in the stilted transverse arch and round the outside of the arch of the
-loop at the east end. The quatrefoil openings north and south of the
-chancel bay, and the trefoil-headed <i>piscinae</i> in the same walls, are
-of an advanced transitional character; and, by comparing these details,
-a date approximating to 1185-90 may with some certainty be given to the
-tower. In the north wall of the chapel a doorway leads into a small
-vestry or priest’s chamber, lighted by a loop. The stairway to the
-rampart-walk mounts through the wall above this chamber, and its head
-is above the western bay of the chapel. It is entered from a recess in
-the north-east wall of the second floor, and from this recess there is
-also a zigzag passage to a garde-robe, the seat of which is corbelled
-out in the angle between the north-east buttress and the north wall of
-the tower. The two lower stairways and the two garde-robe chambers are
-each lighted by a small loop.</p>
-
-<p>In the roomier arrangement of the keep at Orford, the stair is a vice
-in the turret or buttress to which the fore-building is annexed. The
-chapel is upon the first floor of the fore-building, and, being on a
-level of its own, not corresponding to the levels of the tower, is
-approached from the stair by a separate passage. The entrance to the
-chapel is a doorway on the left of this passage, which is continued
-through the south-east wall of the tower to a priest’s room in the
-south turret.</p>
-
-<p>The defensive side of the arrangements at Conisbrough must now be
-considered. The tower stands close to the north-east corner of a
-large bailey, the shape of which follows that of the knoll on which
-it is built: the north segment of the tower, with the two adjacent
-buttresses, continues the line of the curtain; but five-sixths of the
-circumference, with four of the buttresses, are within the enclosure.
-On the north and east sides the steepness of the hill made access
-nearly impracticable, and the natural point of attack was from the
-south and south-west. The position of the keep is at the point furthest
-removed from attack, and the capture of the inner ward, as will be
-seen in a later chapter, was rendered very difficult by a well-guarded
-approach.<a id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">201</a> The tower stood on higher ground than the rest of the
-ward, and the entrance, on the south-east side, was sheltered by the
-east curtain. The south and south-west faces were fully<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_171">171</a></span> exposed to an
-attack from the inner ward, and it was on this side, therefore, that
-the defenders needed full command of the sides and base of the tower.
-Accordingly, when we mount to the rampart-walk, and examine the tops of
-the buttresses, we find that the two which are upon the north curtain,
-and were not exposed to attack, contain cisterns. The two on either
-side of the main entrance were not necessary for flanking purposes, as
-the entrance itself would be defended by some kind of platform in time
-of siege. One, therefore, above the chapel, was employed as a house for
-carrier-pigeons; while the other contained an oven, in which stones
-and arrows could be heated. The remaining two buttresses are raised
-platforms which effectively flanked that part of the circumference
-which was otherwise insufficiently guarded, and lay open to catapults
-and mining operations. The spreading base of the tower and buttresses
-served further to keep the battering-ram and bore from direct contact
-with the main wall of the tower, and improved the flanking position of
-the defenders; while missiles dropped from the summit upon this talus
-or sloping surface would rebound upon the enemy with deadly effect.</p>
-
-<p>Above the talus the solidity of the main wall defied the force of
-catapults. These engines, however, had increased in strength and range,
-and it was no longer safe to give light to the tower in the somewhat
-lavish method adopted by the engineers of some of our large keeps. At
-Conisbrough, as we have seen, the walls of the first floor, save for
-the entrance passage, are absolutely solid. The loops in the upper
-floors are very few in number, and the one on the most exposed face
-is almost concealed by a buttress. The double window on the second
-floor is immediately over the main entrance, on a side which it would
-be difficult to command with a large siege-engine. That on the third
-floor is placed upon an exposed face, but would probably be out of
-range.<a id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">202</a> The garde-robe vents are on the side where the tower
-crosses the line of the curtain.</p>
-
-<p>In time of siege the larger windows would be shuttered and barred. The
-defence would be conducted from the top of the tower, while a body
-of the garrison would be told off to protect the main entrance. The
-whole summit would be utilised. The defence was not confined, as in a
-rectangular keep, to the rampart-walk; but there was a rear-wall to
-the walk, through which openings probably gave access to a covered
-round-house<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_172">172</a></span> above the third floor. To this room, which, to judge
-from contemporary instances, had a conical roof, arms and missiles
-could be hauled up, through trap-doors in the floors below, from the
-guard-room and the store-chamber in the basement. There was no vaulted
-roof in the tower above the basement, so that the flat roof could
-not be used as a platform for catapults. There is no indication that
-hoarding was employed outside the rampart. The tower and its buttresses
-were finished off with a battlemented parapet in the usual way; the
-buttresses, as has been shown, were so constructed and so near together
-that additional wooden defences were practically unnecessary.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_172">
-<img src="images/i_172.jpg" width="300" height="296" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Etampes; Donjon. Plan</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_174">174</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_174">
-<img src="images/i_174.jpg" width="417" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">GOODRICH CASTLE</span>: round tower with spur at base</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_174_2">
-<img src="images/i_174_2.jpg" width="429" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">GOODRICH CASTLE</span>: buttery hatches</p></div>
-
-<p>In France the treatment of the donjon was pursued with more variation
-than in England. To the middle of the twelfth century belongs, for
-instance, the donjon of Etampes (Seine-et-Oise), which takes the form
-of a quatrefoil (<a href="#i_172">172</a>). The donjon of Provins (Seine-et-Marne) is of
-much the same date, the ground-plan forming an octagon flanked by
-four cylindrical turrets. Although both these towers have analogies
-in England, they were constructed nevertheless by French engineers
-at a period before even the rectangular tower had become common with
-ours.<a id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">203</a> They are also only two out of many diverse experiments. The
-cylindrical form, however, commended itself to the builders of the
-finest French examples. Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard (<a href="#i_163">163</a>) follows closely upon
-Conisbrough in point of date, having been begun by Richard I. in 1196.
-The donjon is not, as at Conisbrough, a tower to which the line of a
-somewhat earlier curtain has been adapted, but is part of a homogeneous
-scheme of fortification. The site of the castle is the top of a very
-steep and almost isolated hill on the right bank of the Seine: the west
-slope is a precipice, and the only practicable attack could be made
-from the ridge joining the hill to the high ground on the south. The
-donjon is set so that its west face projects from the curtain of the
-inner ward, upon the very edge of the precipice. The interior forms a
-regular cylinder, and the west face is a segment of a circle. On this
-side the solidity of the masonry is increased by a tremendous outward
-slope or batter, the whole<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_175">175</a></span> height of the basement and adjacent
-curtain. Towards the inner ward, however, the cylinder is strengthened
-by a covering spur, also battered, so that, while the interior of
-the castle was commanded from the rampart, the tower offered to the
-besiegers an angle of immense thickness and strength, immediately
-opposite the gateway of the inner ward. A possible prototype in
-France of this form of defence is the donjon of La-Roche-Guyon
-(Seine-et-Oise), higher up the Seine, where the spur covers about a
-quarter of the circumference of the tower. Philip Augustus adopted
-the same device a few years later in the White tower at Issoudun
-(Indre).<a id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">204</a> It is seen at Goodrich (<a href="#i_174">174</a>), Chepstow, and elsewhere.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_175">
-<img src="images/i_175.jpg" width="421" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard</p></div>
-
-<p>As the upper portion of the tower of Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard is gone, its
-internal arrangements are difficult to decipher. It was purely a tower
-of defence; but the inaccessible nature of the west side allowed of
-large windows being made in that face upon the first floor. There was
-probably a low second floor, above which was the roof and rampart-walk.
-The rampart was defended with the aid of a device, unusual at the
-time, although very general at a later period. The sides of the tower
-within the ward were furnished with narrow buttress projections above
-the battering base, which gradually increased in breadth as they went
-higher. These divided the face of the tower into a series of recesses
-spanned by low arches, on the outer face of which the parapet was
-carried. The top of each recess, between the parapet and the wall,
-was left open, so that the defenders could use the holes for raining
-down missiles upon their opponents. Such holes, formed by corbelling
-out a parapet in advance of a wall or tower, are called machicolations
-(<i>m&acirc;chicoulis</i>),<a id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">205</a> and gradually<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_176">176</a></span> superseded the external gallery
-of timber. Holes in stone roofs for the same purpose are found at an
-earlier date, as in the fore-building at Scarborough; and, as early as
-1160, they appear in connection with the parapet of a donjon at Niort
-(Deux-S&egrave;vres).<a id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">206</a> The general tradition is that they were invented
-by the Crusaders in Syria, where wood for hoarding was not easily
-obtained; and this is probably true.<a id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">207</a> They appear in a state of
-perfection, which testifies to a long course of previous experiment,
-at the great Syrian castle of Le Krak des Chevaliers (<a href="#i_176">176</a>), begun in
-1202. But hoarding continued in use in Europe long after the building
-of Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, and even the donjon of Coucy (Aisne), by far the
-finest of all cylindrical donjons, was garnished with timber hoarding
-carried on stone corbels—an interesting example of the transition from
-one form of defence to another.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_176">
-<img src="images/i_176.jpg" width="450" height="278" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Le Krak des Chevaliers</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_177">
-<img src="images/i_177.jpg" width="308" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Coucy</p></div>
-
-<p>The cylindrical form of donjon was brought to perfection in France
-under Philip Augustus (1180-1223). At Gisors, which came into
-his hands in 1193, he built a new circular tower on the line of
-the curtain, which superseded Henry II.’s octagonal tower on the
-mount. His fortification of Gisors led directly to the building of
-Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard by Richard I., to cover the approach from French
-territory to Rouen.<a id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">208</a> But in 1204 the capture of this great
-stronghold delivered Rouen into Philip’s hands; and in 1207 he built
-the donjon, now known as the Tour Jeanne d’Arc, at Rouen. Here we meet
-with the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_177">177</a></span>
-tower vaulted from basement to roof, with a strongly defended entrance
-at the level of the ward in which it stands, of which the most perfect
-example is found at Coucy.<a id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">209</a> Coucy, the work of a powerful vassal of
-the crown of France, represents a degree of scientific fortification
-to which none of our cylindrical donjons attains. The castle was
-constructed, like Conway at a later period, in connection with the
-defences of a walled town.<a id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">210</a> It consists of two wards, a large
-outer ward or base-court and an inner ward of irregular shape, with
-four straight sides of unequal length and round towers at the angles.
-In the middle of the east side, between the two wards, is the donjon
-(<a href="#i_177">177</a>), a cylinder of some 200 feet high—90 feet higher than the tower
-of Rochester. It stands isolated from the curtain of the inner ward,
-from the line of which about one-third of its circumference projects,
-and is surrounded by a ditch, originally paved with stone. To this
-ditch there was no external access. On the outer edge of the ditch,
-joining the east curtain of the inner ward at two points, was a strong
-wall or <i>chemise</i>. Outside this was the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_178">178</a></span> ditch dividing the inner ward
-from the base-court. Within the inner ward, a low wall took the place
-of the <i>chemise</i> of the donjon, and access to the tower was provided
-by a bridge across the stone-flagged ditch. The bridge was worked by a
-windlass, and, when not in use, remained drawn up on the threshold of
-the tower.</p>
-
-<p>The donjon of Coucy is built in three stages, and has a large
-apartment, originally vaulted, on each floor. There is no basement
-chamber below the level of the entrance. In order to facilitate
-vaulting the various floors, each chamber was planned with twelve
-sides, lofty niches being left between the abutments of the vault.<a id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">211</a>
-Without giving a detailed description, we may notice the points in
-which this great structure resembles and improves upon the tower of
-Conisbrough. (1) The isolation of the tower, defended by its own ditch
-and, towards the field, by its own curtain, makes an entrance on the
-ground floor possible. In this respect, the builders of Coucy followed
-the example of Philip Augustus at the Louvre and at Rouen. (2) The
-defences of the entrance are more elaborate than at Conisbrough, where
-the doorway was closed merely by a strong wooden door, reinforced
-by two draw-bars, and a straight passage led into the guard-room on
-the first floor. At Coucy there was a similar door, but in front of
-it was an iron portcullis, worked from the first floor of the tower,
-and sliding through grooves at the back of the jambs of the doorway.
-The portcullis was defended further by a machicolation or open groove
-in the floor above. The entrance passage behind the wooden door was
-closed by a hinged grille at the entrance to the guard-room. (3) The
-stair, as at Conisbrough, was on the right of the entrance passage,
-but, instead of following the curve of the wall, was a vice, which
-led straight to the roof, communicating with the two upper floors on
-the way. The device adopted at Conisbrough, by which the stair ends
-at each floor, and, in order to ascend further, the floor has to be
-crossed, was adopted in the lesser towers at Coucy,<a id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">212</a> but not in the
-donjon. The Conisbrough method has the advantage, very desirable in a
-tower, of keeping the approach to the roof under direct observation
-throughout its entire distance: we find it used in the stairs of the
-rectangular keep at Richmond. (4) The tower of Coucy, as already
-noticed, was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_179">179</a></span> defended by a lofty parapet, pierced with arches, which,
-in time of siege, gave access to an outer wooden gallery supported
-by stone corbels.<a id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">213</a> The form of the corbels is that which became
-general in later times: each is composed of four courses of stone
-projecting one above the other, with their outer ends rounded. (5)
-The well at Coucy was in one of the niches between the abutments of
-the ground-floor vault. (6) There are garde-robes at Coucy on the
-left of the entrance-passage, and in a similar position at the entry
-to the first floor. (7) We have seen that at Conisbrough arms were
-probably transported from the basement to the roof through a series
-of trap-doors in the floors. At Coucy there was a circular opening
-left for this purpose in the crown of the vault of each floor. (8)
-The solidity of the tower of Coucy is emphasised by the absence of
-large windows, even more noticeable than at Conisbrough; and, although
-the tower contains fireplaces, its purely defensive character is
-unmistakable. It provided accommodation for an enormous garrison, but
-for residential purposes, it would have been uncomfortable to the last
-degree. It contains no trace of a permanent chapel: when the tower was
-in use, an altar might have been set up in one of the niches on the
-first floor; but the regular chapel was in the inner ward, and was
-connected with the domestic buildings.</p>
-
-<p>In the walls of the tower of Coucy can still be seen the holes which
-served to attach the scaffolding during construction. The spiral course
-which they take shows that the scaffolding, rising with the tower,
-formed an inclined plane of a moderate slope, up which the necessary
-materials could be wheeled. The advantage of a cylindrical tower from
-this point of view is obvious. Another structural feature is the
-provision of gutters for the drainage of the roof in the stonework at
-the back of the vault-ribs of the second floor. The absence of any
-effective provision for draining the centre of the roof at Conisbrough
-points to the probability that it was sheltered, as already explained,
-by a conical roof of its own.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_180">
-<img src="images/i_180.jpg" width="420" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Pembroke</p></div>
-
-<p>The introduction of the cylindrical donjon in England coincides with a
-period at which the keep was already beginning to disappear from the
-castle. The principal examples, which may be attributed to the early
-years of the thirteenth century, are on the frontier and in the south
-of Wales. Chief among them is the fine tower of Pembroke (<a href="#i_180">180</a>), which
-was probably built by William Marshal, earl of Pembroke and Striguil,
-about 1200.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_180">180</a></span> The castle of Pembroke was of great importance, owing to
-its situation upon an arm of Milford haven,<a id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">214</a> and its command of the
-passage to Ireland. The keep was probably the first completed portion
-of the present castle, the stone-work of which, as it stands to-day,
-is very largely of the late twelfth and early thirteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">215</a>
-It is a round tower, with a basement and three upper floors, standing
-just within, but not touching, the curtain which divided the inner and
-higher from the outer ward. The height is 75 feet; the floors were
-of wood, but the uppermost stage was vaulted by a dome, which still
-remains, rising in the centre of the tower above the rampart-walk. The
-stair is a vice in the west wall, from the basement to the summit: the
-main entrance was upon the first floor, but there is also a basement
-entrance, which seems to have been pierced not long after the building
-of the tower. The whole structure batters upwards, and the walls are
-slightly gathered in at each stage on the outside, a method the reverse
-of that pursued at Conisbrough: the masonry is roughly coursed rubble.
-On each of the first and second floors there is, towards the inner
-ward, a two-light window with pointed openings, the spandrils between
-which and the enclosing arch are pierced with plate tracery. The third
-floor was lighted by windows pierced in the dome.<a id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">216</a> Commanding, as
-it does, the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_181">181</a></span> whole interior of the castle, this tower is remarkably
-grand in situation; and its thick walls offered considerable resistance
-to artillery. It shows, however, no advance upon the defence of
-Conisbrough. The rampart-walk is narrow, and the dome in the centre
-prevented the employment of the roof as a platform.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_181">
-<img src="images/i_181.jpg" width="600" height="501" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Pembroke; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The cylindrical donjon in England and Wales was simply an experiment
-attempted here and there, as an improvement upon the rectangular tower,
-but was never carried to the general perfection which it attained in
-France. Its isolation at Coucy, upon the outer face of the inner ward,
-protected by its own inner ditch, and covered by a strong curtain of
-its own, are signs of a perfection of engineering skill to which our
-builders did not attain. In one case, at Flint, we find a round tower
-which is isolated within its own ditch at one corner of the castle,
-but stands outside the main wall, and had no separate curtain of its
-own.<a id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">217</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_182">182</a></span> The plan strongly suggests a mount-and-bailey fortress, the
-isolated tower occupying the site of the mount, and the bailey walled
-in, leaving the moat, which was marshy and was filled with water at
-high tide, clear. The construction of this keep is peculiar: it is
-composed of an outer and inner circle of masonry, with barrel-vaulted
-passages between the two. Its actual date is unknown.<a id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">218</a> But, as
-a rule, where the keep stands upon the outer line of defence, it is
-joined by the curtain of the bailey. Thus at Caldicot, near Chepstow,
-the castle is simply a mount-and-bailey enclosure surrounded by a stone
-curtain of the thirteenth century. The keep is a round tower at one
-corner, standing upon the partially levelled mount; and the curtain
-crosses the ditch to join it on both sides. At Conisbrough, where the
-keep was on the line of the curtain; at Pembroke, where it stood just
-within the line, there was no ditch round it: the high ground on which
-it was placed seems to have been thought a sufficient protection.</p>
-
-<p>There are, however, a few round towers which, although they have not
-their own curtain in the sense of Coucy, are yet within defences of
-a peculiar nature, and therefore stand in a class apart. The most
-remarkable of these is Launceston, where the tower stands upon the
-summit of a lofty artificial mount of early Norman origin, and is
-approached by a steep and well-defended stair, ascending the face of
-the mount to the main entrance. Round the outer edge of the mount
-remain the lower courses of a stone wall, concentric with the keep.
-Within this is another and higher circular wall, which was crowned by
-a rampart-walk, approached by a stair in the thickness of the wall, to
-the left of the entrance. Inside this enclosure is the tower itself,
-which now consists of a basement and a ruined upper floor. The narrow
-space between the tower and the encircling wall was evidently roofed
-over at the height of the first floor of the tower: holes for joists
-still remain.<a id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">219</a> This double circle of masonry recalls Flint, where,
-however, the intermediate passage was vaulted, and the outer circle was
-probably the whole height of the tower.<a id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">220</a> Flint does not possess
-the low outer wall which existed at Launceston. The nearest analogy to
-Launceston is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_183">183</a></span> at Provins (Seine-et-Marne), where the octagonal keep
-has its own outer curtain, and is composed of an outer octagon with
-cylindrical turrets at the angles, commanded by an inner octagon rising
-two stages higher. The upper stage at Provins is surrounded by a lofty
-crenellated wall, on which rests a conical roof.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_183">
-<img src="images/i_183.jpg" width="449" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Dolbadarn</p></div>
-
-<p>Another case is the keep of Tretower in Breconshire, which stands on
-a slightly elevated site near the confluence of the Rhiangol with the
-Usk. Here the arrangement is very curious. The keep, a round tower
-with a basement and three upper stages, stands within the ruins of
-an approximately rectangular enclosure. This enclosure bears a close
-resemblance to the outer wall of a rectangular keep, but has two
-octagonal projections from the south face, one of which contains a
-vice, and the other a large fireplace. The tower itself seems to be
-somewhat earlier than the year 1200: the fireplaces on the first and
-second floors have architectural decoration recalling that of the
-fireplaces at Conisbrough, shafts with capitals carved with foliage of
-a very elementary kind. The solution which suggests itself is that a
-rectangular tower, of a somewhat original plan, was begun<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_184">184</a></span> and raised
-to a certain height, and that the builders then changed their minds,
-built a circular tower within the unfinished keep, and left the outer
-walls to serve as a curtain for the new structure.</p>
-
-<p>The keep at Tretower, in its ordinary features, may be compared with
-the tower of Bronllys, only a few miles distant, on the other side of
-the pass through the Black mountains, at the southern foot of which
-Tretower stands. This tower also seems to be a work of the end of the
-twelfth century, but its architectural details are much plainer: both
-seem originally to have been between 70 and 80 feet high, and each
-contained a basement and three floors. Each has a battering base, and
-above this the wall at Tretower batters slightly to the summit; the
-diameter of Tretower exceeds that of Bronllys throughout. The original
-entrance in each case was on the first floor, from which at Tretower
-a vice led to the top of the building. The basement at Tretower had
-its separate stair in the wall opposite the entrance. At Bronllys the
-basement has a pointed barrel vault, and was entered by a stone stair
-and ladder from a trap-door in one of the window recesses of the first
-floor. The stair from the first floor to the second opened from another
-window recess, and curved through the wall, as at Conisbrough; there
-was, as also at Conisbrough, a separate stair to the third floor. The
-wall of the basement at Bronllys has been broken through in two places,
-and in one of these a hollow in the wall has been disclosed, in which
-originally a great beam was inserted to give coherence to the masonry.
-The same feature is seen in the outer building at Tretower. This device
-was frequently employed in the construction of medieval walls, but its
-traces are not often so clearly seen.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_184">
-<img src="images/i_184.jpg" width="262" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Dolbadarn; Interior</p></div>
-
-<p>One feature of the tower of Bronllys is that, like that of Caldicot, it
-stands upon an artificial mount, which occupies the ordinary position
-of such earthworks, at the head of the enclosure. The more roomy,
-but lower, tower at Hawarden, the upper floor of which is internally
-an octagon, almost surrounded by a mural passage, is built upon a
-lofty mount. At Skenfrith in Monmouthshire<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_185">185</a></span> the tower, nearly equal
-to Bronllys in diameter, but not higher than Hawarden, stands upon a
-very low mount, and is placed in an isolated position, nearly in the
-centre of a trapezoidal enclosure. Here the lowness of the mount and
-the absence of indications of a normal earthwork plan suggest that it
-was raised to strengthen the foundations of the tower, and is not the
-mount of an earlier castle. The knoll, on the other hand, on which
-the round tower of Dolbadarn (<a href="#i_183">183</a>) stands, between the two lakes at
-the foot of the pass of Llanberis, is natural. The details of this
-tower are very plain, but it was probably built during the thirteenth
-century. There is no trace of any castle in connection with this small
-military outpost, which, like the not far-distant rectangular keep of
-Dolwyddelan, on the eastern slopes of Moel Siabod, bears some analogy
-to the “pele-towers” of the north of England, and may have been built
-by a Welsh chieftain upon an English model during the reign of Henry
-III.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_185">
-<img src="images/i_185.jpg" width="450" height="356" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">York; Clifford’s Tower</p></div>
-
-<p>None of the towers in England and Wales mentioned in this chapter have
-the inner spur which has been noticed as characteristic of French
-towers. It appears, as has been said, at Goodrich and Chepstow. Other
-instances are a tower in the outer curtain at Denbigh, and the spur on
-the inward face of the great tower at Barnard Castle. Here the work
-is not earlier than the time of Edward II., and the tower is little
-more than a large mural tower added to a large shell-keep standing on
-a high rocky point. The spur here is a half pyramid, the apex of which
-dies away in the face of the tower. Of an octagonal tower we have one
-example at Odiham in Hampshire, which may be of the end of the twelfth
-century. This has the feature,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_186">186</a></span> anomalous for so early a date, of angle
-buttresses which project 4 feet, but are only 2 feet broad.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_186">
-<img src="images/i_186.jpg" width="600" height="405" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Berkeley Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>Of donjons which were built in England during the reign of Henry III.,
-the most interesting, by virtue of their plan, are those of York
-and Pontefract. The tower of York (<a href="#i_185">185</a>), raised upon the mount of
-the northern of the two castles, was built possibly about 1230, and
-assumed the quatrefoil shape which is found in France at Etampes. This
-keep, presumably because it is built on a mount, is usually called a
-“shell”; it was, however, a regular tower, and the entrance, in the
-angle between two of the leaves of the quatrefoil, is guarded by a
-rectangular fore-building, on the first floor of which was the chapel.
-As at Etampes, the quatrefoil plan is preserved internally, but the
-angles formed by the meeting of the four segments are chamfered off:
-there was no vaulting, as at Etampes, but the floors were of wood.
-A quatrefoil plan was also adopted at Pontefract, with some slight
-variation, owing to the irregular shape of the rocky mount. This keep
-is in a state of complete ruin, although some idea of its former shape
-may be gathered from a bird’s-eye view preserved among the records of
-the duchy of Lancaster.<a id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">221</a> We can see, from what is left, that it
-was not built upon the top of the mount; but that, on three sides, the
-mount was enclosed by walls of revetment,<a id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">222</a> which formed<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_187">187</a></span> the base
-of the segments composing the quatrefoil. This process recalls the
-walling-in of the mount at Berkeley, where, however, the lower part of
-the mount was left, and the space between the slope and the wall filled
-in with earth. At Pontefract the slope of the mount must have been much
-reduced before the walls of revetment were added: the sandstone upon
-which the castle was built is soft, and would lend itself easily to
-such an operation.</p>
-
-<p>The bird’s-eye view of Pontefract just mentioned cannot be regarded
-as absolutely trustworthy, but it gives us the relative position of
-the various towers of the castle. It shows us a curtain flanked by a
-formidable row of mural towers; the keep, a complicated erection of
-several segments, with bartizans<a id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">223</a> projecting from the battlements
-in the angles formed by the junction of the segments, is still the
-dominant feature of the castle; but our attention is equally claimed
-by the defences of the curtain and the domestic buildings which it
-encloses. And, in pursuing our subject, we must first trace the growth
-of domestic buildings within the castle area, and then turn to that
-strengthening of the curtain which led eventually to the disuse of the
-keep.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_188">188</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII<br />
-
-<br />THE DWELLING-HOUSE IN THE CASTLE</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> castle needed, among its chief requirements, a dwelling-house which
-might be occupied by the owner and his household. Thus the stronghold
-of the lord of Ardres upon its mount was planned as a capacious
-dwelling, with a kitchen attached; and where, as in this case, the
-keep was the castle, it necessarily served the double purpose of
-fortress and residence. Enough has been said of the rectangular and
-cylindrical forms of tower-keep to show that the domestic and military
-elements were often combined in their arrangements. But the use of the
-tower-keep as the principal residence within the castle was a fashion
-of comparatively short duration. The example of its double use had
-been set in the great towers of London and Colchester, and in the
-rectangular towers of Norman and French castles. Of the towers of Henry
-II.’s reign, those which, like Castle Rising, are low in proportion
-to the area they cover, generally have the best provision for living
-purposes. Lofty towers, like Newcastle or Conisbrough, can never have
-been comfortable residences; and it is not surprising to find that at
-Newcastle, about half a century after the building of the tower, a
-more commodious dwelling-house was built within the castle area.<a id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">224</a>
-But we have seen already that in early castles, as at Oxford, a hall
-for the lord or his constable was generally, if not always, built
-within the bailey. The practical necessity of this is obvious in
-mount-and-bailey castles, where the tower on the mount, or the stone
-shell which took its place, was reserved for the main purpose of a
-final refuge in time of siege. No one who examines the sites of castles
-like Lincoln, Launceston, or Clare, with their formidable mounts, can
-fail to realise that the mount was an inconvenient place of residence,
-and that domestic buildings would be naturally provided in the annexed
-bailey. Bishop<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_189">189</a></span> Bek’s thirteenth-century hall at Durham, built against
-the western curtain of the bailey, stands upon the substructure of a
-far earlier building. The domestic buildings in the bailey at Guildford
-appear to be of earlier date than the stone tower on the mount; while
-at Christchurch in Hampshire (<a href="#i_123">123</a>), the dwelling-house next the river
-and the tower on the mount appear to be almost contemporary.</p>
-
-<p>Castles which, for reasons already explained, were surrounded from
-the beginning with a stone wall, and had at first no regular keep,
-contain even better examples of the existence of a separate hall.
-The eleventh-century hall at Richmond is almost perfect, although
-some additions, made nearly a century later to the upper part of
-the structure, have led to the mistaken attribution of a later date
-to the whole building.<a id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">225</a> At Ludlow, mingled with the fabric of
-the fourteenth-century hall, are clear indications of the earlier
-stone hall, built, as at Richmond, against the curtain on the least
-accessible side of the inner ward. The fabric of the great hall at
-Chepstow, much enriched and beautified in the thirteenth century, is
-contemporary with the foundation of the castle in the eleventh century.
-Part, at any rate, of the substructure of the hall at Newark belongs to
-the castle founded in the twelfth century by Bishop Alexander, although
-the whole building on that side of the enclosure, with the exception of
-an angle-tower, bears witness to reconstruction and repair at two later
-periods. At Porchester, again, the substructure of the hall contains a
-considerable amount of early Norman work, which may be attributed to
-the time of Henry I.</p>
-
-<p>The situation and plan of the hall remained very much the same
-throughout the middle ages. What we find at Richmond, Ludlow,
-Chepstow, or Durham, we find also at Manorbier, Caerphilly, Harlech,
-and Carnarvon, at Warwick and at Naworth. The domestic buildings were
-placed against the curtain on one side or at an end of the inner ward,
-and preferably where a precipice or steep slope made the assault of
-the curtain on that side difficult or impossible. This position is
-well illustrated in the fortified thirteenth-century house of Aydon
-in Northumberland. Here there was, on the side of entrance, a large
-walled outer ward, or, as it was called in the north of England, a
-“barmkin.”<a id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">226</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_190">190</a></span> The house was built round two sides of a walled inner
-courtyard, the hall and main apartments standing on the brink of a
-deep ravine, where they were safe from approach or from the peril of
-siege-engines. The curtain was therefore pierced with window-openings
-of a fairly large size, which gave the house more light and comfort
-internally than would have been possible upon a more exposed face of
-the site. The hall at Warkworth (<a href="#i_049">49</a>) was built against a solid curtain
-upon the steepest side of the peninsula occupied by the castle, and,
-although there were no window-openings in the curtain at the level of
-the hall, it was pierced by a postern, through which the kitchen could
-be supplied, at the end nearest the tower. Castles on comparatively
-level sites show the same disposition. At Cardiff (<a href="#i_191">191</a>), the domestic
-buildings are on the west side of the enclosure, built against the
-curtain, and protected by the river, and bear the same relation in the
-plan to the main entrance and the shell-keep on the mount, as the hall
-at Warkworth bears to the gateway and the mount with its later strong
-house.<a id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">227</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_191">
-<img src="images/i_191.jpg" width="447" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Cardiff Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The plan of the hall and its adjacent buildings was, and continued
-to be, that of the ordinary dwelling-house. The <i>aula</i> of Harold at
-Bosham in Sussex is represented in the Bayeux tapestry (<a href="#i_036">36</a>) as a house
-with a basement, apparently vaulted, and an upper floor approached by
-an external staircase. No division of the upper floor is shown: it
-consists apparently of one large room. This plan, with the division of
-the hall by a cross-wall into a main and smaller chamber, is precisely
-what we find, at the end of the century after the Conquest, at the
-large town house in Bury St Edmunds known as Moyses hall, or at the
-manor-house of Boothby Pagnell in Lincolnshire. It is represented in
-manor-houses of the later Gothic period at the so-called “Goxhill
-priory” in Lincolnshire or at the house of the bishops of Lincoln at
-Liddington in Rutland. Its most familiar survival in non-military
-architecture is in the halls of several of the Oxford colleges, like
-Christ Church or New college. In the plan of the monastery, the frater
-or dining-hall followed the same lines of an upper room upon a vaulted
-substructure. Similarly, the hall of a castle was simply an ordinary
-<i>aula</i> placed within an enclosure walled for military purposes. The
-hall<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_191">191</a><br /><a id="Page_192">192</a></span> at Christchurch is the exact counterpart of Harold’s <i>aula</i> in
-the Bayeux tapestry. It is a rectangular building, probably of the
-third quarter of the twelfth century, with a basement, originally
-vaulted, and lighted by narrow loops. The first floor formed one large
-apartment, and was well lighted with double window openings, one of
-which, at the south end, received special architectural treatment.
-There was a fireplace in the east wall, on the side next the stream:
-the cylindrical chimney-shaft still remains. The entrance, near the
-south end of the west wall, was probably approached by an outer stair
-at right angles to the wall, and led into the lower end of the hall,
-opposite the da&iuml;s for the high table. The fireplace, set diagonally
-to the entrance, warmed the da&iuml;s and the body of the hall: the end
-near the doorway, corresponding to the “screens” of the ordinary hall,
-was probably left free for the coming and going of the servants. The
-basement was simply a cellar and storehouse. It had a doorway in the
-west wall, while in the east wall was a gateway communicating with
-the water. The elevation is nearly identical with that of the house
-at Boothby Pagnell; but at Boothby Pagnell a cross-wall divides both
-upper floor and basement into larger and smaller chambers; while
-at Christchurch there was at the south-east corner a rectangular
-garde-robe turret, built out into the stream, which kept the vents from
-both basement and upper floor continually flushed.<a id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">228</a></p>
-
-<p>The division of the first floor into a larger and smaller apartment
-corresponds to the division of the ordinary dwelling-house into hall or
-common-room of the house, and bower or withdrawing-room and sleeping
-apartment for the chief members of the family.<a id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">229</a> In the developed
-plan of the medieval private house, the small vaults below the bower
-became the cellar, and, as at Manorbier, a vice was provided by which
-wine could be brought directly from it to the high table. The bower
-or solar<a id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">230</a> itself was known in large houses as the great chamber,
-and access to it was obtained<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_193">193</a></span> through a door near one end of the
-cross-wall behind the da&iuml;s. There was, however, a variation upon this
-plan in which the hall and bower are on a different floor-level, and
-this appears at a fairly early date. In this case the hall occupied the
-whole height of the basement and first floor, and was entered from the
-ground-level of the bailey: the cellar, in this case, was on a level
-with the floor of the hall, and the solar was reached from the da&iuml;s by
-a stair. This plan became very common in the later Gothic period; and
-is well illustrated in manor-houses like Haddon and Compton Wyniates,
-and in the colleges of Cambridge, where the common-room or parlour took
-the place of the cellar, and the solar was occupied by the master’s
-lodging. But it is also found in castles and fortified houses, as at
-Berkeley and Stokesay. An indication of its employment at a date not
-long after the Norman conquest is found in the story of the insult
-offered to Robert of Normandy by William Rufus and Henry I. They came
-to visit him, about the year 1078, at the castle of L’Aigle, where he
-was staying, either in the constable’s house or some dwelling near the
-castle. William and Henry played dice “upon the solar,” and indulged
-in horseplay, which took the form of making a deafening noise, and
-pouring water on Robert and his followers, who were below. Robert lost
-his temper, and rushed into the dining-hall (<i>cenaculum</i>) to punish
-his brothers: the quarrel, stopped for the time being by their father,
-was the beginning of the long feud which ended for Robert in his
-confinement at Cardiff. The mention of the “solar” distinctly implies
-a room upon the upper floor, probably at some elevation above the
-hall.<a id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">231</a></p>
-
-<p>This alternative plan supplied more direct communication with the
-kitchen than was possible, where the hall was upon an upper floor; and
-in connection with it, a kitchen and its accompanying offices are very
-frequently found at the lower end, near the entry of the hall. This
-became, in manor-houses and in the colleges of Cambridge, the normal
-position of the kitchen, buttery, and pantry, divided from the body of
-the hall by the “screens.” Most of the cooking in the earlier castles
-must have been done either in temporary sheds or in the open air: the
-basement of the hall, which, in later manor-houses, was sometimes used
-as a kitchen, was not so used at an early period. The apartment in
-a corner of the cleverly planned first floor of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_194">194</a></span> keep at Castle
-Rising was probably a kitchen, and is a rare instance of a room set
-apart for this purpose before the end of the twelfth century. It must
-be remembered, however, that the domestic buildings of castles were
-very often, as at Ludlow, enlarged and entirely rebuilt, until they
-became, as at Cardiff and Warwick, splendid mansions; and details with
-regard to the original arrangement of the lesser apartments are thus
-hard to recover.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_195">195</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_195">
-<img src="images/i_195.jpg" width="397" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">ludlow</span>: interior of building west of great hall</p></div>
-
-<p>At Warkworth (<a href="#i_049">49</a>), probably a little before 1200, a house of
-considerable extent, including more than one private apartment and
-a kitchen, was built against, and at the same time with the, west
-curtain.<a id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">232</a> Up to this time, the castle had been an ordinary
-mount-and-bailey stronghold with timber defences, and no earlier
-stonework remains. The new house was much beautified by additions
-made in the fifteenth century, but the plan was little altered. Its
-central part was the hall, parallel with the curtain which it joined.
-The entrance was in the side wall next the bailey, and led, as usual,
-into the lower end of the hall, which occupied the full height of
-the house, and thus formed the only internal means of communication
-between the lord’s and the servants’ quarters. An unusual feature of
-the hall, which cannot have been well lighted, was an eastern aisle,
-over which the sloping roof was probably continued. At the upper
-end, behind the da&iuml;s, the cellar was entered directly from the hall:
-a straight stair next the curtain gave access to a landing, from
-which a doorway gave access to the great chamber. The great chamber
-communicated with a polygonal angle tower, called by the curious
-name of “Cradyfargus,”<a id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">233</a> the first floor of which, next the great
-chamber, may have been the chamber of the master of the house, while
-the upper floor was probably used by the ladies. Nearly at right angles
-to the great chamber, against the south curtain, was a chapel, of
-which enough remains to show us that the ground-floor, entered from
-the bailey, was used by the servants and garrison: while the west end
-was divided into two stories, the upper one of which was entered from
-the private apartments, and was a gallery for the use of the lord and
-his family. It is difficult to speak positively of the arrangements of
-the kitchen, which stood against the west curtain at the other end of
-the hall. It may originally, like the kitchen at Berkeley, have had no
-direct communication<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_197">197</a></span> with the hall: the passage and offices between,
-in their present state of ruin, are fifteenth-century additions or
-reconstructions. But all the elements of the larger English house are
-here. The chief alterations in the fifteenth century were the building
-of a porch and gateway-tower in front of the hall entrance, and the
-insertion of a lofty turret, with a vice and vaulted vestibule to the
-great chamber, to the north-eastern angle of the hall, where it blocks
-the last bay of the aisle.</p>
-
-<p>An aisled hall, as at Warkworth, was a very exceptional feature. There
-are, however, a few existing examples of a hall with a nave and two
-aisles, the most famous of which is the thirteenth-century hall at
-Winchester. The midland castles of Leicester and Oakham also had aisled
-halls: that at Leicester was divided by arcades of timber, and still
-exists, although many of its original features, including the timber
-columns, have been removed or obscured. The hall at Oakham has been
-more fortunate. This castle, upon a flat site which had no strategic
-advantages, was really an <i>aula</i> or manor-house, enclosed by a strong
-earthen bank, and was probably not surrounded by a wall until the
-thirteenth century. Within this enclosure Walkelin de Ferrers, towards
-the end of the twelfth century, built an aisled hall of four bays, the
-architectural details of which are of unusual beauty, and of great
-importance in the history of early Gothic art in England. The building
-runs east and west, the original entrance, from the ground-level of
-the bailey, being, as usual, in the last bay of a side-wall, in this
-case the easternmost bay of the south wall.<a id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">234</a> The da&iuml;s was at the
-west end; and two doors, which probably communicated with the kitchen
-and buttery, remain in the east wall. The aisles would doubtless be
-kept clear of tables, to facilitate the service from the kitchen.<a id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">235</a>
-At either end of the building, the arcades spring, not from responds,
-but from corbels. Semicircular responds would have interfered with
-the benches behind the high table, and with the free passage of the
-servants between the kitchen and the aisles.<a id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">236</a> The columns are
-slender cylinders of Clipsham stone: the capitals are tall, and carved
-with a great variety of stiff-stalk foliage, with which are mingled
-bands of nail-head and dog-tooth. The arches are rounded: dog-tooth
-is used in the hood-mouldings, which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_198">198</a></span> rest upon figure-corbels. The
-classical character of the foliage, and the refined sculpture of the
-figures and heads in the corbels throughout the hall, have analogies in
-one or two other buildings of the district: they recall very closely
-the early Gothic work of the Burgundian province, and its English
-derivatives at Canterbury and Chichester. Nothing, however, is known
-of the masons employed; and the fabric has no documentary history. In
-the low side-walls are double window-openings, each with a sculptured
-tympanum beneath an enclosing arch: the pier dividing each of the
-windows is faced with a shaft, and the jambs are adorned with elaborate
-dog-tooth. These windows may be compared with those of the aisled
-hall of the episcopal palace at Lincoln, built about a quarter of a
-century later, where the arcades at both ends sprang from corbels. A
-close parallel to the arrangements of the hall at Oakham is provided
-by the contemporary hall, built by Bishop Pudsey at Auckland castle,
-near Durham. Here, again, the so-called castle was simply an <i>aula</i>
-without the strong earthworks which give Oakham a military character.
-The proportions of the Auckland hall are larger, and its architecture
-more simple, but with even more advanced Gothic characteristics. At the
-end of the thirteenth century, considerable alterations were made in
-the structure, and at the Restoration the hall was converted by Bishop
-Cosin into a chapel.<a id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">237</a> This involved the blocking up of the original
-entrance, the position of which exactly corresponded to that of Oakham.
-A new doorway was made in the west wall, and the bay which originally
-was set apart for the da&iuml;s was converted into an ante-chapel. In
-neither case do any other contemporary buildings remain: the mansion at
-Auckland, on the west side of the old hall, is a building of several
-periods, of which the earliest existing portion is not earlier than the
-reign of Henry VII.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_199">199</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_199">
-<img src="images/i_199.jpg" width="600" height="360" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="larger">DURHAM CASTLE</span><br />
-HISTORICAL GROUND PLAN</p></div>
-
-<p>Hugh Pudsey (1153-95), the prelate responsible for the hall at
-Auckland, did much to increase the splendour of the episcopal
-castle at Durham (<a href="#i_199">199</a>). Durham castle is an excellent example of a
-mount-and-bailey fortress on a strong triangular site, with precipitous
-natural defences on the north and west. The entrance was on the one
-accessible side, from the plateau on which the cathedral and monastery
-stood. At the apex of the site, on the right of the entrance, was the
-mount, with a shell-keep on its summit; while to the left, along the
-west side of the bailey, was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_200">200</a></span> the original hall. The eleventh-century
-chapel was on the north side of the bailey, nearly opposite the
-entrance. Pudsey’s chief work was the construction of a long building
-of three stories in connection with the north curtain. The eastern part
-of the basement was formed by the early chapel; the rest was probably
-devoted to store-rooms and cellars. On the first floor was a great
-hall, entered by a doorway (<a href="#i_201">201</a>) which may fairly be called the most
-magnificent example of late Norman Romanesque art in England. Above
-this, on the second floor, approached by a vice in the south-east
-corner, was another hall, known as the Constable’s hall, and to-day as
-the Norman gallery. The walls of this upper structure were lightened by
-their construction as a continuous arcade, the arches forming frames to
-window-openings, and the piers between them being faced with detached
-shafts in couples (<a href="#i_203">203</a>). The internal arrangements of this building
-are now much obscured by the partition of the lower hall into several
-large rooms; while the south part of the upper hall has been cut up by
-smaller partitions. Early in the sixteenth century a new chapel was
-built on the east side of the lower hall, and against the south wall of
-the basement and first floor was made a stone gallery of two stories.
-The outer stair to the lower hall was then taken away; but Bishop
-Pudsey’s doorway was left, and light was thrown upon it by a large
-mullioned window in the outer wall of the gallery.<a id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">238</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_201">201</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_201">
-<img src="images/i_201.jpg" width="406" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Durham Castle; Doorway</p></div>
-
-<p>Meanwhile, about the end of the thirteenth century, Bishop Bek, who
-also improved upon Pudsey’s work at Auckland, raised against the
-west curtain, and upon the substructure of the early hall, the great
-banqueting-hall, which is now used as the dining-hall of University
-college. This hall, again, has inevitably been much altered, but
-its actual plan and arrangements are very fairly maintained to-day,
-and the long two-light windows with simple geometrical tracery in
-the side walls represent, with some restoration of stone-work, its
-original lighting. The entrance, up a flight of stairs and through a
-porch added by Bishop Cosin, is in the south end of the east wall,
-and leads into screens roofed by a gallery, on the south of which
-are the kitchen and servants’ offices. A doorway in the east wall
-led from the da&iuml;s to the bishop’s private rooms; but at this end the
-older arrangements were altered by the construction of Tunstall’s
-gallery in the sixteenth century, and, later, still, by the addition
-of Cosin’s splendid Renaissance staircase—alterations which provided
-covered access from Bek’s hall to Pudsey’s building at right angles
-to it. The buildings just described are some of the most<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_202">202</a></span> beautiful
-and instructive remains of domestic architecture in England, and have
-no military characteristics. The strength of the castle, however, was
-not forgotten. No English castle, even when Bamburgh and Richmond
-are remembered, presents a more formidable defence than the curtain,
-pierced by a few spare openings and by the narrow western windows of
-Bek’s hall, which revets and crowns the cliff above the Wear; while, in
-the fourteenth century, Bishop Hatfield (1345-81) replaced the older
-keep by a new and probably more lofty polygonal shell.</p>
-
-<p>At Durham the buildings of Pudsey and Bek alike stand upon basements,
-which were used as cellars and store-rooms; and the preference for
-first-floor halls in castles was doubtless due to the necessity of
-providing plenty of room for magazines, both for provisions and arms,
-within a confined space, and keeping the muster-ground in the centre
-of the bailey as clear as possible. At Newark (<a href="#i_157">157</a>), where the ground
-fell away towards the river, the hall was built on the slope, and was
-entered from the level of the bailey, the slope being utilised for the
-construction of a large vaulted basement, lighted by loops from the
-river side, and communicating with the water by a sloping passage and
-a gateway opening on a small quay. The use of every available space
-for storage is illustrated at Carew castle in Pembrokeshire, where
-the whole space beneath the lesser hall and its adjacent buildings
-is occupied by cellars, while the basement of the greater hall, on
-the opposite side of the courtyard, appears to have been used as
-stables. At Pembroke a large natural cavern below the hall and its
-adjacent buildings was turned to use as a lower store-house. A vice
-was constructed in the rock from a ground-floor chamber north of the
-hall, and the mouth of the cavern was closed by a wall, in which was a
-gateway, opening upon a path from the water-side.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_203">203</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_203">
-<img src="images/i_203.jpg" width="396" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">DURHAM</span>: arcading on south side of Constable’s
-hall</p></div>
-
-<p>If Henry II. may be given the chief credit for the construction of
-rectangular keeps in castles, Henry III. was almost as active in
-building halls. The finest example of his work now remaining is at
-Winchester. At the Tower of London, at Scarborough, and at Newcastle,
-the name alone of his halls, rectangular buildings with high-pitched
-roofs, remains. But, in and after his reign, the hall and the adjacent
-domestic buildings became a fixed feature of the plan of the castle.
-In castles which, up to this time, may have possessed small and
-inconvenient halls, or possibly halls built merely of timber, new
-and more permanent domestic buildings were constructed. Thus, at
-Rockingham castle, the beautiful doorway of the thirteenth-century hall
-(<a href="#i_205">205</a>), with deeply undercut mouldings and jamb-shafts with foliated
-capitals, still forms the entrance to the house of the sixteenth<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_205">205</a></span>
-and seventeenth centuries, the hall of which is probably of the exact
-dimensions of its medieval predecessor.<a id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">239</a> In castles which are the
-most perfect examples of fortification, such as Caerphilly or Conway,
-the hall forms an integral part of the plan, filling its natural place
-in the design; and of these, Caerphilly was completed about the end of
-the reign of Henry III. The enthusiasm of Henry for fine architecture,
-domestic as well as ecclesiastical, was imitated by many of his
-powerful subjects; and it is actually from this period that we may
-trace that prominence of the domestic element in our castles which was
-eventually cultivated at the expense of fortification.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_205">
-<img src="images/i_205.jpg" width="304" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Rockingham Castle; Doorway of hall</p></div>
-
-<p>In the dwelling-houses, often of palatial size, which grew up within
-castles, and reached their perfect development in the thirteenth and
-fourteenth centuries, the main apartments, in addition to the hall,
-were the great chamber, the kitchen with its offices, and the chapel.
-The normal plan, as already shown, was that of the first-floor hall,
-with the great chamber at one end, and the kitchen<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_206">206</a></span> at the other. The
-plan of the chapel was not fixed, but, where it formed part of the
-block of buildings, it is usually found in connection with the great
-chamber end of the hall.</p>
-
-<p>The main points of the hall may be briefly recapitulated. The entrance
-was invariably in the side wall next the bailey, at the end nearest
-the usual place for the kitchen. This end was screened off from the
-hall by curtains or by a wooden partition containing one or more doors.
-This shut out draught; while the passage thus formed was generally
-covered by its own ceiling, the space above forming a gallery, which
-was entered from a vice at a corner of the end wall. At the further
-end of the hall was the da&iuml;s with the high table, at right angles to
-which were placed the long tables in the body of the hall. The hall
-was covered by a high-pitched timber roof, the principals of which
-were borne by corbels in the side walls. In early examples, warmth was
-supplied by a large hearth in the middle of the floor, a little below
-the da&iuml;s, the smoke from which escaped through a louvre in the roof
-above; but it became customary to make a fireplace in one of the side
-walls.<a id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">240</a> Light was admitted through window-openings in the side wall
-next the ward; but, where the outer wall of the castle was secure from
-attack, as at Warwick or Ludlow, windows were made there also. These
-windows were usually of two lights, divided by a mullion, with simple
-tracery in the head. They also had a transom, below which they were
-closed by shutters, the upper part of the window alone being glazed. In
-the hall at Ludlow, the date of which is about 1300, there were three
-two-light windows next the ward, while the curtain was pierced by three
-single-light openings. The hearth stood in the body of the hall just
-below the da&iuml;s, and was carried by a pier in the cellar beneath. In the
-fifteenth century the middle window next the ward was blocked, and a
-fireplace inserted: the hearth was then removed. The hall formed the
-chief living-room of the house, and in it the majority of the lord’s
-retinue not only had their meals, but slept.</p>
-
-<p>The great chamber, as time went on, became the nucleus of a number of
-private apartments. In the most simple examples, it is a rectangular
-apartment behind the da&iuml;s, communicating with it directly through a
-doorway on one side of the end wall. Where the hall occupied the ground
-floor, a vice, or, as at Warkworth, a straight stair, furnished an
-entrance to it. At Ludlow, where the kitchen was a detached building,
-and at Stokesay (<a href="#i_207">207</a>), there was a first-floor chamber at both ends
-of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_207">207</a></span> the hall. The domestic buildings at Ludlow are very symmetrically
-arranged, the hall, in the middle, being slightly recessed between two
-projecting blocks of building, each with a chamber on the first floor
-(<a href="#i_195">195</a>). Of these, that at the east end of the hall, behind the da&iuml;s, was
-evidently the more important; and, in the fifteenth century, it was on
-this side that an additional block of private apartments was built.
-From each floor of the great chamber block a large garde-robe tower was
-entered: this tower projects from the north curtain of the castle, and
-was added when the earlier hall was remodelled and the hall and its
-adjoining blocks assumed their present shape.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_207">
-<img src="images/i_207.jpg" width="600" height="461" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Stokesay</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_208">
-<img src="images/i_208.jpg" width="468" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Manorbier Castle; Outer stair to Chapel</p></div>
-
-<p>Manorbier castle contains an interesting example of the enlargement
-of domestic buildings, with a solar block at either end of the hall.
-The castle stands on rising ground in a deep valley, about half a
-mile from the sea. The inner ward or castle proper is surrounded by
-a curtain, with a gatehouse in the east wall. The dwelling-house is
-upon the west side of the ward, at the end opposite the main entrance,
-and consists of two distinct portions. The earlier consists of a
-first-floor hall and great chamber above cellars. There was a floor
-above the great chamber, probably forming a bower for the ladies of
-the household, the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_208">208</a></span> hall corresponding in height to these two upper
-stages. The present entrance to the hall is in the side wall at the end
-next the great chamber, and was probably made, with the outer stair
-against the wall, in the thirteenth century. The hall itself with its
-adjacent buildings appears to be originally of the later part of the
-twelfth century: the cellars below have semicircular barrel vaults. In
-the second half of the thirteenth century a new block of buildings was
-made at the opposite or south end of the hall. It was now probably that
-the new entrance was made. The position of the da&iuml;s seems to have been
-reversed, and a window in the south end-wall of the hall blocked by a
-fireplace. Behind this wall, and entered by a doorway in its west end,
-was the new great chamber, a long, narrow building, with its principal
-axis at right angles to that of the hall, and with a floor above. At
-each end of the south wall of this apartment is a passage. That at the
-west end passes along the line of the curtain to a garde-robe tower
-which projects at the south-west angle of the castle: the passage is
-still roofed with flat slabs on continuous corbelling, and is well
-lighted by loops in the curtain. The other passage, at the south-east
-corner of the great chamber, forms a lobby to a large chapel, which
-was built across the south-west angle of the ward, so that a small
-triangular yard was left between it and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_209">209</a></span> the curtain. There is a
-separate outer stair to the chapel (<a href="#i_208">208</a>), placed, like the stair to the
-hall, at right angles to the wall. The whole group of buildings, with
-its two outer stairs, is unexcelled for picturesqueness in any castle.</p>
-
-<p>The kitchen at Manorbier was placed, at any rate when the
-thirteenth-century alterations were undertaken (probably about 1260),
-at right angles to the hall and older great chamber, against the north
-curtain. Owing to the confinement of the space within the curtain, and
-the growing necessity of private accommodation, the position of the
-kitchen was not fixed so regularly in the castle as in the ordinary
-dwelling-house. At Berkeley (<a href="#i_186">186</a>), where the hall was built against the
-east curtain of the inner ward, the kitchen is a polygonal building,
-divided from the screens by a buttery, and occupying a more or less
-normal place in the plan. At Warkworth (<a href="#i_049">49</a>), as we have noticed, the
-kitchen is in its proper place, near the entrance end of the hall, but
-may have been at first a separate structure. The original position of
-the kitchen at Cardiff (<a href="#i_191">191</a>) seems to have conformed to this plan. The
-desirability of placing the kitchen within easy reach of the hall is
-obvious. At Kenilworth, where the magnificent hall, built towards the
-end of the fourteenth century, occupies the whole north side of the
-inner ward, and is on a first floor above a vaulted cellar, the private
-apartments formed a wing against the west curtain of the ward, while
-the kitchen was against the east curtain, and was within easy reach
-of the stair to the hall, and the passage below it which led into the
-cellar. The kitchen at Ludlow (<a href="#i_106">106</a>) was a separate building, opposite
-the entrance to the hall and the western solar block, and placed
-against the north outer wall of the small courtyard which covers the
-keep. In the two great Edwardian castles of Conway and Carnarvon, where
-the halls were large and the space limited, the kitchens were built
-against the curtain opposite the hall.<a id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">241</a></p>
-
-<p>The chapel was also a variable factor in the plan. It has already been
-remarked that, in some early castles, the chapel was a collegiate
-church, standing separately within the precincts of the castle, and
-sometimes, as at Hastings, filling up, with the houses of the dean and
-canons or their deputies, a very considerable part of the enclosure.
-Indeed, nearly all the ruins left within the curtain at Hastings are
-those of the large cruciform church and the buildings in connection
-with it. At Ludlow the Norman chapel was a detached building in the
-inner ward (<a href="#i_106">106</a>). This was the private chapel of the lord of the
-castle, and in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_210">210</a></span> sixteenth century was joined by a gallery to the
-block of buildings at the east end of the hall: the nave was then
-divided into two floors, so that the first floor formed a private
-gallery or solar, while the household used the ground-floor. This
-method of division of the west end of the chapel into two floors is
-very usual: it was employed twice at Warkworth, both in the chapel
-attached to the domestic buildings already described, and in the
-chapel of the later tower-house on the mount. It may also be seen
-in the chapel at Berkeley, and in many manor-houses, as at Compton
-Wyniates. At Ludlow we have noticed that there was a second chapel for
-the garrison in the outer ward, built in the fourteenth century: with
-this the arrangement at the Tower of London may be compared, where
-the royal chapel of St John is in the White tower, but the garrison
-chapel of St Peter was built on the north side of the inner ward. The
-chapel at Kenilworth was against the south wall of the outer ward.
-There was a chapel on the south side of the inner ward at Alnwick. As
-a rule, however, only one chapel would be provided. The chapels found
-in tower-keeps have already been discussed: with the exception of
-Newcastle and Old Sarum, they were, as a rule, private chapels or mere
-oratories.</p>
-
-<p>In later castles, two considerations determined the planning of the
-chapel. It was placed so that the altar should be as nearly as possible
-against the east wall, and so that there should be direct access from
-the private apartments to the gallery at the west end. These conditions
-are met both in the earlier and later chapels at Warkworth: they can
-be traced in the plan of Bodiam and other late medieval castles. At
-Berkeley (<a href="#i_186">186</a>) where the solar block was at right angles to the hall,
-against the south, or, more correctly, the south-west curtain, the
-chapel fills the angle between the buildings, and the entrance is
-masked by a vestibule from which a vice led to the private apartments.
-The altar is placed rather north of east, against the wall at the back
-of the hall da&iuml;s, and the gallery at the opposite end was entered
-from the great chamber. The main axis of the chapel is at an obtuse
-angle to that of the hall, and a vestry was made in the south-east
-corner, where the wall dividing it from the hall is thickest. In the
-plan of the great Welsh castles of the later part of the thirteenth
-century the chapel was usually in close connection with the domestic
-buildings. At Conway, where there is also a beautiful oratory, with
-a vaulted chancel, on the first floor of the north-east tower, the
-chapel was formed by screening off the eastern portion of the great
-hall. At Harlech the chapel was built against the north curtain, the
-solar block<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_211">211</a></span> probably occupying the angle between chapel and hall. The
-chapel at Kidwelly was in the two upper stages of the south-east tower
-of the inner ward, and was in close communication with the hall and the
-apartments adjoining it. The position of the beautiful little chapel at
-Beaumaris is somewhat isolated, on the first floor of the tower in the
-middle of the east curtain of the inner ward. The only communication
-with the hall block on the north side of the court was through a long
-and narrow passage in the thickness of the curtain; and the chapel is
-too small to have served for the devotions of a large garrison. It was
-so arranged, however, that, if the entrance to the tower were left
-open, the service might be followed by worshippers in the bailey below.
-Ample room, however, was given to the congregation in most cases: the
-first-floor chapel at Manorbier is a chamber of considerable size. It
-has a pointed barrel-vault and stands above a cellar, which also has a
-pointed barrel-vault and contains a fireplace. The fashion of founding
-collegiate establishments in castles did not cease until the end of the
-middle ages. The chapel—the third within the castle—which was begun
-during the fifteenth century at Warkworth bears witness to an intention
-of this kind on the part of one of the earls of Northumberland; but the
-actual details of the proposed foundation are not known, and probably
-were never placed on paper.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_212">212</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX<br />
-
-<br />CASTLES OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY: THE FORTIFICATION OF THE CURTAIN</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> keep had a traditional importance in the scheme of the castle,
-and the main energy of the castle-builders of the twelfth century
-was directed towards strengthening its power of resistance. But the
-improvement of siege artillery naturally turned their attention to the
-strengthening of the outer defences as well. The day of the palisade
-was past, and the stone curtain called for more scientific treatment
-than it had yet received. In the thirteenth century, then, military
-engineers began to concentrate their ingenuity upon the outer walls
-and entrances of the castle. Their interest was transferred by degrees
-from the keep to the curtain, while, at the same time, the domestic
-employment of the keep ceased in favour of the more comfortable
-quarters against the castle wall. In this way, as scientific
-fortification developed, the keep dropped into a secondary position, or
-was left out of the plan altogether.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_213">213</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_213">
-<img src="images/i_213.jpg" width="395" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">pembroke</span>: inner side of gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<p>In tracing this gradual disappearance of the keep, it should be kept
-in mind that the stone keep, when we first meet with it, is actually a
-supplement of more permanent material added to a palisaded enclosure.
-In early walled enclosures, like Richmond or Ludlow, the stone defences
-made the special provision of a keep unnecessary: the whole castle,
-protected by its stone wall, had in itself the strength of a keep. It
-was only when it became likely that the stone curtain might show less
-resistance than its builders anticipated, that, in both the castles
-just mentioned, a tower-keep was provided. In both cases, the tower
-stood in the forefront of the defence of the principal ward of the
-castle. In the first instance it protected the curtain, while, if all
-else failed, its use, the primary use of such buildings, as an ultimate
-place of retirement for the defenders, could be demonstrated. During
-the reign of Henry II., the stone keep, whether a tower or a shell on
-the mound, was the dominating feature of the stone-walled castle. At
-Conisbrough and Pembroke (<a href="#i_181">181</a>) the great tower still keeps its pride
-of place, but the curtains of the ward in which it<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_215">215</a></span> stands have
-been built or reconstructed with a view to effectual flanking; while
-the two semicircular towers which guarded the southern curtain of the
-inner ward at Pembroke were evidently an addition, after the keep had
-been built. In castles like Manorbier, the oldest parts of which are
-of the later part of the twelfth century, the builders returned to the
-original keepless plan of Richmond and Ludlow. The care, which, in the
-earlier castles, had been expended upon a single rallying point in
-the scheme of defence, was now applied to the whole outer wall of the
-castle, so that it began to offer a connected front to an attack.</p>
-
-<p>During the transition, however, the keep, as we have seen, received
-its full share of attention. At Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard (<a href="#i_163">163</a>) it was an
-integral part of one united design, the outer defences of which remain
-to be described. The great tower is at the highest point of the inner
-or third ward, which forms an irregular oval. But, before reaching
-this ward, two outer lines of defence had to be forced. There was
-only one possible approach for a besieging army, along the isthmus
-on the south-east side of the cliff. On this side the castle proper
-was protected by a powerful outwork, which offered a sharp angle to
-the isthmus. When Philip Augustus began to use his machines against
-the castle in February 1203-4, the round tower at the apex of this
-horn-work<a id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">242</a> was the main object of his attack. The sloping sides
-of the angle were flanked by two smaller round towers, while the
-entrance, close to the north angle, was covered on one side by a
-cylindrical tower, to which there was probably a corresponding tower
-in the opposite curtain. The horn-work was surrounded by an outer
-ditch. The strength of the curtain seems to have been little affected
-by the siege-engines. Breaches, both here and in the inner ward, were
-not made until Philip’s miners had weakened the masonry by boring
-galleries beneath it. A very deep ditch with perpendicular sides, cut
-in the chalk, stretched across the whole ridge, and divided the outwork
-from the middle ward, which was capped at the angles by cylindrical
-towers, and contained buildings of which the substructures, and some
-cellars excavated in the chalk, are left. The curtain of this ward
-was continued along the face of the precipice and the north-eastern
-slope, so as practically to enclose the inner ward. The two wards,
-however, were not concentric, for the inner ward occupied one end of
-the space enclosed by the middle ward, from which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_216">216</a></span> it was divided
-by a ditch. The wall of the inner ward was the most remarkable and
-original of the defences of the castle. Its whole outer face, save on
-the side next the precipice, was formed of a series of convex curves
-intersecting with each other, so that no flat surface was left. The
-wall is solid, and, looking at its fluted outer surface, we may well
-admire Philip’s military skill, which found it a not too formidable
-obstacle. A gateway in the east face gave access to the inner ward from
-the narrowest portion of the middle ward, and the ditch at this point
-was originally crossed by a stone causeway. The projecting spur of the
-great tower faced the gateway. The whole formidable design was perfect
-from the point of view of flanking, while the plan was a step towards
-the concentric arrangement of one ward within another. The prominence
-of the keep in the plan was, however, an archaic feature; and the
-history of the siege of 1204 shows very clearly that the great tower
-was practically a superfluity, and that the last hopes of the defenders
-were centred in the wall of the inner ward. When Philip’s miners had
-endangered its stability, and his engines were brought to play upon the
-weakened stonework, their hope was lost.<a id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">243</a></p>
-
-<p>The inventive skill shown in the inner wall of Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard was not
-displayed again in the same form. But a step in the flanking of the
-curtain by round towers is seen in the wall of Conisbrough (<a href="#i_217">217</a>). Here
-the inner ward is nearly oval, and the southern half of the curtain,
-in which is contained the entrance from the outworks, is strengthened
-by small solid towers with battering bases, projecting some two-thirds
-of a circle from the wall.<a id="FNanchor_244_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_244" class="fnanchor">244</a> Such solid projections for flanking
-purposes are found at Scarborough and Knaresborough, and could be
-easily added to an earlier wall, when necessity required. For the
-convenience of the defenders, however, larger towers with rooms on each
-floor were desirable; and the actual improvement of the defences of the
-curtain is seen in the multiplication of such towers, so as to leave no
-part of the wall unflanked. The circular or polygonal form was almost
-universally adopted for them.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_217">217</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_217">
-<img src="images/i_217.jpg" width="600" height="429" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">conisbrough</span>: barbican of inner bailey</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_217_2">
-<img src="images/i_217_2.jpg" width="600" height="429" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">manorbier castle</span> from south-west</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_219">219</a></span></p>
-
-<p>Warkworth (<a href="#i_049">49</a>) is an example of a twelfth-century castle in which an
-approach was made to an adequately defended curtain, although with long
-distances between the towers. The arrangement, however, is a complete
-contrast to the haphazard projection of towers from earlier curtains,
-as at Ludlow. The castle stands high on the right bank of the Coquet:
-the river bends round it, so that the only level approach is from
-the plateau on the west side, and the town climbs the tongue of land
-between the castle and the river.<a id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">245</a> The mount is at the apex of
-the castle site, immediately above the town. On the west side of the
-enclosure the curtain, which is strong and thick, is unbroken by any
-tower: against the inner face are the domestic buildings. The south
-wall, which contains the gatehouse, is flanked by two angle-towers,
-on the west by the tower known as “Cradyfargus,” and on the east by a
-square tower, called the Amble tower. In the east wall, which commanded
-the ascent from the town, is a half-octagon tower, in each face of
-which is a huge loop for a cross-bow, so that a few archers could
-effectually rake the path outside with their fire. Of these towers,
-Cradyfargus projects into the castle enclosure with a blunt angle,
-its walls on this side being a mere continuation of the curtain. The
-basement was entered from the cellar behind the hall, the first floor
-from the great chamber above, and the second floor by a stair in the
-thickness of the wall from the vestibule or landing, west of the great
-chamber. The projection of the eastern tower is entirely outward: its
-internal face was flat. There was a basement and two floors: the first
-floor had an external stair from the ward, but it does not appear how
-the second floor was reached, though the jamb of a door may still be
-seen. The east tower had a garde-robe near the entrance of the basement
-and on the first floor: in Cradyfargus there are only traces of
-garde-robe arrangements. Although the space enclosed by the walls was
-large, and the flanking by no means perfect, the two most assailable
-sides of the fortress were very secure. The gatehouse, a building of
-about the year 1200 (<a href="#i_221">221</a>), formed an intermediate projection in the
-south wall between Cradyfargus and the Amble tower: the gateway is
-recessed between two half-octagon turrets. The preference of polygonal
-forms for the defences of this castle is rather characteristic of the
-north of England. There was, however, a conservative spirit in this
-district, which is seen in the retention of the rectangular form for
-the Amble tower. Even in a fourteenth-century castle like Dunstanburgh
-the angle towers are rectangular in form; while the “pele-tower” of
-the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_220">220</a></span> northern borders, throughout the middle ages, shows no important
-variation from the square form.</p>
-
-<p>The importance given to the gatehouse at Warkworth was a sign of the
-times. We have seen how, at Lewes and Tickhill, the first thought
-of the builders was to provide their earthworks with a stone house
-of entry. Norman gatehouses were very simple in construction. The
-gatehouse at Warkworth, on the other hand, was anything but simple in
-its arrangements, and all the forethought possible was taken for its
-defence. There are three stories, the lowest of which is the vaulted
-hall of entrance to the castle, flanked, in the ground-floor of the
-half-octagon towers, by guard-rooms described in the survey of 1567 as
-a porter’s lodge and a prison. The defences of the passage need close
-attention. The entrance was closed by a gate which opened outwards,
-and stood about 4 feet in advance of the portcullis: the space between
-was commanded by arrow-loops in the walls of the guardrooms. The
-herse of the portcullis seems to have been worked from the second
-floor of the gatehouse:<a id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">246</a> the upper and broader portion ran in a
-groove which ceases at the level of the string-course below the vault
-of the passage, while the lower descended to the ground. Beyond the
-portcullis, the passage was kept under observation through cross-loops
-in the side walls. The vault stopped 5 feet short of the inner gateway,
-and the passage was covered by a wooden roof. On each side of the inner
-gateway were the entrances to the guard-rooms, which flanked the whole
-passage.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_221">221</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_221">
-<img src="images/i_221.jpg" width="600" height="428" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">warkworth</span>: gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_221_2">
-<img src="images/i_221_2.jpg" width="600" height="430" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">warkworth</span>: tower on mount</p></div>
-
-<p>The plan of the castle gatehouse at Warkworth was that of the great
-majority of medieval gatehouses, whether in castles or in the walls
-of fortified towns. The ground-floor of the main block of building,
-which generally had two upper floors, contained the hall of entry, and
-was flanked by two cylindrical or octagonal towers, the lowest stories
-of which were guard-rooms, and were pierced with loops commanding the
-approach and the passage. Usually the gateway was placed at the back
-of an arched recess, which formed a porch. The position of the gate
-and portcullis at Warkworth was rather exceptional. Ordinarily the
-portcullis descended in front of the gate, which opened inwards, and
-was secured, when closed, by one or more draw-bars. This, however, was
-impossible, where the gate, as at Warkworth, opened outwards, so that
-the usual arrangement had to be reversed. But, while the actual plan
-of the gatehouse kept its general characteristics with little change,
-the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_223">223</a></span> defences of the entrance were multiplied. Thus the Byward tower,
-the outer gatehouse of the Tower of London, had an outer portcullis
-in front of a wooden door opening inwards, behind which was a second
-portcullis, blocking the entrance to the inner and wider portion of the
-passage, which had a timber ceiling. In addition to this, between the
-outer portcullis and the gate, the vault was crossed by a rib, pierced
-with three holes, which allowed the defenders to harass an attacking
-party from above, and also could be used for strengthening the gate
-in time of siege by a timber framework, the upper ends of which were
-fixed in the holes. Such holes, which were not merely machicolations
-in the vault, are found elsewhere, as in the gatehouses of Pembroke
-and Warwick castles and the west gatehouse of the town of Southampton.
-In this last case, a single rectangular gate-tower projected from the
-inner face of the wall only, next the town. The gate of the passage
-through the ground floor was defended upon its outer face by these
-holes alone: there were two portcullises, but both were upon the inner
-side of the gate. It is possible that such holes were originally
-left to fix the centering of the vault when it was first built:
-they converge towards one another, and probably were not filled up
-afterwards, in view of their defensive use.<a id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">247</a></p>
-
-<p>One prominent feature, however, of the defences of a gateway, as time
-went on, was the provision of machicolations, in the shape of long
-rectangular slits, in the vault of the passage and in the arch in
-front of the portcullis. In some cases where they occur in connection
-with a portcullis, they may have been used for a heavy wooden frame,
-which could on occasion reinforce the iron herse of the portcullis.
-At Warkworth there is no original arrangement of this kind: the wall
-of the first floor above the gateway projects slightly upon a row of
-corbels, but this was done merely to give it additional strength.
-At a later date, however, the parapet at the top of the gatehouse
-was corbelled out, and the spaces between the corbels left open for
-machicolations. From the later part of the thirteenth century onwards,
-the usual arrangement, as at Chepstow or Tutbury, was to carry the
-parapet upon an arch in advance of the main face of the gatehouse, from
-one tower to the other, and to leave the space between the parapet and
-the main wall open, so that it commanded the field immediately in front
-of the portcullis. The effect of recessing the front of the gatehouse
-within a tall<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_224">224</a></span> outer archway is magnificent, from the point of view of
-design. The design of gatehouses reaches its highest point in the great
-gatehouse of Denbigh, with its octagonal gate-hall, and in the King’s
-gateway at Carnarvon, where the enclosing arch, recessing the two lower
-stages of the gatehouse, bears the outer wall of the upper floor (<a href="#i_253">253</a>).</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_224">
-<img src="images/i_224.jpg" width="386" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Pembroke Castle; Interior of gateway</p></div>
-
-<p>In some instances, as at Pembroke (<a href="#i_224">224</a>) and Kidwelly (<a href="#i_225">225</a>), where the
-gatehouse passage was defended by inner and outer portcullises, there
-are as many as three chases or slots in the vault between the outer
-and inner entrances. At Pembroke, where the gatehouse has the unusual
-feature of two flanking towers (<a href="#i_213">213</a>), of semicircular projection, on
-the side next the ward, an arch was thrown out from one tower to the
-other, some distance in advance of the inner archway. It is difficult
-to see how this inner barbican, as it may be called, was intended to
-be<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_225">225</a></span> of use to an already strongly protected gateway; but the space
-within it may have been covered by a wooden platform, accessible from
-the first floor of the gatehouse, from which the interior of the castle
-could be commanded, and an enemy who had forced an entrance could be
-seriously annoyed. The vault of the entrance passage was generally a
-pointed barrel-vault, strengthened by transverse ribs at intervals; but
-the broader space in the centre of the passage was often ceiled, as
-in the Byward tower, with timber. The entrance passages of the inner
-gatehouses of Harlech (<a href="#i_274">274</a>) and Beaumaris (<a href="#i_236">236</a>) were roofed with wooden
-ceilings, supported by transverse ribs of stone set with only a narrow
-interval between them.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_225">
-<img src="images/i_225.jpg" width="382" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Kidwelly Castle; Interior of gateway</p></div>
-
-<p>The ground-floors of the flanking towers of the gatehouse were usually
-vaulted. The lodges from which the towers were entered, upon each
-side of the inner passage, had stone ceilings when the passage itself
-was vaulted through its whole length, or when they formed one room
-with the ground-floors of the towers. The ordinary plan, however,
-was to treat the flanking tower as an outer guard-room, approached
-from the inner lodge. If it was cylindrical in plan, the interior was
-arranged as a polygon, and vaulted with ribs springing from shafts
-in the angles.<a id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">248</a> This<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_226">226</a></span> plan may be seen in the Byward tower and
-Middle tower of the Tower of London. In both towers the inner part of
-the passage was ceiled with timber, and the adjacent chambers formed
-lobbies to the vaulted ground-floors of the towers. In the Middle
-tower, however, the left-hand lobby was occupied by a vice leading to
-the first floor; and in the same position in the Byward tower is a
-square rectangular chamber with a ribbed vault.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_226">
-<img src="images/i_226.jpg" width="600" height="342" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Rockingham Castle; Gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<p>A good normal gatehouse, which may be taken as typical of the period,
-is that of Rockingham castle (<a href="#i_226">226</a>). Its details indicate that it
-belongs to the later part of the reign of Henry III. It is upon the
-east side of the enclosure, and its projection is almost entirely
-towards the field. The plan is, as usual, a rectangle with a passage
-through the centre, and with semicylindrical towers projecting on
-either side of the outer entrance. No vaulting was used. The passage is
-entered through a porch beneath a drop arch—that is to say, a pointed
-arch whose two segments are drawn from centres below the springing
-line—and was guarded, just within the arch, by a portcullis in front
-of a wooden door. At the inner end of the passage was another door.
-Openings in the side walls of the passage communicated with rectangular
-chambers;<a id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">249</a> and in the east walls of these were doorways into
-semicircular chambers within the towers. There was only one upper
-floor to the gatehouse and its towers. In<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_227">227</a></span> this simple building, one
-is reminded at once of the rectangular stone gatehouse of the early
-Norman castle, with its upper chamber. Improvement is seen in the
-substitution, for the original entrance, of a central passage flanked
-by chambers upon the ground-floor; in the addition of flanking towers
-of scientific form; and in the protection of the timber doors by an
-iron portcullis.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_227">
-<img src="images/i_227.jpg" width="415" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Newcastle; Black gate</p></div>
-
-<p>The gatehouse at Newcastle, known as the Black gate (<a href="#i_227">227</a>), which became
-the entrance to the castle in the thirteenth century, is an example of
-a more elaborately constructed and exceptional type. The ground plan
-is simplicity itself, a central passage flanked by towers containing
-guard-chambers. The towers, however, are not merely projections from
-a rectangular body, but flank the whole gateway with a wide convex
-curve. There is a large single vaulted chamber on the ground floor
-of each, lighted by loops which enabled the occupants to command the
-castle ditch. The architectural details of the gateway are very simple,
-but there is a short arcade of trefoiled arches in each of the side
-walls, and the vaulting of the guard-rooms presents some ingenious
-peculiarities. The upper portion of the gatehouse was much altered in
-the seventeenth century. The original design, with its great segmental
-flanking towers, may have been the prototype of the even more noble
-gatehouse of Dunstanburgh, which is a work of nearly three-quarters of
-a century later.<a id="FNanchor_250_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_250" class="fnanchor">250</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_228">
-<img src="images/i_228.jpg" width="370" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Walled town in state of siege</p></div>
-
-<p>The upper floors of the gatehouse may be reserved for discussion
-until we come to the concentric plan, in which the gatehouse became
-a building of exceptional importance. For military purposes the one
-necessary upper chamber was that in which the machinery controlling
-the portcullis was worked. In the floor of this room was the upper end
-of the groove, through which, by means of a pulley in the ceiling, the
-iron frame was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_229">229</a></span> drawn up or down, hanging here when it was not in use
-to close the entrance below. Many examples of a portcullis chamber
-remain, as at Berry Pomeroy and in Bootham bar at York.<a id="FNanchor_251_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_251" class="fnanchor">251</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_229">
-<img src="images/i_229.jpg" width="600" height="348" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">York; Walmgate Bar</p></div>
-
-<p>The entrance of the castle, under improved conditions of fortification,
-was defended by an outwork or barbican. The term “barbican,” which
-seems to be of eastern derivation, was used indiscriminately to denote
-any outwork by which the principal approach to a castle or a gateway
-of a town was covered. The word “barmkin,” which is possibly, as
-already noted, a corruption of “barbican,” was applied in the north
-of England to the outer yard of a “pele,” or fortified (literally,
-palisaded) residence. In many castles, as at Ludlow, Denbigh, or
-Manorbier, the outer ward was an addition or supplement to the plan of
-the castle, guarding the approach to the inner ward or castle proper,
-and its curtain was subsidiary to the strongly fortified curtain of
-the inner ward. Such outer wards or base-courts resemble the northern
-“barmkins,” an exact parallel to which is seen in the base-court of the
-fifteenth-century fortified house of Wingfield. Covering outworks were
-by no means uncommon, and also served the purpose of a barbican. As at
-Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, they might take the form of a walled outer ward, or,
-as at Llandovery, they might be horn-shaped earthworks, thrown out at
-an exposed point in the defences; in either case, they had their own
-ditch, an extension of the main ditch of the castle. But the barbican
-proper was a walled extension of a gatehouse to the field, confining
-the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_230">230</a></span> approach to the limited area of a narrow passage. The most simple
-instance is the barbican in front of Walmgate bar at York (<a href="#i_229">229</a>), where
-a gatehouse, originally of the twelfth century, was strengthened by the
-addition, upon the outer side, of two parallel walls at right angles
-to the sides of the gateway. Thus, in order to force the gates, an
-attacking party would have to traverse a long and narrow alley between
-high walls, in which they were exposed to the missiles of the defenders
-concentrated upon them from the ramparts of the gatehouse and the
-adjacent wall.</p>
-
-<p>The barbican was, in fact, an application to the main entrance of the
-castle of the form of defence hitherto applied most scientifically to
-the fore-building of the keep.<a id="FNanchor_252_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_252" class="fnanchor">252</a> Its general employment as an outer
-defence was the direct consequence of the removal of interest from the
-keep to the curtain. Not merely had the wall itself to offer a stout
-resistance to attack, so that every point was simultaneously engaged
-in active defence; but the main approaches had to be so arranged as
-to involve an enemy in perplexity. In the protection of the main
-avenues of access to the town or castle, we arrive at an unconscious
-reproduction in stone of the methods employed by prehistoric builders
-of earthwork. Experience taught the engineers of the thirteenth and
-fourteenth centuries the lessons which she had taught the makers of
-Maiden Castle, and the adoption of the concentric plan of fortification
-followed as a matter of course.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_231">231</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_231">
-<img src="images/i_231.jpg" width="392" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">warwick</span>: barbican</p></div>
-
-<p>The contraction of the main entrance of the castle by a barbican is
-well seen at Bamburgh, Conisbrough (<a href="#i_217">217</a>), and Scarborough (<a href="#i_129">129</a>). In the
-first two instances, owing to the isolated position of the fortress,
-and the nature of the ground outside, the main approach would have
-to be in any case by a path made up the steep face of the hill, and
-immediately below the curtain. Bamburgh was unusually well aided by
-nature, and the gateway, flanked by two slender round towers, is at
-a level considerably lower than that of the summit of the rock; in
-this case, the rising road within the gateway, cut in the basalt, and
-commanded by the curtain and the keep within the curtain, was the
-barbican of the castle. The hill on which Conisbrough was set is merely
-a steep knoll, with a wide outer ditch on its less precipitous side.
-The outer ward, on the south-west side of the ditch, was apparently an
-earthwork without stone walls.<a id="FNanchor_253_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_253" class="fnanchor">253</a> A<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_233">233</a></span> gatehouse was set on the edge
-of the ditch, in advance of and at a lower level than the curtain of
-the inner ward. Its arrangements, so far as they can be traced, were
-not greatly superior to those of early stone gatehouses. Its lateral
-walls, however, were prolonged up the edge of the slope to the entrance
-of the inner ward. The left-hand wall joined an angle of the curtain
-half-way up the passage; the wall on the right hand was continued so as
-to cover the inner gateway, which was at right angles to the passage
-thus formed.<a id="FNanchor_254_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_254" class="fnanchor">254</a> As at Bamburgh, the approach in this case is a narrow
-gangway between high walls, commanded throughout from the rampart of
-the inner ward, and, for the second half of the distance, passing
-immediately beneath it. A passage of this type, with a right-angled
-turn at its far end, might easily become a death-trap for a besieging
-force.</p>
-
-<p>At Scarborough the castle cliff is almost entirely separated from the
-town by a deep ravine, and the approach is along the narrow ridge
-between this chasm and the northward face of the rock. The gatehouse,
-flanked by rounded towers, forms part of a small and irregularly shaped
-walled outwork or barbican placed upon the outer curve of the ravine.
-From this <i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i>, as it may be called, a straight passage,
-walled on both sides, crosses the head of the ravine, passing over a
-bridge on its way, and skirting, on the left hand, the sheer edge of
-the cliff. On the further side, the space widens into the outer ward,
-commanded and nearly blocked by the rectangular keep. The wall on the
-left is continued along the edge of the cliff, while that on the right,
-which, as being more open to attack, is much the thicker, bears away
-with the curve of the slope, and joins the south curtain of the inner
-ward upon its west face.<a id="FNanchor_255_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_255" class="fnanchor">255</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_234">
-<img src="images/i_234.jpg" width="323" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Warwick Castle; Barbican</p></div>
-
-<p>The examples already given illustrate the precautions which
-thirteenth-century engineers took to guard their castles from surprise
-and storm; and the arrangements found in the Welsh castles of Edward
-I.’s reign are even more remarkable. It will be noticed that in the
-three castles just mentioned the main gatehouse is thrown forward to
-the outer end of the barbican, which forms a narrow passage uniting
-the gatehouse to the inner entrance. In late thirteenth and fourteenth
-century castles, however, the barbican was, as we see it at Walmgate
-bar in York, an addition to the front of a gatehouse. This method of
-covering gateways by outer defences is seen at Kenilworth, where the
-approach to the outer ward of the castle, across the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_234">234</a></span> lake formed by
-the damming-up of two rivulets, was broken up into sections by three
-lines of defence. First, an outer earthwork, segmental in shape, and
-strengthened by round stone bastions, guarded the approach to the first
-gatehouse. Beyond this gatehouse, which formed a <i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i> like
-the Middle tower at London, a long causeway or dam, with a wall on
-its eastern face, crossed the lake to the strong gatehouse known as
-Mortimer’s tower, which, guarded by two portcullises, stood upon the
-end of the dam, in advance of the curtain. But the ordinary barbican,
-which was characteristic of the castles of the fourteenth and fifteenth
-centuries, was not a long and elaborately<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_235">235</a></span> protected line of outer
-defences, but a stone building thrown out in front of a gatehouse, so
-as to concentrate the attacking force into a small space, and prevent
-a combined rush on the principal gateway. The contracted approach thus
-made was usually, in the later examples, as at Warwick (<a href="#i_231">231</a>), Alnwick
-(<a href="#i_243">243</a>), and Porchester, all barbicans of the fourteenth century, a
-straight lane between walls. At Porchester it is set in front of the
-twelfth-century gatehouse of the inner ward, which was covered in
-the early fourteenth century by a rectangular projection, pierced by
-lateral doorways opening upon the scarp of the inner ward outside the
-curtain. The barbican proper, somewhat later in date, is composed of
-two parallel walls, guarding the drawbridge from the base-court or
-outer ward. A loop cut obliquely through the west wall of this passage
-opened towards the west gateway of the base-court, so that a surprise
-of the barbican could be prevented. In this case, as at Alnwick, the
-approach to the barbican was a drawbridge; but at Alnwick, where the
-drawbridge crossed an outer loop of the castle ditch, the ditch proper
-was crossed by a second drawbridge within the barbican.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_235">
-<img src="images/i_235.jpg" width="347" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Mont-St-Michel; Ch&acirc;telet</p></div>
-
-<p>At Lewes, about the end of the thirteenth century, a barbican was added
-to the front of a Norman gatehouse which was of much the same character
-as the gatehouses at Porchester and Tickhill. The addition here took
-the shape of a short passage with a wall on each side, finished at
-its outer end by a new and lofty gatehouse, rising from the middle of
-the outer ditch of the castle, and approached by a mounting roadway.
-The shape of the new gatehouse is an oblong, with its main axis
-perpendicular to the road, but its angles were capped by round turrets,
-corbelled out at a point near the spring of the entrance archway (<a href="#i_098">98</a>).
-Such turrets are known as bartizans, and are common in French military
-architecture of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They were not
-so usual in England, and are seldom found on such a scale as at Lewes:
-smaller bartizans,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_236">236</a></span> corbelled out at a point nearer the battlements
-of the building in which they occur, may be seen in the gatehouse at
-Lincoln, and at the angles of the towers of Belsay (<a href="#i_313">313</a>) and Chipchase
-in Northumberland.<a id="FNanchor_256_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_256" class="fnanchor">256</a> The parapet of the barbican gatehouse at Lewes
-is brought forward from the wall on a row of corbels so as to allow
-room for six formidable machicolations. The work bears some resemblance
-to the <i>ch&acirc;telet</i> which covers the main entrance of the fortified abbey
-of Mont-Saint-Michel (<a href="#i_235">235</a>).<a id="FNanchor_257_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_257" class="fnanchor">257</a> In France an outer gatehouse like that
-at Lewes, or an outer enclosure like that at Scarborough, bore the name
-of <i>ch&acirc;telet</i> or <i>bastille</i>. All such defences in advance of a gateway,
-whatever the special name they may bear, may be classed under the head
-of barbicans.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_236">
-<img src="images/i_236.jpg" width="497" height="450" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Beaumaris Castle; Gateway</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_237">237</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_237">
-<img src="images/i_237.jpg" width="600" height="428" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">tutbury</span>: gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_237_2">
-<img src="images/i_237_2.jpg" width="600" height="454" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">york</span>: Micklegate bar</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_239">
-<img src="images/i_239.jpg" width="413" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carcassonne</p></div>
-
-<p>In the highest examples of military skill in fortification—at Conway
-(<a href="#i_254">254</a>) and Beaumaris (<a href="#i_236">236</a>), for instance—the greatest care was taken to
-cover the gateways with oblique or right-angled approaches, so that
-straight access should be impossible to an enemy. The same method of
-hampering the path of an enemy with right angled turns is noticeable
-in French examples of fortification, and notably in the gateways of
-Carcassonne (<a href="#i_239">239</a>). In England, however, an entrance defended by a
-barbican in a straight line with it was generally preferred; and, even
-in castles like Caerphilly and Harlech, the strength of the entrances
-depended upon the disposition of the concentric wards of the castle,
-and they were guiltless of the devices and traps which are one leading
-feature of Beaumaris. A good example of an oblique approach to a
-thirteenth-century castle is at Pembroke,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_239">239</a></span> where the main gateway
-is covered by an open barbican, forming a rectangular vestibule, the
-entrance to which is in a wall nearly at right angles to the gateway.
-The west gate of Tenby is covered by an almost semicircular barbican,
-the original entrance to which, with a groove for a portcullis, is on
-the north side, so that an angle had to be turned before the gateway
-was reached. At a much later date other openings were pierced in the
-outer wall of the barbican, and the curious arrangement is known
-to-day by the misleading name of the “Five Arches.” The east side of
-the chief ward of Carew castle was protected by a rectangular outer
-court, entered from the field by a small gatehouse. The gatehouse of
-the inner ward is in the south half of the east wall, and is flanked
-by a round angle-tower and a tower which projects from the middle of
-the wall. The outer faces of these two towers were joined by a wall
-which thus covered the gatehouse, and was pierced by a doorway, set a
-little to the north of the main entrance, with its jambs<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_240">240</a></span> sloping to
-the left. This gave access to a walled-in passage, with an upper floor,
-leading obliquely to the inner entrance. As this side of the castle was
-on level ground and was much exposed, special care was taken to guard
-the approaches; there was, however, only one portcullis, at the inner
-end of the main gateway; but the wooden doors, four of which had to be
-passed before the portcullis was reached, were of great strength, and
-each was closed with several very massive draw-bars.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_240">
-<img src="images/i_240.jpg" width="450" height="318" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Tenby; West Gate</p></div>
-
-<p>The town gateway at Tenby may be compared to the Porte de Laon at
-Coucy, which was also covered by a semicircular barbican. While,
-however, the Tenby barbican was directly attached to the wall, the
-barbican at Coucy was separated from the gateway by the town ditch
-and a bridge, and was altogether more elaborate. The bridge itself
-crossed the ditch in two sections, describing an obtuse angle, at the
-apex of which was a round tower. The road passed through the tower,
-and turned the angle at its inner gate, from which the second section
-of the bridge passed straight to the actual gateway. At Coucy all
-the resources of fortification were displayed; while at Tenby the
-application of the same principle was simple and unpretending.<a id="FNanchor_258_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_258" class="fnanchor">258</a>
-Equally masterly is the oblique entrance to the castle of Kerak in
-Syria, beside which the entrances to Pembroke and Carew are of small
-account.<a id="FNanchor_259_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_259" class="fnanchor">259</a> The long rectangular castle of Kerak is divided into
-two nearly equal wards by a wall parallel to its major axis. The main
-gateway is on the east side of the junction of the cross-wall with
-the outer curtain; but, instead of leading directly into the castle,
-the path turns to the left after passing through the gateway, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_241">241</a></span>
-is confined within a long inner barbican, from the end of which a
-gatehouse at right angles gives admission to the interior of the upper
-ward.</p>
-
-<p>The importance attached, from the thirteenth century onwards, to the
-gateway and its approaches, and the prominence of the gatehouse in
-the concentric castle of Edward I.’s reign will now be understood. It
-now remains to speak of the defences of the exposed face of curtain
-between the towers, and of the towers themselves. The progress towards
-effective flanking has been traced already, and the towered curtains at
-Dover (<a href="#i_126">126</a>) or the Tower of London are examples of scientific flanking
-achieved by long experiment. The towers rose above the level of the
-curtain, and were entered on the first floor from the rampart-walk,
-which they commanded. The walk, in fact, passed through the towers, as
-it may still be seen passing through the gatehouses at York. Thus each
-tower was the key to a section of wall; and, as the Crusaders found at
-Antioch, the wall could be taken only by the capture of several towers,
-each of which guarded a separate section.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_241">
-<img src="images/i_241.jpg" width="416" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Outer stair to tower and rampart-walk in town wall</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_242">
-<img src="images/i_242.jpg" width="279" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carcassonne</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_243">
-<img src="images/i_243.jpg" width="600" height="430" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">alnwick</span>: barbican</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_243_2">
-<img src="images/i_243_2.jpg" width="600" height="426" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">alnwick</span>: gatehouse of keep</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_245">
-<img src="images/i_245.jpg" width="392" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Shutter closing opening in wall or parapet</p></div>
-
-<p>The rampart-walk between the towers occupied, as from the earliest
-times, the top of the wall, and was defended by battlements upon the
-outer, and sometimes by a low rear-wall on the inner side.<a id="FNanchor_260_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_260" class="fnanchor">260</a> The
-chief access to it was by stairs in the towers,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_242">242</a></span> but sometimes, as
-at Alnwick, there was a stair from the interior of the castle, built
-at right angles to the wall (<a href="#i_241">241</a>). In the shell-keep on the mount at
-Tamworth, there is a small stair which ascends in the thickness of the
-wall. The principal alterations which took place with regard to the
-rampart-walk were concerned with the treatment of the parapet. The
-division of the parapet into merlons or solid pieces by embrasures
-has been explained already, and it has been seen that, in the first
-instance, the embrasures are pierced at rather long intervals. The
-tendency grows, however, to multiply embrasures and narrow down the
-merlons between them, on the theory that the archer, discharging his
-arrow through the embrasure, can shelter himself and re-string his
-bow behind the merlon. The merlon, however, in works designed with a
-purpose mainly military, is usually broader than the embrasure, and
-is itself pierced with a small arrow-loop, splayed internally. This
-may be seen in the town-walls of Aigues-Mortes (<a href="#i_077">77</a>) and Carcassonne
-(<a href="#i_078">78</a>), where the merlons are of great breadth, and in such triumphs of
-fortification as the castles of Carnarvon (<a href="#i_246">246</a>) and Conway.<a id="FNanchor_261_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_261" class="fnanchor">261</a> The
-merlons, however, were not always provided with loops, even in the
-Edwardian period. The barbican at Alnwick (<a href="#i_243">243</a>), a work of the early
-fourteenth century, is battlemented with plain merlons and embrasures.
-In this case, there are two further points which deserve notice. The
-embrasures at Alnwick were defended by wooden shutters, which hung from
-trunnions working in grooves in the adjacent merlons. The shutters
-could be lifted out at pleasure, and the embrasure left free: the
-device may be noticed in some other instances.<a id="FNanchor_262_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_262" class="fnanchor">262</a> Also,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_245">245</a></span> upon the
-merlons at Alnwick stand stone figures of warriors, sometimes called
-“defenders,” and supposed to be designed to strike terror into the
-enemy. The present figures at Alnwick are comparatively modern; but the
-fashion was not uncommon and was purely ornamental. Similar figures are
-seen on the gatehouse of the neighbouring castle of Bothal, and upon
-the gatehouses of York: among the figures on the merlons at Carnarvon
-was an eagle, which gave its name to the famous Eagle tower. An enemy
-who could be daunted by the illusion of a rather diminutive archer
-or slinger balancing himself on a narrow coping, must have had very
-little experience of warfare. The merlons were treated very plainly in
-many French examples, as at Avignon, Aigues-Mortes, and Carcassonne
-(<a href="#i_242">242</a>), where they are flat-topped and unmoulded, while the embrasures
-have flat sills. In England they were generally finished off by a
-gabled coping, as at Carnarvon, where the top of each is moulded with
-a half-roll to the field (<a href="#i_246">246</a>).<a id="FNanchor_263_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_263" class="fnanchor">263</a> The sill of the embrasure has
-also an inner chamfer. It may be noted that the freedom with which
-machicolations were employed in the parapets of French castles and
-town-walls was unusual in England. Machicolated parapets were, as a
-rule, confined to the fronts of gateways, until the later part of the
-fourteenth century, when they began, as at Lancaster and Warwick, to
-show themselves in the towers of the gateway and curtain. They are very
-sparingly used in the Welsh castles, which are our noblest examples
-of military architecture; and an <i>enceinte</i>, like the city wall of
-Avignon, in which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_246">246</a></span> the whole parapet is machicolated and built out on
-long corbels of considerable projection, is unknown in England.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_246">
-<img src="images/i_246.jpg" width="500" height="373" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carnarvon Castle; Crenellated parapet</p></div>
-
-<p>What has just been said of the parapets of walls applies naturally to
-the parapets of towers. Towers on the curtain had, as we have seen, a
-double use. They flanked the wall, so that each pair could rake with
-their shot the entire face of the <i>enceinte</i> contained between them.
-They also commanded the rampart-walk, so that an enemy who scaled the
-wall was still exposed to their fire and confined to a limited area. A
-distinction, however, must be drawn between the closed and open types
-of tower, as they may be called. The ordinary rampart tower was of
-two or three stages, divided into a basement and upper guard-room or
-rooms. The basement was sometimes vaulted, as in the northern tower at
-Pevensey (<a href="#i_247">247</a>) or towers at Alnwick. Fireplaces and garde-robe chambers
-are often found in the upper rooms,<a id="FNanchor_264_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_264" class="fnanchor">264</a> the garde-robes being often
-placed at the junction of the tower with the curtain, and corbelled out
-over the outer wall.<a id="FNanchor_265_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_265" class="fnanchor">265</a> At Carew, where there was no keep, but the
-castle formed a rectangular enclosure with drum-towers at the angles,
-all the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_247">247</a></span> towers were provided with garde-robe chambers, which, with the
-passages leading to them, are roofed by lozenge-shaped slabs, corbelled
-out one above another. In the south-east tower, the first-floor chamber
-has a pointed barrel-vault, and is entered by an outer stair from
-the ward. In the east wall are two garde-robe chambers, entered by
-elbow-shaped passages. Each had a door opening inwards, and was lighted
-by a separate loop. The chambers were so planned that the seats were
-placed on opposite sides of a partition wall, with a common vent.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_247">
-<img src="images/i_247.jpg" width="600" height="328" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Pevensey; Vaulting in basement of north tower</p></div>
-
-<p>The tower at Carew just mentioned is at earliest of late
-thirteenth-century date, and has several advanced features. Though
-its projection from the curtain is regularly rounded, its inward
-projection is rectangular, so that its plan is actually an oblong
-with a rounded end. It seems to have been intended to have been used
-in connection with the gatehouse: its first and second floors had
-no direct communication with each other, but both communicated with
-the gatehouse, and the ground-floor of the gatehouse had a large
-lateral opening in the direction of the first floor of the tower. The
-corresponding tower at the north-east angle was used in connection
-with the domestic buildings, and had a vaulted chapel (<a href="#i_248">248</a>) upon its
-first floor, from the north wall of which open two rooms for the use
-of the priest, with a garde-robe in the second. One tower, therefore,
-was purely defensive, additional precautions having been taken, no
-doubt, to guard a postern which opens from the basement upon the scarp
-of the ditch; while the other was merely an annexe to one of the two
-dwelling-houses within the enclosure.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_248">248</a></span> The use of the eastern and
-south-western towers at Warkworth (<a href="#i_049">49</a>) was equally distinct. We have
-seen that the south-west tower (Cradyfargus) was used in connection
-with the domestic buildings: this may not have been its original
-purpose, but it was certainly thus employed early in the fourteenth
-century. The great feature of the east tower is the huge loop in each
-of its five outer faces, designed for a cross-bow 16 feet long: these
-loops, splayed throughout and fan-tailed at top and bottom, are the
-finest examples of cross-loops left in England, and declare the main
-purpose of the tower at once. In later years, when the cross-bow was
-out of fashion, the interior of the tower was somewhat altered, and a
-fireplace inserted.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_248">
-<img src="images/i_248.jpg" width="450" height="442" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carew; Chapel</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_249">
-<img src="images/i_249.jpg" width="305" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Door of main gatehouse<br />
-Chepstow Castle</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_249_2">
-<img src="images/i_249_2.jpg" width="291" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Stair to vaulted chamber in outer bailey<br />
-Chepstow Castle</p></div>
-
-<p>The best examples of curtain-towers, both abroad and in England, form
-complete cylinders, like the angle-towers at Coucy, or polygons, like
-some of the towers at Carnarvon. But room was spared if the cylinder
-or polygon was left incomplete, and its inner face made nearly flush
-with the curtain. The two towers on the curtain of the inner ward
-at Pembroke projected with semicircular curves into the outer ward,
-but were flat at the back: the south tower covered the gateway of
-the inner ward, which was not in the face of the wall, but round an
-angle. The towers of the outer ward, on the other hand, are mostly
-complete cylinders: the stairs were vices contained in rectangular
-turrets on one side, the outer walls<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_249">249</a></span> of which are curved to meet the
-circumference of the towers (<a href="#i_181">181</a>).<a id="FNanchor_266_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_266" class="fnanchor">266</a> Marten’s tower at Chepstow,
-and the towers of the curtain of the fine early fourteenth-century
-castle of Llanstephan, are cases in which the projection of the tower
-is only external. The tower which caps the eastern angle at Llanstephan
-is a half-cylinder, springing, not directly from the curtain, but
-from a broad rectangular projection on its face.<a id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">267</a> The variations
-which might be noticed in the attachment of towers to the curtain are
-manifold: but, as time goes on, the ordinary curtain-tower, where it
-was not placed at an angle of a ward, stood flush with the curtain on
-its inner side (<a href="#i_228">228</a>). Where the tower stood on the curtain by itself,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_250">250</a></span>
-unattached to other buildings within the castle, there was usually an
-entrance to the basement direct from the bailey, on one side of which
-a vice in a turret attached to the tower rose to the upper floors and
-roof, communicating on the level of the first floor with the curtain.
-The doorway opening on the curtain was fitted with a strong door, and,
-in Marten’s tower at Chepstow castle, where the tower was of special
-importance, standing as it does at the lowest and most vulnerable point
-of the site, was provided with a portcullis.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_250">
-<img src="images/i_250.jpg" width="600" height="322" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Foug&egrave;res</p></div>
-
-<p>There were cases, however, especially in walls of towns, where the
-curtain-tower, although projecting outside and above the wall, and
-covered with a timber roof, was left open at the gorge or neck, where
-it was flush with the curtain, so that it was simply an open tower,
-with a platform on the first floor, level with the rampart-walk, and a
-rampart-walk of its own at the level of its battlements. Such a tower
-could be actively employed in time of war, and had all the advantages
-of the ordinary closed tower in flanking the wall and cutting the
-rampart-walk up into sections. The numerous towers of the walls of
-Avignon, between the gatehouses, were arranged thus.<a id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">268</a> At Conway,
-the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_251">251</a></span> semi-cylindrical towers of the town walls, of which there are
-twenty, and the similar towers which flank the gatehouses, are open to
-the town: one tower only, on the south-west side of the town, where
-the wall turns to join the castle, is walled at the gorge. The walls
-of Chepstow provide further examples of open towers. At Carnarvon
-(<a href="#i_251">251</a>), the round towers on the face of the town walls are open, but the
-angle-towers were closed; and that at the north-west angle was entered
-through the town chapel, which was built against the curtain at this
-point. The open tower was not, as a rule, used in castles: even the
-small towers which flank the outer curtain at Beaumaris have a wall
-continued across the gorge.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_251">
-<img src="images/i_251.jpg" width="358" height="300" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carnarvon; Tower of town wall</p></div>
-
-<p>Every large castle was provided with a postern or sally-port. This was
-generally a small doorway, preferably in the base of a tower, but often
-in the curtain, opening on the least frequented side of the castle. In
-time of siege, in a castle of the ordinary plan, a postern might easily
-be a source of danger; and its employment in the scheme of defence was
-incompletely understood at first. But it was useful for the conveyance
-of provisions to the castle; and a postern, as at Warkworth, is often
-found in connection with a kitchen or store-room. Where a castle stood
-near a river, a water-gate, communicating with a private wharf was
-made. At Pembroke, where the castle stands between two water-ways,
-there were two water-gates, one in the south side of the outer ward,
-the other, as already mentioned, formed by walling in the mouth of
-the cave below the great hall. For the scientific employment of the
-postern, however, we have to look to the great castles of the later
-part of the thirteenth century, in which the means of defence described
-in this chapter were perfectly co-ordinated; and, with the introduction
-of a new plan, the last signs of a merely passive strength vanished
-from the castle.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_252">252</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X<br />
-
-<br />THE EDWARDIAN CASTLE AND THE CONCENTRIC PLAN</h2></div>
-
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Castles</span> like Carew, enclosing a rectangular area with round towers at
-the angles, were the fruit of the transition in the course of which
-the fortified curtain wall took the place of the passive strength of
-the keep. At Carew the castle was protected upon its most exposed side
-by outer defences of stone; but on all other sides it presented a
-single line of defence, flanked by the four formidable angle-towers. A
-castle thus defended was, like the early stone castles at Richmond and
-elsewhere, a keep in itself; but its wall no longer depended merely
-upon its passive strength, but was calculated to resist attacks on
-which the builders of Richmond and Ludlow had no means of reckoning.</p>
-
-<p>The castle of the latter half of the thirteenth century, the golden
-age of English military architecture, was, then, an enclosure within a
-strong and well-flanked curtain wall. The keep, where the site was new,
-was dispensed with: where an old plan was altered or enlarged, it took
-a secondary position. The castles of this age may be divided into three
-separate classes. First, there are castles without keeps, in which
-the flanked curtain wall forms the sole line of defence. Secondly,
-there are old castles, which, by extension of their site, have adopted
-a concentric plan of defence. And thirdly, there are castles newly
-planned, in which the defences are formed by two or more concentric
-curtain walls.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_253">253</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_253">
-<img src="images/i_253.jpg" width="600" height="278" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carnarvon Castle</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_254">254</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_254">
-<img src="images/i_254.jpg" width="600" height="317" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conway Castle</p></div>
-
-<p>I. The grand examples of the first class are the castles of Carnarvon
-(<a href="#i_253">253</a>) and Conway (<a href="#i_254">254</a>). Conway was begun in 1285 by the orders of
-Edward I. Carnarvon, in which more architectural splendour is shown,
-was begun in 1283, and was not finished until 1316-22.<a id="FNanchor_269_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_269" class="fnanchor">269</a> Both
-castles were built in connection with walled towns, and occupied an
-angle of the defences; and both stand on a point of land where a river
-meets the sea, so that two faces of the site were defended by water,
-while the base was separated from the town by an artificial ditch.
-<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_255">255</a></span>Carnarvon, however, is situated on low ground, and commands the town
-only by the height of its curtain and its formidable towers; while the
-promontory on which Conway stands is raised high above the greater part
-of the town and commands the whole (<a href="#i_256">256</a>).</p>
-
-<p>The plan of both castles is very similar. The enclosure, in both cases
-an irregular polygon of an oblong shape, was divided into two wards by
-a cross-wall,<a id="FNanchor_270_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_270" class="fnanchor">270</a> built at a point where the curtain is slightly drawn
-in on both sides, and the site is consequently narrowed. At Conway the
-main entrance is in the west or end wall of the lower ward, opposite
-the cross-wall. The lower ward, thus entered, is a hexagon in shape,
-flanked by six cylindrical or drum towers, one at each of the angles,
-and occupies about two-thirds of the enclosure. The remaining third is
-the upper ward, an irregular rectangle flanked by four drum towers, the
-two towers to the west being common to both wards. The whole enclosure
-is thus flanked by eight towers, four at the angles, and two on each of
-the sides.</p>
-
-<p>The two wards at Carnarvon (<a href="#i_253">253</a>) were more nearly equal, the upper
-ward, placed, as in Conway, at the end next the confluence of the river
-and the sea, occupying about two-fifths of the site. The main entrance
-to the lower ward, the King’s gateway, is in the middle of the side
-wall next the town, and the wall of division between the wards crossed
-the enclosure from a point close to the right of the inner entrance.
-The curtain of the lower ward was built in five sections, with a tower
-at each of the projecting angles between them. With these towers must
-be reckoned the two splendid gatehouses, the King’s gatehouse at the
-north-west, and Queen Eleanor’s gatehouse at the east angle of the
-ward. The curtain of the upper ward was built in four pieces, and this
-ward, with its cross-wall, forms an irregular pentagon, at the apex
-of which is the famous Eagle tower, at the point where the town wall
-joins that of the castle. There are nine towers in all, counting the
-two gatehouses, and a turret on each of the north-east and south-east
-sections of the curtain. The towers are polygonal in shape, the
-straight faces being for the most part very broad, and the angles very
-obtuse.<a id="FNanchor_271_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_271" class="fnanchor">271</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_256">256</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_256">
-<img src="images/i_256.jpg" width="418" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conway Castle and Town</p></div>
-
-<p>Of the two castles, Conway, which stands, as we have seen, on the
-better site, was the more economically defended. The leading features
-of the plan at Carnarvon are the two large<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_257">257</a></span> gatehouses and the Eagle
-tower at the western angle, which was virtually a strong tower or
-keep. The King’s gatehouse formed the main entrance. Queen Eleanor’s
-gatehouse stands at the highest point of the castle, and is now
-inaccessible from outside: when in use, it must have been approached by
-a steeply rising bridge across the ditch.<a id="FNanchor_272_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_272" class="fnanchor">272</a> There is also a postern,
-through which provisions were, no doubt, brought to the kitchen, in the
-basement of the Well tower, which caps the angle of the curtain between
-the King’s gatehouse and Eagle tower. At Conway, there was no separate
-strong tower, nor was there a real gatehouse: the gateway is in a
-narrow end-wall, and the towers on each side are in close connection
-with its machicolated rampart-walk. There is also a second and smaller
-gateway in the wall at the opposite end of the castle, opening on a
-platform at the edge of the rock, from which a stair led to the water.</p>
-
-<p>Where the curtain was so well defended as in these two castles, a
-double entrance was a source of strength rather than weakness. The
-problem for the enemy was how to distribute his forces, so as to keep
-the whole <i>enceinte</i> under observation. To concentrate an attack
-upon one gateway was to run the risk of being outflanked and taken
-in the rear by a sortie from the other. Strong as Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard
-and other castles of the transition had been, they had simply met the
-prospect of attack with successive lines of defence. Carnarvon and
-the castles of the Edwardian period generally were not entirely a
-refuge for a besieged garrison: they were shelters which provided a
-base of operations for offensive as well as defensive stratagem. The
-most imposing feature of the defences of Carnarvon castle is the long
-irregular line of the south and south-west wall, fronting the river
-Seiont (<a href="#i_258">258</a>). Here the curtain is pierced by three rows of loops,
-one above another. The lowest open from a gallery in the thickness
-of the wall: the middle row from an upper gallery, which is now open
-internally, constructed on the top of the very massive lower wall;
-while the top row is pierced in the merlons of the battlements (<a href="#i_259">259</a>).
-The wall could be guarded simultaneously by three rows of archers, one
-above another—not an inviting prospect to a besieging force. It is
-obvious that such a castle, large enough to shelter an army, could also
-be held by a relatively small body of men, so excellently was the area
-of defence concentrated, and so readily could every part of the curtain
-be reached from the interior of the fortress.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_258">
-<img src="images/i_258.jpg" width="600" height="415" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carnarvon</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_259">
-<img src="images/i_259.jpg" width="529" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">carnarvon castle</span>: towers and rampart-walk</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_259_2">
-<img src="images/i_259_2.jpg" width="600" height="372" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">carnarvon castle</span>: interior</p></div>
-
-<p>While the actual defences of the curtain at Conway were more simple
-than at Carnarvon, the isolation of the site was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_258">258</a></span> greater, and the
-possibility of active movement in and out of the stronghold was less.
-The attack was bound to be concentrated upon the one main entrance; and
-consequently, next to the flanking of the curtain, the chief object
-was the defence of the gateway. The end wall, in which the gateway
-was pierced, is high above the adjacent town, and the level piece of
-ground in front was broken short by a steep edge of cliff, at the
-foot of which was the ditch. The entrance was therefore approached
-by a well-guarded barbican at right angles to the gateway. This
-outwork was reached from the town by passing along a rising causeway
-with a drawbridge at the end, which gave access to the gateway of
-the barbican, standing in advance of the north-west tower. A short
-rising path then led through a doorway closed by a wooden door to the
-platform in front of the gateway, along the west side of which, above
-the ditch, was continued the outer wall of the barbican, flanked by
-three small round towers, open at the gorge. The parapet above the
-gateway was machicolated, and the large corbels still project from the
-wall.<a id="FNanchor_273_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_273" class="fnanchor">273</a> Into a narrow barbican like this, only a small detachment of
-an attacking force could venture; indeed, the position is practically
-impregnable. The north-west tower commands every inch of the approach;
-and the drawbridge, the portcullis and upper gateway<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_261">261</a></span> of the
-barbican, and the oblique entrance to the gateway of the castle, formed
-successive and intimidating obstacles. The main gateway was closed by a
-portcullis, which was worked from a mural chamber, between the crown of
-the arch and the rampart-walk. It may be noted that, while the oblique
-entrance at Conway has some likeness to the ingenious entrances at
-Beaumaris, the works of Conway have at least two points in common with
-Harlech—the corbelling-out of the rampart-walk against the interior
-face of the towers (<a href="#i_261">261</a>), and the carrying up of the stairs of the four
-eastern towers into turrets above the level of the roof. The lofty
-stair-turrets above the roof are also a prominent feature at Carnarvon.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_261">
-<img src="images/i_261.jpg" width="459" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conway Castle; Rampart-walk</p></div>
-
-<p>The arrangements of the rampart-walks at Conway and Carnarvon were of
-the usual type. At Conway, where the cross-wall between the wards is
-still in existence, there is a walk along the top, so that no part of
-the curtain is really distant from another. The domestic buildings
-at Carnarvon unfortunately no longer stand; but the position of the
-hall and kitchen in the inner ward is still known. Probably, as at
-Conway, there was a<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_262">262</a></span> large hall for the garrison in the outer ward.
-The domestic arrangements at Conway can be easily followed, although
-the kitchen, against the north curtain of the lower ward, is gone. The
-great hall, which is built against the south curtain, and follows the
-obtuse angle formed by it, stands above a cellar, but its floor was on
-a level with the surface of the ward. Its timber roof was built upon
-stone transverse arches, spanning the hall: the east end was screened
-off and formed a chapel. The buildings surrounding the smaller or
-upper ward formed a separate mansion, distinct from the great hall and
-its appendages. The chief features of this set of apartments were the
-smaller hall, against the south curtain, the separate withdrawing-rooms
-called the King’s and Queen’s chambers, and the small chapel or oratory
-in the north-east tower (<a href="#i_263">263</a>). This chapel was entered from the
-main stair of the tower, but a straight stair also led to it in the
-thickness of the east wall from the postern-gate, and communicated with
-a similar stair in the other half of the wall, leading to the King’s
-chamber and the lesser hall. Water at Carnarvon was supplied from a
-well in the tower west of the kitchen: at Conway a cistern was made
-near the south-east corner of the lower ward.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_262">
-<img src="images/i_262.jpg" width="450" height="449" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conway Castle; Fireplace in hall</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_263">
-<img src="images/i_263.jpg" width="284" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conway Castle; Oratory</p></div>
-
-<p>II. There are old castles, however, which were adapted to the new
-form of fortification with an ingenuity equal to that shown on new
-sites at Conway and Carnarvon. In alluding to the lessons learned by
-the Crusaders in the east, we have noticed the concentric form of
-fortification which they saw at Constantinople. The city was girt by
-a triple wall, each ring of which was higher than the one outside it.
-The advantage of this was obvious: while three successive lines of
-defence were provided, the three could also be used simultaneously,
-each row<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_263">263</a></span> of defenders discharging its missiles over the heads of the
-next. The Crusaders, the variety and ingenuity of whose castle plans
-deserve much admiration, profited by the concentric method of walling
-a stronghold; and none of their fortresses is so remarkable as Le
-Krak des Chevaliers (<a href="#i_176">176</a>), rebuilt early in the thirteenth century,
-where the curtain of the inner ward rises high above the curtain of
-the outer <i>enceinte</i>.<a id="FNanchor_274_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_274_274" class="fnanchor">274</a> Approximations to the concentric plan were
-not unknown even in England at an early date. The earthen defences of
-Berkhampstead castle (<a href="#i_042">42</a>) are concentric, although no attempt was made
-to correlate them by giving the inner banks command of the outer.<a id="FNanchor_275_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275_275" class="fnanchor">275</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_264">264</a></span>
-In the plan of the cylindrical tower-keep at Launceston, we have a
-striking application of the concentric plan to a small area. In France,
-Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, where the inner ward is nearly surrounded by the
-curtain of the middle ward, was an approach to concentric methods;
-but the leading idea was still the exclusion of an enemy by lines
-of defence arranged upon an elongated plan, with the donjon as the
-culminating point. Even at Coucy, where the defensive provisions are so
-elaborate, the donjon is the great point of interest, and the castle
-is not concentric in plan. In fact, the concentric plan, although long
-known in the east, was not adopted as a basis of planning in the west
-until the thirteenth century was far advanced. The fortifications of
-Carcassonne, where the plan was applied to a town (<a href="#i_264">264</a>), were begun by
-St Louis, and finished by Philip III.: begun earlier than Caerphilly,
-their erection covered most of the time in which our chief concentric
-castles were built.<a id="FNanchor_276_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276_276" class="fnanchor">276</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_264">
-<img src="images/i_264.jpg" width="357" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carcassonne; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>The concentric plan may be described as follows. The site on which
-the castle was built was surrounded, as usual, by a ditch. The inner
-scarp was crowned, and sometimes partly reveted, by a wall, flanked by
-towers at the angles and, in the largest castles, on the intermediate
-faces. Within this wall, and divided from it by a narrow space of open
-ground, rose a second and much higher wall, also flanked by towers
-at the angles and on the faces. This inner wall enclosed the main
-ward of the castle, the intermediate space forming the outer ward
-or “lists.”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_265">265</a></span> There was no keep: here, as in the plan of Conway and
-Carnarvon, reliance was placed on the curtains. The entrances, however,
-were elaborately defended by large gatehouses and by sundry ingenious
-devices, as at Beaumaris, for perplexing a foe; and the castle was
-sometimes reinforced, as at Caerphilly, by special outer defences
-both of earth and stone. An enemy, attacking such a fortress, was
-exposed first to a double fire from the two curtains. If he effected an
-entrance, he had to fight every step of his way into the inner ward;
-while, if he was driven, by determined resistance at the gateway, into
-the narrow space of the outer ward, he was not merely in danger from
-the archers on the inner wall, but also might find his way blocked
-by one of the cross-walls which broke up the space in which he was
-confined.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_267">
-<img src="images/i_267.jpg" width="439" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Kidwelly Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>Such a plan, although it might lack some of the advantages of a plan
-worked out on a new site, could be applied to the new defences of an
-old castle. Both at Dover and the Tower of London during the reign of
-Henry III., additions were made which gave each castle a concentric
-plan.<a id="FNanchor_277_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_277_277" class="fnanchor">277</a> The effect at Dover was to ring the imposing keep about
-with a double wall: the inner circuit, however, is largely of the same
-date as the keep, and the outer is spreading and irregular in plan.
-At London the defences were more closely planned in harmony, and one
-feature of the additions is that, when the buildings are examined close
-at hand, the White tower, originally the most important feature of the
-fortress, becomes comparatively insignificant in the defensive scheme.
-The inner and outer curtains, with their towers, are of more than one
-date, from the end of the twelfth to the sixteenth century; but the
-most important work was done in the reign of Henry III., during which
-the concentric plan of the fortress was developed. The best idea of
-the fortifications can be obtained from the open space before the west
-front. Between the city and the castle lies the formidable ditch, which
-runs round three sides of the fortress, the fourth side being guarded
-by the Thames and a narrower ditch. Dug by the Conqueror’s workmen,
-the ditch was widened and deepened by Richard I.’s chancellor, William
-Longchamp: it originally seems to have admitted water at high tide.
-The entrance to the castle is at the south-west angle. A gatehouse,
-called the Middle tower, which was covered by an outer ditch<a id="FNanchor_278_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278_278" class="fnanchor">278</a> and
-outwork, stands<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_266">266</a></span> on the counterscarp of the great ditch, on this side
-120 feet broad, and gives access to a stone bridge. This crossed the
-ditch to the Byward tower, a gatehouse at the south-west angle of the
-outer curtain. This curtain has been much altered, and its angles along
-the north face are capped by bastions which belong to the age when
-the cannon had taken the place of the catapult. Along its south face,
-towards the narrow ditch, the quay, and river beyond, it is flanked by
-towers, the chief of which is St Thomas’ tower, the water-gate of the
-castle, well known by its name of Traitors’ gate, and, like the Byward
-and Middle towers, originally a work of the thirteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_279_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279_279" class="fnanchor">279</a>
-From the bridge leading to the Byward tower, the curtain of the inner
-ward, flanked by three towers, the Beauchamp tower in the middle, the
-Devereux and Bell towers at the angles,<a id="FNanchor_280_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280_280" class="fnanchor">280</a> can be seen commanding
-the narrow outer ward. This approach was apparently defended by three
-rows of archers, like the south curtain of Carnarvon. The highest row
-occupied the rampart-walk and towers of the inner curtain. Loops were
-made in the face of the same curtain, below the rampart-walk, for a
-second row, on the raised ground-level of the inner ward; while a third
-row could be stationed behind loops in the outer curtain. The outer
-ward varies in breadth, but the passage to the gateway of the inner
-ward, along the south face of the inner curtain, is very narrow, and is
-flanked by the Bell tower and Wakefield tower.<a id="FNanchor_281_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_281" class="fnanchor">281</a> The inner gateway
-is in the ground-floor of the Bloody tower, which joins the Wakefield
-tower; and is immediately opposite the water-gate in St Thomas’ tower.
-At intervals the outer ward was traversed by cross-walls, so that an
-unhindered circuit of it was impossible: one of these crosses it on the
-east side of the Wakefield tower, and is continued across the ditch to
-the river bank.<a id="FNanchor_282_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_282" class="fnanchor">282</a> The well-flanked approach from the Byward tower,
-arranged so that the gateway to the inner ward must be entered<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_268">268</a></span> by
-a right-angled turn, may be compared with the entrances at Conway
-and Beaumaris, or with the earlier approach to the main bailey at
-Conisbrough.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_268">
-<img src="images/i_268.jpg" width="376" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Chepstow; Basement chamber</p></div>
-
-<p>In some respects, the alterations undertaken at Chepstow (<a href="#i_104">104</a>) towards
-the end of the thirteenth century give it a place among concentric
-castles. The ridge on which the castle stands, between the town
-ditch and a sheer cliff above the Wye, was too narrow for concentric
-treatment, and the actual plan shows us four wards on end, each
-on higher ground than the last. The first and lowest ward was the
-Edwardian addition. The second<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_269">269</a></span> ward formed the lower part of the
-bailey of the early castle. The third ward, at a very narrow point in
-the ridge, was almost filled by the great hall, which was virtually
-the great tower or keep of this castle; and there is only a narrow
-passage mounting the slope between the hall and the low curtain above
-the river. The fourth ward, at the highest point, and divided from
-the third ward by a deep rift in the rock, contains a wide gateway,
-which, as at Kidwelly—the nearest parallel—was the back entrance to
-the castle. We have only to imagine the ditch next the town filled up,
-and the outer curtain continued so as to embrace the second ward and
-great hall, and to unite the first and fourth wards; and we have what
-is virtually the plan of Kidwelly (<a href="#i_267">267</a>). Free ingress and egress for
-the garrison, so well studied in concentric plans, was provided by the
-two gateways at Chepstow. The exposed condition, however, of the lower
-ward, at the foot of the ridge, prompted an addition to the plan which
-recalls the Eagle tower at Carnarvon, or the strong towers at the later
-manor-castles of Raglan and Wingfield. Projecting from the lowest angle
-of the curtain, commanding the approach from the town, and covering
-the gateway, is the tower now called the Marten tower, rounded to the
-field and flat at the gorge. This tower, entered from the ground-level
-of the ward, had its own portcullised gateway, and a doorway, also
-portcullised, from the first floor to the rampart-walk of the curtain.
-Its three floors were very amply planned, and, projecting from the
-second floor, and partly built on the battlements of the curtain, is
-a small chapel or oratory, with an east window containing geometrical
-tracery. The Marten tower is a valuable example of the protection of
-a dangerous angle. Its flanking capacities were improved by a spur or
-half-pyramid built against the base: this may be compared with the
-rectangular plinths of the two western angle-towers at Carew, from
-which spurs rise against the rounded surfaces of the towers themselves.
-The first ward at Chepstow contains a lesser hall and other domestic
-buildings on the side next the river: these, with the vaults below them
-(<a href="#i_268">268</a>), contain work of great beauty. All the Edwardian work at Chepstow
-has that simplicity and adequacy of design, admitting here and there of
-beauties of detail, which is found in the best military work of the age
-(<a href="#i_249">249</a>).<a id="FNanchor_283_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_283_283" class="fnanchor">283</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_270">
-<img src="images/i_270.jpg" width="489" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Caerphilly Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>III. The castles, however, of the last twenty years of the thirteenth
-century, planned with a system of concentric defences,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_270">270</a></span> may be taken,
-with Carnarvon and Conway, as reaching the highest pitch of military
-science attained in medieval England. The earliest of these, Caerphilly
-(<a href="#i_270">270</a>), which was begun before the end of the reign of Henry III., was
-also the most elaborate.<a id="FNanchor_284_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284_284" class="fnanchor">284</a> The castle proper was placed in the
-middle of a lake, formed by the damming up of two streams; and in
-this respect the situation was not unlike that of Kenilworth, which
-was defended on the south and west by an artificial lake, and was
-irregularly concentric in the ultimate development of its plan.<a id="FNanchor_285_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_285_285" class="fnanchor">285</a>
-The sides<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_271">271</a></span> of the island were enclosed within strong retaining walls,
-which rose to form the curtain of the outer ward. This curtain was
-low, and was flanked, not by towers, but by curved projections forming
-bastions at the angles. Within this outer defence rose the rectangular
-inner ward, the lofty curtain of which was flanked by drum towers at
-each angle, and by a very large gatehouse with two drum towers in each
-of the east and west sides. The outer ward had also a front and back
-gatehouse, flanked by small drum towers, in its east and west curtains:
-these were directly commanded by the inner gatehouses, and the entrance
-was not oblique. The inner ward was spacious and cheerful. In the
-centre is the well: the great hall (<a href="#i_272">272</a>), the excellent stonework of
-which is sheltered from the weather by a modern roof, was built against
-the south curtain, and the chapel was at right angles to it at its
-east end. The kitchen was contained in a projecting tower south of the
-hall, which blocked the outer ward at this point: beneath the kitchen
-was a postern communicating directly with the lake. The place of the
-rampart-walk in the curtain next the hall was supplied by a gallery
-running in its thickness, and looped to the field. At the east end of
-the hall were apartments, through which the rooms in the first floor of
-the east gatehouse could be reached.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_271">
-<img src="images/i_271.jpg" width="600" height="345" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Caerphilly Castle</p></div>
-
-<p>This plan, in which the military and domestic elements were<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_272">272</a></span> so well
-combined, is interesting upon its own account. But more interesting
-still were the outer defences by which the castle was surrounded. The
-whole east face of the castle on the outer edge of the lake was guarded
-by an outer wall, which had in the centre, nearly opposite the inner
-gateways, a large gatehouse, and was returned at the ends into clusters
-of towers, the larger of which, on the south, covered a postern. A
-wet ditch divided this outer line of defence from the village of
-Caerphilly, and in its centre was a pier on which the two sections
-of the drawbridge met. North of the gatehouse, the outer curtain was
-defended simply by the rampart-walk: on the south side, however, there
-was a narrow terrace left in the rear of the curtain, by which access
-was obtained to the castle mill and other offices. These two portions
-of the curtain were separated from each other by the gatehouse and a
-dividing wall, which, in case of the capture of one part of the curtain
-by besiegers, gave the defenders a distinct advantage. The inner lake
-was crossed from the platform in front of the main gatehouse by a
-drawbridge, which probably was worked by a counterpoise from the island
-side.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_272">
-<img src="images/i_272.jpg" width="600" height="342" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Caerphilly Castle; Hall</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_273">273</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_273">
-<img src="images/i_273.jpg" width="600" height="322" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Harlech Castle</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_274">
-<img src="images/i_274.jpg" width="600" height="265" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Harlech Castle; Gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_274_2">
-<img src="images/i_274_2.jpg" width="418" height="400" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Harlech; Inner side of gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<p>The lake on the north side of the castle was divided into an inner and
-outer moat by a bank of earth which sprang from the platform of the
-outer gatehouse, and curved round the north side of the island. This
-bank ended at a second and smaller island, the sides of which were
-reveted by a stone wall, covering the west face of the stronghold. This
-horn-work or ravelin was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_274">274</a></span> connected by drawbridges across the outer
-and inner moats with the mainland and with the western gatehouses of
-the castle. It is evident that a fortress like this, in which every
-resource of the defenders’ art has been brought into action, gave a
-besieger very few opportunities. Every entry was guarded: if he once
-effected an entrance, defence after defence had to be forced, while the
-resources of the several lines of defence could all be used against him
-at once. Moreover, he had to be careful to cut all communications off
-from the rear entrance and posterns; and this was a difficult matter,
-where the defenders of the castle had so much freedom of movement and
-could assail him from so many different points. It is not surprising to
-learn that the impregnable fortress of Caerphilly is almost without a
-history. Constructed to defend the lower valley of the Rhymney and to
-cover the coast castles round Cardiff from an attack from the Welsh of
-the valleys which slope southwards from the Brecon Beacons, it endured
-no important siege;<a id="FNanchor_286_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_286_286" class="fnanchor">286</a> and it was not until the civil war<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_275">275</a></span> that its
-military capacity was really tested—and then only in an age which had
-outgrown the methods responsible for its scheme of defence.<a id="FNanchor_287_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_287_287" class="fnanchor">287</a></p>
-
-<p>Of Edward I.’s castles in North Wales, Harlech (<a href="#i_273">273</a>) and Rhuddlan, with
-lofty inner curtains and cylindrical angle-towers, have much in common
-with each other and with Caerphilly. The general plan of Harlech is
-nearly identical with that of the island defences of Caerphilly. Its
-situation on a lofty rock, however, does not call for elaborate outer
-defences. The rock was isolated from the mainland by a dry ditch cut
-across the east face. A causeway and a drawbridge led to the gatehouse
-of the outer ward, which was flanked by bartizans. The wall of the
-outer ward, like that at Caerphilly, is low, and has no towers: three
-of its angles form bastions, while the other, at the least accessible
-point, is simply curved. The unusually lofty curtain of the inner
-ward, some 40 feet high, towers above the comparatively slight outer
-defences; while the centre of the east side is occupied by the great
-gatehouse (<a href="#i_274">274</a>), projecting far back into the inner ward. The entrance
-is flanked by two semi-cylindrical towers; and in the rear of the
-gatehouse are two round turrets, rising high above the roofs. Rhuddlan,
-which stands on the right bank of the Clwyd, had a fairly broad outer
-ward defended by a deep and wide ditch on the three faces on which the
-site is fairly level. The inner ward had two gatehouses, of equal size
-and importance, placed diagonally to each other at the north-east and
-south-west angles of the curtain. Each of these was flanked by two
-large drum towers; while each of the two remaining angles was capped by
-a single tower.</p>
-
-<p>There were at Harlech a hall and other domestic buildings against the
-curtains; but the gatehouse was also a complete mansion in itself,
-with its own small chapel or oratory above the gateway. There was an
-outer stair to the bailey from the main hall of the gatehouse. Exactly
-the same arrangement occurs at Kidwelly, while the importance of the
-gatehouse as a dwelling reaches its climax in the hall of the northern
-gatehouse at Beaumaris.<a id="FNanchor_288_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_288_288" class="fnanchor">288</a> The dual arrangement of a hall, kitchen,
-etc., for the garrison, and a private dwelling-house for the constable
-or the lord of the castle, has already been noticed at Conway, whilst
-its growth has been traced in connection with the castle of Durham.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_276">276</a></span></p>
-
-<p>Harlech presents two or three important points of interest. (1)
-The outer ward was not blocked at any point, as at Caerphilly, by
-projecting buildings, but was continuous: it was crossed, however, in
-at any rate one place, by a wall which barred an enemy’s progress. (2)
-Owing to the nature of the site, only one gatehouse was built. But a
-small doorway in the centre of the north wall of the inner ward opened
-directly opposite a postern, flanked by half-round bastions, in the
-outer curtain. From this point an extremely steep path, now hardly
-to be traced, followed the edge of the rock, rounded the north-west
-bastion of the outer ward, and passed close beneath the west curtain
-to the south-west angle of the rock. Here, doubling on itself, it
-descended through a gateway into a long passage between the slope of
-the rock and the outer wall, and ended at the water-gateway of the
-castle, at the foot of the great crag and near the present railway
-station. The wall which protected the outer face of this tortuous
-passage, formed an outer curtain to the castle, descending the rock
-from the south-west angle of the outer ward, continuing round the
-foot of the rock on its north side, and climbing it again to meet the
-north-east bastion.<a id="FNanchor_289_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289_289" class="fnanchor">289</a> (3) The rampart-walk had no machicolations
-and, as at Conway (<a href="#i_261">261</a>), was continued round the inner faces of the
-angle-towers on corbelling. This left the interior of the towers
-free, while their doorways and stairs gave them ready command of
-the rampart-walk. The walls are not only lofty, but very thick. The
-section of the jambs of the hall windows and the small north postern
-points to the fact that the lower part of the walls was thickened,
-probably as an afterthought, when their present height was determined
-upon. The upper part of the walls is homogeneous, and is evidently a
-heightening. (4) Although vices in the angle-towers communicated with
-the rampart-walk, freedom of action was given to the defenders of the
-towers by the provision of a separate stair for those told off to guard
-the intermediate ramparts. This stair is reached through the basement
-doorway of the south-east tower, and, branching off from the internal
-stair a few feet above the entrance, reaches a small external platform.
-Here a narrow outer stair, with a rear-wall, is carried up the face
-of the flat gorge of the tower, and, turning along the south curtain,
-at length reaches the rampart-walk. The planning of this stair, with
-its carefully covered ground-floor entrance, is very interesting and
-curious.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_277">
-<img src="images/i_277.jpg" width="500" height="406" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Beaumaris Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>Nowhere, however, can the beauty of the concentric plan be so well
-appreciated as at Beaumaris (<a href="#i_278">278</a>), one of Edward I.’s<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_277">277</a></span> latest Welsh
-castles.<a id="FNanchor_290_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_290_290" class="fnanchor">290</a> The site is flat and low, on a tongue of land at the
-northern entrance to the Menai straits. There is no attempt at any
-elaborate outer system of defence, such as we see at Caerphilly. The
-defences consisted of a ditch, filled with water at high tide, and an
-inner and outer curtain, the inner curtain, as usual, commanding the
-outer. The inner ward is square: it has a drum tower at each of the
-angles, and another in the centre of each of the east and west sides.
-The north and south curtains are broken by gatehouses, also flanked
-by drum towers.<a id="FNanchor_291_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_291_291" class="fnanchor">291</a> The north gatehouse was the largest, and upon
-its first floor was an imposing hall. The curtain of the outer ward,
-surrounding the inner curtain, was adapted to the projection of the
-intermediate drum towers and the gatehouses of the inner ward by the
-construction of each face with a salient angle in the centre (<a href="#i_277">277</a>).
-There are no traces of any cross-walls barring the passage of the outer
-ward. The outer curtain, which, owing to the flat site, is not the
-mere low bastioned wall of Caerphilly or Harlech, has a drum tower at
-each angle. On each of the north, east, and west curtains, there are
-three smaller<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_278">278</a></span> drum towers, the central one of which caps the salient.
-The plan is thus of a most symmetrical and uniform kind. The south
-curtain of the outer ward, however, has no intermediate drum towers,
-and its salient is nearly capped by the outer gateway. This gateway,
-however, flanked by rectangular towers,<a id="FNanchor_292_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292_292" class="fnanchor">292</a> is set obliquely to the
-wall. Entering the outer ward, immediately on our right is the small
-rectangular barbican, pierced with cross-loops, which covers the inner
-gateway, so that two right-angled turns must be made before the inner
-ward is entered (<a href="#i_277">277</a>).</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_278">
-<img src="images/i_278.jpg" width="600" height="192" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Beaumaris Castle</p></div>
-
-<p>This entrance, most carefully protected, shows even higher skill than
-the barbican of Conway and the elaborate passage from the water-gate at
-Harlech. But there are two further remarkable defences in this castle.
-We have seen that, as at Caerphilly, there is a large gatehouse at
-either end of the inner ward. The rear gatehouse, which, as already
-noted, is the more important, has no barbican. The rear gateway of
-the outer ward is set obliquely to it, in the north curtain east of
-the salient, and is simply a large postern in the wall. Outside it,
-however, the wall is reinforced by four buttresses, each of which is
-pierced by a loop; the outer buttresses are looped to the field, the
-inner towards the gateway. The westernmost buttress projects beyond
-the rest, and it is clear that the design was intended to conceal and
-protect the postern from attack, and that the western side, in the
-direction of the interior of Anglesey, was that on which an attack
-was most to be expected. The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_279">279</a></span> other defence is the spur-wall, which,
-running almost at right angles to the south wall of the outer ward,
-shut off the main entrance and the beach on which it opened from the
-beach on the eastern side of the castle. The wall is pierced by a
-passage, is looped in both faces, and is flanked by a half-round tower
-on the west face.</p>
-
-<p>Although, at first sight, the towers of Beaumaris, on its absolutely
-level site, look low and unimportant, and present an extraordinary
-contrast to those of Harlech, Carnarvon, or Conway, the area of the
-castle is actually large, and no other Edwardian castle presents
-so perfectly scientific a system of defence. The outer curtain, in
-addition to the rampart-walk, has loops pierced at regular intervals
-in its lower portion; the rampart-walk is partly carried by continuous
-corbelling upon the inner face of the wall. The inner curtain,
-moreover, is pierced, on the level of the first floor of the gatehouses
-and towers, by a continuous vaulted passage, looped to the field. This
-extends round the whole ward, and is broken only at the north-west
-angle, where it meets the northern gatehouse. Everywhere in the walls
-of the castle where a loop could be of use, it was made. Of the points
-noticed, both the entrances are unusual, and the design of the postern
-at the rear seems to be unique. The spur-wall, though less elaborately
-treated, is found covering a main entrance at Kidwelly and elsewhere;
-and the long passages in the thickness of the wall are found in
-portions of the defences at Caerphilly and Carnarvon. The towers at
-Beaumaris are entered by straight stairs from the gorge; and throughout
-the castle, in the gatehouses, great hall, and basements of the
-towers, the method of carrying a wooden roof upon detached stone ribs
-prevailed, which is very noticeable also at Conway and Harlech.</p>
-
-<p>Kidwelly castle<a id="FNanchor_293_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293_293" class="fnanchor">293</a> (<a href="#i_267">267</a>), another late thirteenth-century building,
-stands on a steep hill, the east side of which slopes abruptly to
-the Gwendraeth Fach river. The castle is on the opposite side of the
-river to the town of Kidwelly, and a long base-court, of which part
-of the gatehouse remains, descended the slope towards the bridge. At
-the head of this ascent a barbican and drawbridge formed the approach
-to a strong gatehouse, flanked by two battering towers, and further
-protected by a spur-wall<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_280">280</a></span> across the end of the ditch. The gatehouse is
-in the extreme south-east angle of the outer ward, which, describing
-a wide curve, covers three sides of the nearly square inner ward, and
-is separated from the suburb of Kidwelly on this side the river by the
-ditch. The site was narrow, as at Chepstow, and the eastward slope so
-steep that the outer ward was not completed along this side, but its
-curtain was continued by the eastern drum towers and curtain of the
-inner ward. Three half-round towers were made in the curving curtain of
-the outer ward; at the opposite extremity to the gatehouse, near the
-north-east angle, a postern, flanked by small drum towers, gave access
-to a northern earthwork, which may be compared with the horn-work at
-Caerphilly, but had no retaining wall.</p>
-
-<p>Kidwelly, with its outworks in front and rear, at once recalls
-Caerphilly. The irregularly concentric plan, with the inner ward on
-one side of the interior of the outer, is very unusual, but provides
-a link between the concentric plan and the extension of the early
-plan of Chepstow. The provision of both front and rear gateways is a
-feature of Caerphilly, Chepstow, Beaumaris, and Conway; and, as at
-Caerphilly, Rhuddlan, and Beaumaris, the inner ward also has front
-and rear entrances. These, however, at Kidwelly, are mere doorways in
-the wall. The inner ward was small, with very large and perfect drum
-towers at its angles: the domestic buildings arranged on either side
-of it left only a narrow passage through the middle. A tower, of which
-the two upper stories formed the chapel, was built out upon the east
-slope, from the corner of the ward next the south-east drum tower. The
-gatehouse, then, which here, as at Harlech and Beaumaris, contains a
-large hall and other apartments, and, in addition to a vice to the
-upper floors, has an outer stair and landing against its north face,
-was on the outer, not the inner, line of defence, and was protected by
-the ditch, the barbican, and the base-court beyond. There are remains
-of buildings, probably intended for the garrison, in the outer ward.
-The basement of the gatehouse, which is below the level of the ward,
-contains vaulted chambers. In one of these is a lower vault, which has
-had a domed roof, and may have been used for stores or a reservoir: in
-another there appear to be indications of the mouth of a well.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_281">
-<img src="images/i_281.jpg" width="450" height="382" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Kidwelly Castle; Tower at south-west angle of inner ward</p></div>
-
-<p>The defensive precautions taken at Kidwelly were not so thorough as in
-the other great Welsh castles of the time, and the chief reliance of
-the builders was in the strength of their walls and towers. The outer
-curtain has the peculiarity, rare in English castles of the date, of
-possessing a stair built against it<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_281">281</a></span> from the level of the ward.<a id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">294</a>
-The inner ward has several curious features. The stair to the curtain
-was a straight flight of steps protected by the west wall of the main
-entrance from the outer ward. A path along the back of the rampart of
-the south curtain led into the south-west drum tower, from the second
-floor of which the rampart-walk was gained. The walk, though much
-overgrown by ivy and other weeds, still keeps its rear-wall, and is
-continued through the towers and round the inner ward. The two western
-drum towers are interesting. The upper part of that on the north, where
-it faces the ward, is not a simple curve, but is broken into two convex
-curves, with a recess between: the reason of this is not apparent.<a id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">295</a>
-The south-west tower (<a href="#i_281">281</a>), standing at an angle from which it commands
-the inner face of the great gatehouse, has the most unusual peculiarity
-of having all its stages covered with vaulting: the vaults themselves
-are shallow domes, rather rudely constructed. It is probable that the
-engineers may have intended to establish a catapult on the tower in
-time of siege. The situation of the tower would have been excellently
-suited for that purpose, but<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_282">282</a></span> its unusual strength may be due merely
-to its position in the line of attack. The basements of all the towers
-are vaulted, but that of this particular tower, instead of being
-entered from the ward or one of the domestic buildings directly, is
-entered by a long and dark passage in the thickness of the south wall,
-from the left-hand side of the doorway of the inner ward. The unusual
-precautions taken with regard to this tower and its entrances give it a
-prominent position in an account of the castle; and, although it is no
-larger or loftier than the other angle-towers of the inner ward, it has
-something of the special importance of Marten’s tower at Chepstow or
-the Eagle tower at Carnarvon.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_283">283</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_283">
-<img src="images/i_283.jpg" width="356" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carcassonne</p></div>
-
-
-<p>Although the Edwardian castle in Wales has many points of interest,
-and provides a highly-developed scheme of defence, yet its devices
-are simple when compared with the highest achievements of French
-fortification. The elaborate care bestowed upon the outer defences
-of Caerphilly, and the variety of ingenuity manifested at Beaumaris,
-are exceptions to this general statement; while the general plan of
-Carnarvon is as imposing as that of any castle in Europe. But such
-carefully contrived approaches as the barbican of Conway and the
-long ascent from the water-gate at Harlech take a second place when
-compared with such a work as the outer approach to the castle of
-Carcassonne, as restored with approximate faithfulness in the drawings
-of Viollet-le-Duc (<a href="#i_283">283</a>). The castle stood within the inner wall of
-the town, occupying a rectangular site on the south-west side of this
-masterpiece of concentric planning. The entrance from the town was
-guarded by a semicircular barbican; but the approach which called
-for the most watchful defence was that from the foot of the hill, on
-the edge of which the city stands. Where the hill meets the plain,
-therefore, below the castle, a great barbican was constructed, within
-the outer palisade and ditch of which was a great round tower, not
-unlike the great tower on the mount at Windsor, surrounded by a wet
-ditch. The centre of this <i>ch&acirc;telet</i> was open to the sky: the walls
-were pierced with two rows of loops below the rampart. This tower
-guarded the entrance to a walled and carefully protected ascent,
-which, after making a right-angled turn, led upwards in a straight
-passage,<a id="FNanchor_296_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_296" class="fnanchor">296</a> commanded by the rampart of the outer<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_284">284</a></span> curtain of the
-town. Where it met the curtain, it turned to the right, along the foot
-of the wall, and so reached a gateway into the outer ward or “lists” of
-the town. But here the passage, passing through a covered vestibule,
-turned back on its own course, and entered an inner barbican, with two
-upper stages. Not until this was passed, were the lists entered, and
-the chief gateway of the castle, in the inner curtain, reached. As we
-trace this passage, we recall the ascent at Harlech and the traps set
-for an enemy at Beaumaris; but their combination here is on a scale
-undreamed of in those fortresses, minutely calculated though their
-planning was.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_284">
-<img src="images/i_284.jpg" width="600" height="433" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Domfront; Casemates</p></div>
-
-<p>The wall-galleries, again, at Carnarvon and Beaumaris, are a device
-of great utility, unusual in English castles, and are planned at
-Carnarvon with exceptional skill; while, at Caerphilly, the gallery in
-the south wall, between the hall and the moat, is a solution of the
-defence of a point which the somewhat crowded plan of the domestic
-buildings threatened to leave unguarded. But the covered gallery
-below the ramparts was not a prominent feature of medieval defence in
-England. On the other hand, it was used freely in France. Two examples
-of the defensive use of covered galleries may be given here. One is
-from Domfront, where, as at Coucy, the castle was separated from<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_285">285</a></span> the
-walled town by a very formidable ditch. On the side next the castle,
-the rock was covered by a retaining wall flanked by two round towers at
-the ends, and a polygonal tower near the centre. At some time in the
-middle ages, probably late in the thirteenth century, the rock behind
-the wall was pierced by a long gallery, communicating with all three
-towers, and by stairs at intervals with the upper ward above. Loops
-were made in the retaining wall, so that the approach upon this side
-was thus provided with a line of defence below the level of the towers
-and curtain. The gallery is not on one level throughout, but forms a
-series of separate vaulted casemates, connected with one another by
-short flights of stairs<a id="FNanchor_297_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_297_297" class="fnanchor">297</a> (<a href="#i_284">284</a>).</p>
-
-<p>In the second case, at Coucy, we have a case of a closed gallery,
-without loops, which was designed as a counter-mine against the efforts
-of the sappers of an attacking force. Remains of such galleries exist
-in more than one part of the castle, forming a remarkable addition to
-defences which, by themselves, were strong enough to discourage attack.
-Towards the end of the fourteenth century, the curtain of the donjon,
-the strongest tower in Europe, was thickened by the addition of a talus
-or battering base, which was pierced by a passage. The main object of
-this work was to cover in a spring which had its source in the ditch at
-the foot of the curtain: the passage communicated at one end with an
-earlier and well-guarded passage leading from the domestic buildings to
-a postern in the wall which crossed the west end of the ditch, while,
-at the other, it communicated by a stair with the rampart-walk of the
-curtain and gatehouse of the inner ward. But it did not merely form a
-convenient means of access to the spring. It afforded an opportunity
-to the defenders of counteracting the miners of the enemy; while, if
-the miners pierced their way through the talus, they would be met by
-the thick curtain on the other side of the passage. The passage itself,
-well protected at both ends, would be commanded by the defence; while
-the spring in the middle, to those not acquainted with the geography of
-the place, would form a dangerous barrier in the darkness.</p>
-
-<p>To such finished achievements of military art as these, which have
-been quoted as specimen examples, our English castles can afford no
-exact parallel. In the military, as in the ecclesiastical architecture
-of France, principles were worked out with a logical precision and
-completeness, which, in its practical effect, provokes our wonder.
-The effort manifested in the Edwardian castle is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_286">286</a></span> more humble; the
-achievement more limited. This, however, is true rather of the scale
-of the castle and the details of its defence than of the general idea.
-The main object, of flanking the curtain effectually and completely,
-is as fully realised as in any foreign example; while it may be safely
-said that in no country were the advantages of concentric lines of
-defence better exhibited than in the Welsh castles, whose main features
-have been indicated in this chapter. The walls of Carcassonne may
-provide us with the concentric plan on its largest scale; but the
-Welsh castles show at least an equal understanding of the value of
-concentric fortifications. The difference lies in the fact that the
-French engineer proceeded to strengthen his defences by the addition of
-intricate refinements and subtle devices; while the Englishman stopped
-short at this point, and was satisfied when his aim of providing and
-combining adequate towers and walls of defence was achieved.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_287">287</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI<br />
-
-<br />MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES: FORTIFIED TOWNS AND
-CASTLES</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> strengthening of the curtain of the castle was perfected in the
-concentric plan, in which also was established, for the time being, the
-superiority of defence to attack. But the very fact that the castle had
-reached a point at which further development in the existing condition
-of things was impossible, was fatal to its continued existence as
-a stronghold. A castle like Caerphilly did not put an end to local
-warfare: it merely warned an enemy off a forbidden track. Its own
-safety was secured, because its almost impregnable defences made any
-attempt at a siege ridiculous. Other circumstances, however, combined
-to render the castle obsolete. The rise of towns and the growth of
-a wealthy mercantile class hastened the decline of feudalism. The
-feudal baron was no longer the representative of an all-important
-class, and his fortress was of minor importance compared with the
-walled boroughs which were symbolical of the real strength of the
-country. But, in addition to this social transition, there took place
-a change in warfare which had a far-reaching influence upon castle
-and walled town alike. Fire-arms came into general use in the early
-part of the fourteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_298_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_298" class="fnanchor">298</a> Missiles, for which hitherto the
-only available machines had been those involving discharge by torsion,
-tension, or counterpoise, could now be delivered by the new method
-of detonation. This produced an artillery which could be worked with
-greater economy of labour, and discharged the missiles themselves with
-greater force. Not merely can a ball of stone or iron be projected
-with greater impetus than can be given by the older methods; but
-<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_289">289</a></span>the direction which it takes is more nearly horizontal than that
-given to it by the mangonel and kindred machines. It is true that, at
-first, the power of cannon remained relatively weak; but their gradual
-improvement made the old systems of defence useless. Lofty walls, which
-could resist the catapults of the past, were easily dismantled by
-cannon-shot (<a href="#i_288">288</a>). Harlech, with its lofty curtains and angle-towers,
-was an ideal stronghold, as long as explosives were not employed for
-attack and defence. But, when cannon are directed against such defences
-(<a href="#i_273">273</a>), and the surface of the walls is pounded with shot, the height
-of the fortifications becomes a danger; and, in order to plant the
-cannon of the defence on the walls, those walls have to be as solid as
-possible to avoid the constant vibration arising from the discharge,
-and as low as possible to increase their stability and to place the
-enemy within range. The change is obvious, if we contrast the lofty
-and comparatively slender towers of Carcassonne or Aigues-Mortes with
-the massive drum towers of the French castles or walled towns of the
-fifteenth century, like those of the castle of Alen&ccedil;on (<a href="#i_289">289</a>) or of
-the town of Saint-Malo (<a href="#i_290">290</a>). Later still, the flanking of the walls
-of towns and castles shows a transition from the round tower to the
-bastion; and we find massive projections like the Tour Gabriel at
-Mont-Saint-Michel (<a href="#i_291">291</a>), which rise little, if at all, above the level
-of the adjacent wall. The ultimate outcome of this transition is the
-bastion pure and simple, flanking the low and solid earthen<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_290">290</a></span> bank
-with its reveting wall, as at Saint-Paul-du-Var, or, later, at our
-own Berwick-on-Tweed.<a id="FNanchor_299_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_299_299" class="fnanchor">299</a> A step further brings us to the scientific
-fortification of the seventeenth century, to Lille and Arras, and those
-magnificent fortresses which the progress of the nineteenth century has
-already made of historical, rather than practical, interest.<a id="FNanchor_300_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300_300" class="fnanchor">300</a></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_288">
-<img src="images/i_288.jpg" width="396" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Gatehouse, Barbican, and Curtain wall of Town battered
-by cannon-shot</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_289">
-<img src="images/i_289.jpg" width="450" height="386" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Alen&ccedil;on</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_290">
-<img src="images/i_290.jpg" width="600" height="381" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Saint-Malo; Grande porte</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_291">
-<img src="images/i_291.jpg" width="600" height="499" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Mont-St-Michel; Tour Gabriel</p></div>
-
-<p>With these modern developments we have no concern in this book; and in
-these two concluding chapters we can trace merely the later history,
-from a defensive point of view, of that type of fortification whose
-advance we have hitherto pursued, and of the gradual amalgamation
-of the medieval castle with the medieval dwelling-house. The old
-distinction between the castle and the <i>burh</i> still asserted itself.
-During the greater part of the middle ages, from the Norman conquest to
-the fourteenth century, the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_291">291</a></span> castle, the stronghold of the individual
-lord, was the highest type of fortification, and the town, as at
-Berwick in the reign of Edward I., or at Conway or Carnarvon, was, when
-walled, little more than an appendage or outer ward to the castle. With
-the introduction of fire-arms, the town began once more to take its
-place in the van of the defence. Warfare, from the time of the wars
-of Edward III. in France, and even earlier, ceased to be an affair
-of sieges of castles. Battles were fought more and more in the open
-field, and the reduction of the fortified town, not of strongholds
-of individuals, became the chief object of campaigns. The castle,
-relegated to a secondary place, developed more and more on the lines of
-the dwelling-house; and, finally, as the castle disappeared, the town
-with its citadel became all-important as the object of attack and the
-base of operations. In brief, the steps in the history of fortification
-after the Conquest are these. The timber defences of the Saxon <i>burh</i>
-became of secondary importance to the timber defences of the Norman
-castle. These were subordinated to the keep, the symbol of the dominion
-of the feudal lord. The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_292">292</a></span> keep reached its climax in the stone tower. At
-this point the revulsion began. The strengthening of the stone curtain
-made the keep obsolete; and, finally, the perfection of the curtain
-of the castle once attained, military science applied itself to the
-strengthening of the wall of the town, until, aided by social changes
-and scientific improvements, the castle itself became altogether
-unnecessary.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_293">293</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_293_2">
-<img src="images/i_293_2.jpg" width="352" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">newcastle</span>: town wall</p></div>
-
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_293">
-<img src="images/i_293.jpg" width="354" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">southampton</span>: town wall</p></div>
-
-<p>The principles of defence of the walled town are those of the castle;
-and hitherto we have drawn illustrations from both with little
-discrimination. In both cases the same methods of attack are provided
-against by the use of the same means. But it must be remembered that
-the area of the town is larger than that of the castle, and that
-while, in the castle, the bailey is the common muster-ground from
-which every part of the curtain can be easily reached, there can be
-no such open space enclosed by the walls of a large inhabited town or
-city. Thus, while the market-place, in or near the centre of the town,
-would serve as a general rallying-ground,<a id="FNanchor_301_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_301" class="fnanchor">301</a> it was necessary also
-to keep a clear space at the foot of the inner side of the walls, so
-that free communication between every part might be preserved. From the
-continuous lane which was thus formed between the wall and the houses
-of the town, and was crossed at intervals by the main thoroughfares
-leading to the gates, access was gained to the rear of the flanking
-towers, and to the stairs by which, from time to time, the rampart-walk
-was reached. Most towns which have been walled retain traces of this
-arrangement. At Southampton the <i>pomerium</i>,<a id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">302</a> as this clear space
-is called in medieval documents, survives on the east side of the
-town in the lane still known as “Back of the Walls.” At Carnarvon it
-is nearly entire, except on the west side of the town. At Newcastle
-(<a href="#i_293">293</a>) it remains in a very perfect state on the north-west side of the
-enclosure, where the walls and their intermediate turrets are also
-fairly perfect; and it can be traced in a paved lane on the west side,
-where the walls are gone.<a id="FNanchor_303_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_303" class="fnanchor">303</a> Nearly the whole extent of the inner
-city walls of Bristol, of which little remains, can be easily<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_295">295</a></span> traced
-by the survival of the <i>pomerium</i> in a series of curved lanes. The line
-of the east wall of Northampton can be recovered in the same way; and
-although, as at York, modern encroachments have in many places removed
-the <i>pomerium</i>, it usually survived to mark the site of town walls,
-even long after those walls had been destroyed.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_295">
-<img src="images/i_295.jpg" width="317" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Conway; Porth Isaf</p></div>
-
-<p>During the epoch at which fortification reached its highest point, the
-wall of a town was systematically flanked by towers, which, as we have
-seen at Conway and Avignon, were left open upon the side next the town.
-Gates were made in the wall, where main roads approached the place.
-Thus the gates of Coucy were three, admitting the roads from Laon,
-Soissons, and Chauny. At Conway (<a href="#i_256">256</a>) there were three gates; but of
-these one communicated merely with a quay, while another gave access to
-the castle mill: the third or north-western gate alone was the direct
-entrance to the promontory on which the town and castle were built. At
-Chepstow, where the town also formed a <i>cul-de-sac</i>, there was only one
-main gateway, at the north-west end of the town. The main gateway of
-Carnarvon was on the east side of the town; while, opposite to it, in
-the west wall, was a smaller gateway opening, like the Porth Isaf<a id="FNanchor_304_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_304_304" class="fnanchor">304</a>
-(<a href="#i_295">295</a>) at Conway, upon the quay. Not all towns, however, occupied
-positions like Chepstow, Conway, and Carnarvon, where water takes so
-large a share in the defence. Great centres of commerce like London and
-York, towards which a number of roads converged, had many gates, not
-counting the posterns in their walls. Four of the gates of York remain,
-Micklegate bar on the south-west, through which the road from Tadcaster
-entered the city, Walmgate bar on the south-east, admitting the road
-from Beverley<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_296">296</a></span> and Hull, Monk bar on the east, through which passed
-the road from Scarborough, Bootham bar on the north, which was the
-entrance from the direction of Thirsk and Easingwold. The gatehouses
-are all rectangular structures, the plan and lower portions of which
-are of the twelfth century, and recall the stone gatehouses of early
-castles: the upper stages, however, are of the fourteenth century,
-and have tall bartizans at the outer angles. The great Bargate at
-Southampton, through which the road from the north entered the circuit
-of the walls, is similarly a rectangular Norman gatehouse, enlarged and
-supplied with flanking towers in the fourteenth century: the outer face
-was further strengthened, within a century of these additions, by a
-half-octagonal projection, the battlements of which were machicolated.
-There was another gate on the east side of Southampton, which now has
-disappeared. In the west wall the rectangular water-gate and a postern
-remain; while, on the quay at the south-eastern angle of the walls,
-there is another gate, covered by a long spur-work which projects
-from the wall at this point and crossed the town-ditch. For smaller
-gatehouses like the western gatehouses of Carnarvon and Southampton,
-the old rectangular form was sufficient; but the principal entries of
-towns needed effective flanking. As a rule, town gatehouses of the
-Edwardian period and the fourteenth century generally were flanked
-by round towers at the outer angles, like those at Conway (<a href="#i_295">295</a>),
-Winchelsea, or the West gate at Canterbury. In the fifteenth century,
-the warlike character of the defences of English towns was considerably
-lessened. The Stonebow or southern gatehouse at Lincoln, a long
-rectangular building with slender angle turrets of no great projection,
-had no special provisions for defence beyond the gates by which it was
-closed. Here and there, when the need of military defence ceased to
-exist, churches were built upon the walls and gateways of towns. Thus
-above the St John’s gate of Bristol, on the south side of the city,
-rise the tower and spire which were common to the churches of St John
-the Baptist and St Lawrence; while churches were built close to or
-immediately above the east and west gates of Warwick.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_297">
-<img src="images/i_297.jpg" width="500" height="441" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Monmouth; Gatehouse on Monnow bridge</p></div>
-
-<p>Where one of the main approaches to a town crossed a river, the defence
-of the passage was of course necessary. In the case of the St John’s
-gate of Bristol, already mentioned, the course of the narrow river
-Frome, on which it opened, was defended by an additional wall on the
-other side of the stream; and in this wall, covering St John’s gate,
-was the strongly fortified Frome gate. The case of York, where the
-river nearly bisects the walled enclosure, is most unusual. In other
-instances, the town was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_297">297</a></span> confined to one side of the stream, and the
-approach from the river was protected by a barbican, which could take
-the form either of an outer defence to the gateway itself, or of a
-<i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i> on the opposite side of the stream, or of a fortified
-passage across the bridge. Of barbicans in general much has been
-said already; and we have seen at York and Tenby something of town
-barbicans, while in the Porte de Laon at Coucy, we have had an instance
-of a barbican acting as a <i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i> on the further side of a town
-ditch. The arrangement of the south-western approach to Kenilworth
-castle is a good instance of the combination, in castle fortification,
-of <i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i>, fortified causeway, and gatehouse with barbican.
-Fortified bridges were not uncommon in the middle ages, but those which
-remain are few. The finest example of all is the fourteenth-century
-Pont Valentr&eacute; at Cahors (Lot), a noble bridge of six lofty pointed
-arches, divided by piers which are supplied with the usual triangular
-spurs or cut-waters. At each end of the bridge is a massive rectangular
-gateway tower, battlemented, with pyramidal roofs, and machicolated
-galleries below the battlements; while in the middle of the passage is
-a third tower, the ground-floor of which was gated and portcullised.
-The brick bridge, called the Pont des Consuls, at Montauban
-(Tarn-et-Garonne), was somewhat similarly defended. Examples from
-other countries are the thirteenth-century covered bridge at Tournai,
-the bridge of Alcantar&agrave; at Toledo, and the bridge of Prague,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_298">298</a></span> which
-was defended about the middle of the fourteenth century with a tall
-rectangular gate-tower at one end, and a gateway, flanked by towers of
-unequal size, at the other. In England two small examples of fortified
-bridges remain. Upon the bridge at Monmouth (<a href="#i_297">297</a>) is a gatehouse with a
-machicolated battlement and a gateway which was closed by a portcullis:
-this stood well in advance of the Bridge gate of the town, which was
-at a little distance from the stream. At Warkworth, on the side of the
-bridge next the town, is a plain rectangular gatehouse, the arch and
-ground-floor of which remain intact. The triangular patch of land,
-south of the Coquet, on which Warkworth is built, was well defended on
-two sides by the river, and on the third side by the castle, and the
-gatehouse at the bridge was its only stone fortification.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_300">300</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_300">
-<img src="images/i_300.jpg" width="401" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">wells</span>: gatehouse of bishop’s palace</p></div>
-
-<p>The progress of the art of defence under Edward I. was accompanied
-by the enclosure within defensive walls of areas and houses not
-originally intended for military purposes. Disputes between the
-cathedral priory and the citizens of Norwich led to the enclosure of
-the monastery within a fortified precinct:<a id="FNanchor_305_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305_305" class="fnanchor">305</a> the royal licence for
-the construction of the water-gate bears date 27th July 1276.<a id="FNanchor_306_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_306_306" class="fnanchor">306</a> On
-8th May 1285, the dean and chapter of Lincoln obtained their first
-licence for the enclosure of their precinct with a wall 12 feet
-high;<a id="FNanchor_307_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307_307" class="fnanchor">307</a> and ten days later a similar licence was issued to the
-dean and chapter of York.<a id="FNanchor_308_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_308" class="fnanchor">308</a> On 10th June the dean and chapter of
-St Paul’s,<a id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">309</a> and on 1st January following the dean and chapter of
-Exeter,<a id="FNanchor_310_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_310_310" class="fnanchor">310</a> had letters patent to the same effect. Bishop Burnell
-had licence to wall and crenellate the churchyard and close of Wells,
-15th March 1285-6,<a id="FNanchor_311_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311_311" class="fnanchor">311</a> while he was busy building his strong house
-at Acton Burnell. Licence to crenellate the priory of Tynemouth,
-on its exposed site, was granted 5th September 1295.<a id="FNanchor_312_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_312_312" class="fnanchor">312</a> Bishop
-Walter Langton had licence to wall the close of Lichfield, 18th
-April 1299.<a id="FNanchor_313_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_313" class="fnanchor">313</a> Licence to the abbot and convent of Peterborough to
-crenellate the gate of the abbey and two chambers lying between the
-gate and the church was granted 18th July 1309.<a id="FNanchor_314_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_314" class="fnanchor">314</a> At Lincoln, where
-a large portion of the close walls may still be seen, there was some
-delay in building. Two licences, confirming<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_301">301</a></span> the letters patent of
-1285, were granted by Edward II. in one year.<a id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">315</a> On 6th December
-1318, the licence was again renewed: the wall might be raised to a
-greater height than 12 feet, and might be crenellated and provided
-with crenellated turrets.<a id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">316</a> Further, on 28th September 1329, Bishop
-Burghersh received letters patent, permitting him, in the most liberal
-terms, to “repair, raise, crenellate, and turrellate” the walls of the
-bishop’s palace.<a id="FNanchor_317_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_317_317" class="fnanchor">317</a> Thus, in the reign of Edward III., there were no
-less than three fortified enclosures within the circuit of the walls
-of Lincoln—the castle, the close round the cathedral, and the bishop’s
-palace. To-day, as we stand in the open space at the head of the Steep
-Hill, to our left is the gatehouse of the castle; while to our right
-is the Exchequer gate, the inner gatehouse of the close. This is a
-lofty oblong building of three stages, with a large central archway,
-and a smaller archway on each side for pedestrians. On the west or
-outer side the face is plain, but on the eastern side it is broken by
-two half-octagon turrets, containing vices. There was also an outer
-gatehouse, some yards to the west.<a id="FNanchor_318_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_318_318" class="fnanchor">318</a> The south-eastern gatehouse of
-the close, known as Pottergate, still remains, a rectangular building
-with an upper stage. At Wells, Salisbury,<a id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">319</a> and Norwich, the
-<i>enceinte</i> of the close may still easily be traced; while at Wells,
-close by the gatehouse of the close, is the outer gatehouse of the
-bishop’s palace. The palace itself retains its wet moat, and is still
-approached by its drawbridge and through a formidable inner gatehouse,
-which is flanked by two half-octagon towers (<a href="#i_300">300</a>).</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_302">302</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_302">
-<img src="images/i_302.jpg" width="444" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Thornton Abbey; Gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_303">
-<img src="images/i_303.jpg" width="500" height="423" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Thornton Abbey; Plan of gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<p>Of gatehouses of abbeys and priories, many still remain, some of which,
-like those at Bridlington, Tewkesbury, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_303">303</a></span> Whalley,<a id="FNanchor_320_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_320_320" class="fnanchor">320</a> are of
-great size, and were capable of offering defence, if necessary. But
-by far the most important of monastic gatehouses is that at Thornton
-abbey in Lincolnshire, a magnificent building of brick with stone
-dressings (<a href="#i_302">302</a>). The licence to the abbot and convent to “build and
-crenellate a new house over and beside their abbey gate” bears date
-6th August 1382.<a id="FNanchor_321_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_321_321" class="fnanchor">321</a> The gatehouse is an oblong of three lofty stages
-with half-octagon turrets at the angles. The single archway on the
-ground-floor is approached through a narrow barbican, set obliquely to
-the building (<a href="#i_331">331</a>). On each side of the entrance is a bold half-octagon
-buttress. The inner face of the entrance is flanked by half-octagon
-turrets, in the southern of which is the vice which gives access to the
-upper floors. There are no straight side-passages as in the Exchequer
-gate at Lincoln, where the porters’ lodges are between the main and
-lateral entrances; but at Thornton an archway was built in the south
-wall of the central passage, and a diagonal side entrance constructed,
-with a wide inner archway. The outer entrance (<a href="#i_303">303</a>) was protected by
-a portcullis,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_304">304</a></span> and the lodges and turrets on either side had loops to
-the field. On the first floor of the gatehouse is a spacious room,
-which communicates by mural passages with the first floor of the
-angle-turrets and with galleries in the adjacent walls. These are
-all provided with loops, so that the approach to the monastery was
-effectually commanded. This gatehouse is nearly contemporary with the
-West gate of the city of Canterbury, which was begun by Archbishop
-Sudbury about 1379;<a id="FNanchor_322_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_322_322" class="fnanchor">322</a> but the Canterbury gateway takes the orthodox
-form of a central passage recessed between two round towers, which are
-bold projections from a rectangular plan, and its architecture cannot
-compare with the moulded archways, elaborate ribbed vaulting, and
-canopied niches of Thornton.<a id="FNanchor_323_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_323_323" class="fnanchor">323</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_306">306</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_306">
-<img src="images/i_306.jpg" width="600" height="429" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">stokesay</span>: hall</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_306_2">
-<img src="images/i_306_2.jpg" width="600" height="419" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">stokesay castle</span> from south-west</p></div>
-
-<p>Fortified closes, abbeys, and bishop’s palaces bring us back to the
-castle, in the history of which is the epitome of the art of defence.
-The concentric plan displayed the resources of the defenders in their
-most scientific form, but the concentric plan, as we have seen, is
-not very common, and its systematic use in English architecture was
-practically confined to a single period. The site, as at Kidwelly,
-did not always allow of the full extension of the outer ward, so as
-completely to encircle the inner. As a rule, we find that the English
-castle of the fourteenth century consists, like Richmond and Ludlow in
-their earliest form, or like Carew or Manorbier, of a single bailey
-without a keep. This enclosure is flanked by towers at adequate
-intervals, and is entered through an imposing gatehouse between two
-drum towers. No English castle of this type can compare with the
-fourteenth-century castle of Saint-Andr&eacute; at Villeneuve d’Avignon (<a href="#i_307">307</a>),
-which kept watch upon the castle of the popes on the opposite bank of
-the Rh&ocirc;ne, or with the Breton castles of Foug&egrave;res (<a href="#i_250">250</a>) and Vitr&eacute;. The
-castle of Caerlaverock (<a href="#i_364">364</a>), near Dumfries, not the famous castle
-besieged by Edward I., but a castle founded in 1333 on a new site, is
-a good instance of a simple plan, in which a single ward is surrounded
-by a flanked curtain. The castle stands on low and marshy ground near
-the Solway firth. An island, surrounded by a broad wet ditch, which,
-in the rear of the castle, assumes the proportions of a small lake, is
-enclosed by three sections of curtain forming an equilateral triangle.
-A drum tower, low and of rather slender proportions, covered each angle
-of the base;<a id="FNanchor_324_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_324_324" class="fnanchor">324</a><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_307">307</a></span> while at the apex was a lofty gatehouse, flanked
-by drum towers, and approached by a drawbridge. The interior of the
-castle is somewhat confined, and the older domestic buildings were
-much enlarged in the sixteenth century by a mansion, somewhat in the
-style of the French Renaissance, which was built against the curtain to
-the left hand of the entrance. The old hall occupied the base of the
-triangle, while the kitchen offices were against the right-hand curtain.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_307">
-<img src="images/i_307.jpg" width="497" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Villeneuve d’Avignon</p></div>
-
-<p>Licences to crenellate mansions are common in the Patent rolls of the
-Edwards and Richard II. In this way, many private dwelling-houses
-reached the rank of castles, while still retaining strongly marked
-features of their domestic object. The fortified house of Stokesay
-(<a href="#i_306">306</a>) in Shropshire, which Lawrence of Ludlow had licence to
-crenellate, 19th October 1290,<a id="FNanchor_325_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_325_325" class="fnanchor">325</a> is a case in point, where the
-moated manor-house, with its strong tower, well deserves the name
-of castle. At the same time, many of the houses for which licences
-of crenellation were granted were never more than manor-houses to
-which were added fortifications of a limited kind. This was the case
-with Henry Percy’s houses of Spofforth, Leconfield, and Petworth,
-the licence for which bears date 14th October 1308.<a id="FNanchor_326_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_326_326" class="fnanchor">326</a> Markenfield
-hall in Yorkshire, for which a<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_308">308</a></span> licence was granted 28th February
-1309-10,<a id="FNanchor_327_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_327_327" class="fnanchor">327</a> is still one of our most valuable examples of domestic,
-as distinct from military, architecture. Such fortifications as these
-houses had or still have were not designed to stand a siege, but to
-ensure privacy and keep off casual marauders. Even in the sixteenth
-century, dwelling-houses like Compton Wyniates in Warwickshire or
-Tolleshunt Major in Essex were surrounded by a moat or simply by a wall.</p>
-
-<p>Against these minor fortifications, however, we must put the cases
-in which the process of crenellation definitely meant conversion
-into a castle. Dunstanburgh, which Thomas of Lancaster had licence
-to crenellate in 1315,<a id="FNanchor_328_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_328_328" class="fnanchor">328</a> is a military stronghold of the most
-pronounced type. Its exposed position upon the Northumbrian coast was
-one reason of its strength: coast castles needed strong defences, and
-we find that, during the period of the wars with France and later,
-the fortification of castles like Dover was a constant method of
-precaution against invasion.<a id="FNanchor_329_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_329_329" class="fnanchor">329</a> Dunstanburgh has much in common with
-the ordinary strong dwelling-houses of Northumberland. Its base-court
-is a very large enclosure, occupying most of the area of the promontory
-on which the castle is situated; while the actual castle consists of a
-small and gloomy bailey. A wall, flanked at each end by a rectangular
-tower, shut off the enclosed space from the mainland. In the wall
-between the two towers rose the great gatehouse, which, standing in the
-front of attack, gave access to the smaller ward, and contained upon
-its upper floors the chief domestic apartments. Strongly defended as
-this gatehouse was, with two drum towers of great size flanking the
-entrance, the immediate access which it gave to the heart of the castle
-was evidently a source of danger. At a later date, the entrance was
-walled up, and a new gateway made in the curtain at a point near by.
-The gatehouse thus was practically turned into a keep, and the process
-which had taken place at Richmond towards the end of the twelfth
-century was virtually repeated, with this exception, that the actual
-fabric of the gatehouse remained, and was not superseded by a new form
-of strong tower. Precisely the same thing happened at Llanstephan
-in Carmarthenshire. This castle, one of the most imposing of Welsh
-strongholds, stands on a steep and almost isolated hill, where the Towy
-enters the Bristol Channel. It is divided by a cross-wall into a large
-outer ward and an inner ward which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_309">309</a></span> occupies the top of the sloping
-summit of the hill. The chief buildings were in the outer ward, and the
-finest of them was the great gatehouse, situated at the head of the
-landward slope of the hill, and concealed from the river by the convex
-curve of the curtain and by a large tower at the eastern angle of the
-enclosure. This gatehouse is of trapezoidal form: the gateway and its
-drum towers front the field, but the building spreads inwards, and has
-two much smaller round towers at its inner angles. It was undesirable,
-however, that the gatehouse, which, from the military and domestic
-point of view alike, was the principal building in the castle, should
-be the point on which the besiegers could concentrate all their force.
-Consequently, the gateway was blocked not long after it was built, and
-a new entrance was made beside it in the curtain. The way into the
-higher ward at Llanstephan was closed by a small rectangular gatehouse,
-built near one end of the dividing curtain.</p>
-
-<p>Thus at Dunstanburgh and Llanstephan, castles in which the system of
-defence was not founded upon the concentric plan, but relied upon
-the strength of an adequately flanked curtain, gatehouses which are
-worthy of Caerphilly and Harlech, and stand upon the outer line of
-defence,<a id="FNanchor_330_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_330_330" class="fnanchor">330</a> reverted to the condition of keeps. The possible use of
-a keep as an ultimate refuge never ceased altogether to have weight
-with castle-builders. The Percys, after their purchase of Alnwick early
-in the fourteenth century,<a id="FNanchor_331_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_331_331" class="fnanchor">331</a> although there was ample room for a
-large mansion in one or other of the wards, built their dwelling as
-a cluster of walls and towers round a courtyard on the mount between
-the two wards. Some part of the substructure, the gatehouse with its
-octagonal flanking towers, and the curious triple-arched recess at
-the head of the well (<a href="#i_310">310</a>), are the most that remains to us of the
-early fourteenth-century mansion; but with these is incorporated
-twelfth-century work, which shows that the Percys built their house
-upon the lines of an older house upon the mount.<a id="FNanchor_332_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_332_332" class="fnanchor">332</a> Thus the
-dwelling-house at Alnwick is in reality a keep of unusual form, a
-large building with flanking towers built upon a mount which has been
-considerably levelled to allow of more room for the house and its
-internal courtyard (<a href="#i_115">115</a>).</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_310">310</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_310">
-<img src="images/i_310.jpg" width="437" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Alnwick Castle; Well-head</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_311">311</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_311">
-<img src="images/i_311.jpg" width="600" height="510" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Raby Castle, Durham</span><br />
-<span class="smcap">Ground Plan.</span></p></div>
-
-<p>The strong tower, representing the survival of the keep, is found in
-another great northern castle of the fourteenth century, Raby, the
-castle of the Nevilles, where in other respects the domestic element
-is very prominent (<a href="#i_311">311</a>).<a id="FNanchor_333_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_333_333" class="fnanchor">333</a> Raby, like Alnwick, is occupied to-day,
-but no such drastic changes as have converted the house on the mount
-at Alnwick into a comfortable modern residence were necessary here.
-There is an outer gatehouse slightly in advance of the north angle of
-the castle, which was surrounded by a moat and is nearly rectangular.
-The buildings are clustered round a main courtyard, the entrance to
-which is a gatehouse with a long vaulted passage behind it in the west
-block of buildings. At either end of the west front are two massive
-rectangular towers: Clifford’s tower, at the north end, is almost
-detached, and covers the north angle immediately opposite the gateway.
-The remaining tower, known as Bulmer’s tower, projects on five sides
-from the south angle of the building, and is the strong tower or keep
-of the castle. The kitchen, in the north block, is also contained
-within a strong tower, which does not project, however, from the rest
-of the buildings. But it was in the north of England that the keep
-survived most persistently. Middleham castle received much alteration
-at the hands of its Neville owners in the fourteenth century; but
-the twelfth-century keep was retained as the central feature of the
-enclosure. The rectangular keep of Knaresborough is entirely of the
-fourteenth century: it stood between an outer and inner<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_312">312</a></span> ward, and its
-great peculiarity is that the only passage from one to the other was
-through the first floor of the keep.<a id="FNanchor_334_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_334_334" class="fnanchor">334</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_313">313</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_313">
-<img src="images/i_313.jpg" width="397" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">BELSAY CASTLE</p></div>
-
-<p>The tradition of the rectangular tower, however, was systematically
-preserved in the buildings known as pele-towers. These formed the
-chief defensive structures of enclosures called “peles,” a word
-derived from the Latin <i>pilum</i> (a stake). The twelfth-century tower
-of Bowes, a large and important rectangular tower which guarded the
-pass over Stainmoor from the valley of the Eden to that of the Tees,
-is an early instance of the pele-tower; and probably a large palisaded
-enclosure or “barmkin” was attached to it. In the fourteenth century
-we find large pele-towers like those at Belsay (<a href="#i_313">313</a>) or Chipchase,
-or the great tower-house of East Gilling, the proportions of which
-recall the rectangular keeps of a century and a half earlier. Belsay,
-with its traceried two-light openings on the first floor, and large
-bartizans corbelled out at the angles of its battlements, is the most
-handsome building of its kind in the north of England. The ordinary
-pele-tower, however, is of a rather later date, and the large majority
-of Northumbrian examples are of the fifteenth, and now and then of
-the sixteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_335_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_335_335" class="fnanchor">335</a> Halton tower, near Aydon castle, and the
-small tower in the corner of the churchyard at Corbridge,<a id="FNanchor_336_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_336_336" class="fnanchor">336</a> are
-well-known examples; while one of the most imposing specimens is the
-oblong tower of the manor-house of the archbishops of York at Hexham.
-The normal elevation was of three stories. The ground-floor, in which
-was the doorway, was vaulted as a protection against fire; it may have
-been used as a stable, and certainly was used as a store-room. The door
-was of wood, but its outer face was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_315">315</a></span> protected by a heavy framework
-of iron. The first floor, reached by a mural stair, was the main
-living-room. The second floor was a sleeping-room; and the battlements
-at the top were generally machicolated. Garde-robes are usually found
-in these towers; but they can hardly be called comfortable residences,
-and had all the disadvantages of the twelfth-century tower-keep,
-without its roominess. They are found, not only in Northumberland, but
-throughout the northern counties and the south of Scotland, while, in
-the hill country of Derbyshire, the pele seems to have been a favourite
-form of stronghold. The twelfth-century tower of Peak castle is one of
-those examples which allies the pele-tower to the normal tower-keep;
-while Haddon hall gradually developed from an enclosure which was
-neither more nor less than a pele with a tower at one angle.<a id="FNanchor_337_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_337_337" class="fnanchor">337</a></p>
-
-<p>In this connection a word should be said about the fortification of
-churches. Ewenny priory church in Glamorgan, with its crenellated
-central tower and transept, is our only important example of
-fortified religious buildings such as were common in the centre and
-south of France—the cathedral of Albi (Tarn), the churches of Royat
-(Puy-de-D&ocirc;me) or Les-Saintes-Maries-sur-la-Mer (Bouches-du-Rh&ocirc;ne).<a id="FNanchor_338_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_338_338" class="fnanchor">338</a>
-None of our abbeys is protected by a donjon, like that of Montmajour,
-near Arles. There are, however, a certain number of churches, in
-districts exposed to constant warfare, the architecture of which,
-if not exactly military, was yet possibly constructed with a view
-to defence. The massive structure of some twelfth-century towers,
-like Melsonby in north Yorkshire, is probably due to the idea that
-they could be converted into strongholds, in case of a raid from
-the Scottish border. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
-when Scotland was dreaded as a constant foe, the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_316">316</a></span> habit of giving
-additional security to the church towers in this district was common.
-Some otherwise simple church towers, as at Bolton-on-Swale and Danby
-Wiske in north Yorkshire, have their lowest stage vaulted, probably
-to minimise the danger of fire. The doorway to the tower-stair at
-Bedale was defended by a portcullis, and there are a fireplace
-and garde-robe upon the first floor. At Spennithorne, in the same
-neighbourhood, the battlements of the tower borrowed an ornament from
-military architecture, and are crowned with figures of “defenders.”
-In border districts it is not unusual to find the ground-floor of the
-tower roofed with a pointed barrel-vault, as at Whickham in county
-Durham, where the church stands on a high hill near the confluence of
-the Tyne and Derwent. This is a very general custom in South Wales,
-where the towers are usually massive and unbuttressed, and stand upon
-a battering plinth.<a id="FNanchor_339_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_339_339" class="fnanchor">339</a> In Pembrokeshire a more slender type of tower
-prevails, which usually batters upwards through its whole height: the
-ground-floor is vaulted, and in many cases the whole church, or, at any
-rate, the nave, is ceiled with a barrel-vault. It does not follow that
-the object of this form of construction is defensive: lack of timber,
-and the consequent employment of local stone for rubble vaulting, is
-partly responsible for it. But in no part of the country are military
-and ecclesiastical forms of architecture so closely allied. The
-barrel-vaults of Monkton priory church and St Mary’s at Pembroke are
-similar to those of the chapel and its substructure which occupy the
-north-west corner of the inner ward of Pembroke castle: those of the
-church at Manorbier have their counterparts in the vaults of the castle
-chapel and the large room on its ground-floor.</p>
-
-<p>If the pele-tower may be regarded as a direct survival of the
-rectangular keep in a simplified form, it is probable that the
-rectangular keep, with its angle turrets, also had a share in the
-origin of a type of castle or strong house, which became common,
-especially in the north of England, during the fourteenth and fifteenth
-centuries.<a id="FNanchor_340_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_340_340" class="fnanchor">340</a> The plan of this species of castle is a rectangle,
-which, in the largest examples, as at Bolton in Wensleydale, has an
-open courtyard in the centre; but its<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_317">317</a></span> distinguishing feature is the
-provision of four towers, each at an angle of the structure. Such
-keeps as those of Colchester and Kenilworth, where the turrets are of
-considerable size and projection, suggest this plan; and some of the
-earliest examples, like Haughton on the north Tyne, the oldest parts of
-which are of the thirteenth century, have little to distinguish them
-from the ordinary rectangular keep. The angle-towers at Haughton are
-of no great prominence; but, in the early fourteenth-century castle
-of Langley, to the west of Hexham, they are a striking feature of the
-building, and one is entirely devoted to a series of garde-robes,
-arranged in three stories, with a common pit in the basement. A
-building with a somewhat similar plan to these northern castles is the
-manor-house or castle which Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells,
-and chancellor of England under Edward I., built at Acton Burnell,
-in Shropshire.<a id="FNanchor_341_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_341_341" class="fnanchor">341</a> Here, however, the building is of a thoroughly
-domestic type, with large two-light window-openings of great beauty,
-which at once remove any suspicion as to its military character. The
-castle of the Scropes at Bolton and that of the Nevilles at Sheriff
-Hutton represent the highest development of this quadrangular plan.
-The licence to crenellate Bolton was granted in 1379:<a id="FNanchor_342_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_342_342" class="fnanchor">342</a> the licence
-for Sheriff Hutton bears date 1382.<a id="FNanchor_343_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_343_343" class="fnanchor">343</a> Both castles are large
-buildings with a central courtyard, and in both the military ideal
-was uppermost. Sheriff Hutton is now in a complete state of ruin, but
-Bolton is fairly perfect; and from its structure one important fact
-may be deduced. While the usual precautions for defence were carefully
-preserved, and the outer openings in the walls interfered little with
-the general solidity of structure, the domestic buildings round the
-courtyard formed part and parcel of the fabric itself. They were not
-merely built up against or within the curtain, but the curtain was
-actually their outer wall, and not simply their defensive covering. In
-fact, the manor-house in these cases was not a separate building within
-the enclosure of the castle; but the castle was also the manor-house.
-The same combination of military with domestic aims is noticeable in
-the contemporary castle of Raby (1378), of which the plan, already
-described, approximates irregularly to the type.<a id="FNanchor_344_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_344_344" class="fnanchor">344</a> Castles akin
-to Bolton and Sheriff Hutton<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_318">318</a></span> are Lumley, the licence for which was
-granted in 1392,<a id="FNanchor_345_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_345_345" class="fnanchor">345</a> and Chillingham, the angle-towers of which are
-of a much earlier date than is usual in castles of this plan.<a id="FNanchor_346_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_346_346" class="fnanchor">346</a>
-At Chillingham the medieval work is somewhat obscured by alterations
-made in the seventeenth century, but the original plan is retained.
-Survivals of the quadrangular plan may be traced in some of the great
-manor-houses of the early Renaissance period. It is not difficult to
-detect in the plan of Hardwick hall (1587), while the ground-plan
-of Wollaton hall (1580) is probably derived from a similar source.
-Smaller houses like Barlborough hall, near Sheffield, or Wootton lodge,
-near Ashbourne, have a kinship with it, although in these cases, and
-especially in the first, the elevation is more tower-like than is usual
-in medieval buildings of the type. It is needless to say that these
-Renaissance buildings are without any military character.</p>
-
-<p>The traditional form of the rectangular keep was also responsible, no
-doubt, for the great tower-house which formed the principal feature,
-and is now the only portion left, of the castle of Tattershall in
-Lincolnshire. The discussion of this building belongs more properly
-to the last chapter of this book, for its general construction and
-architectural features are those of an age in which the military
-architecture of the middle ages was already little more than a
-survival. This age of transition begins in the last quarter of the
-fourteenth century; and, as already pointed out, castles like Bolton
-and Raby clearly show its influence. During the later half of the
-fourteenth and the fifteenth century, outside the north of England, it
-is rare to find a castle which actually deserves the name. The large
-private residence, with a certain amount of defensive precautions,
-became increasingly common; and, where alterations were made to
-existing castles, they were generally entirely in the direction of
-domestic comfort.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_319">319</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_319">
-<img src="images/i_319.jpg" width="394" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">warwick</span>: Guy’s tower</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_321">
-<img src="images/i_321.jpg" width="384" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Warwick Castle; C&aelig;sar’s tower</p></div>
-
-<p>There are, however, a few striking exceptions which belong to the later
-part of the fourteenth century. The two polygonal towers, Guy’s tower
-(<a href="#i_319">319</a>) and C&aelig;sar’s tower (<a href="#i_321">321</a>), which cover the angles of the eastern
-curtain at Warwick and flank the gatehouse with its barbican, are cases
-in point. Few castles show features of the military architecture of
-all periods to such advantage. The plan is that of an early Norman
-mount-and-bailey castle,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_321">321</a></span> which has in course of time been surrounded
-with a stone curtain;<a id="FNanchor_347_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_347_347" class="fnanchor">347</a> while a magnificent residence, in the
-main a building of the fourteenth century, has grown up on the south
-side of the bailey next the river.<a id="FNanchor_348_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_348_348" class="fnanchor">348</a> The most commanding military
-features, however, are the towers just mentioned, 128 and 147 feet high
-respectively. The whole character of these<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_322">322</a></span> towers is French rather
-than English. Their great height may be contrasted with that of the
-contemporary rectangular towers at Raby, the loftiest of which is only
-81 feet high, and depends for its defence almost entirely upon the
-thickness of its walls. The nearest parallel to the Warwick towers, on
-the other hand, is such a building as the fifteenth-century Tour Talbot
-at Falaise, a lofty cylindrical tower built at an angle of the donjon,
-as is generally stated, during the English occupation of northern
-France.<a id="FNanchor_349_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_349_349" class="fnanchor">349</a> The chief characteristics of the towers at Warwick are the
-bold corbelling out of their parapets, with a row of machicolations,
-and the provision of a central turret, rising some distance above the
-level of the rampart-walk—a feature common in France, but most unusual
-in England.<a id="FNanchor_350_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_350_350" class="fnanchor">350</a> The vaulting of both towers throughout is also a
-French feature; and in every respect they bear traces of an influence
-which, beginning in the cylindrical donjons of Philip Augustus’ castles
-and of Coucy, survived to a late date in France, and may have affected
-English military work in that country, but had little result in England
-itself. While, throughout the fifteenth century, the French castle
-maintained its character as a stronghold, and even kept that character
-when Renaissance influence was strong in that country, the military
-character of the English castle steadily diminished. The wars of the
-Roses were a succession of battles in open field, in which castles and
-walled towns played very little part. And while the military character
-of Warwick continued to be emphasised during the period of transition,
-the neighbouring castle of Kenilworth, in common with most English
-castles, was transformed, during the same period, from a stronghold
-into a palace.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_323">323</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_323">
-<img src="images/i_323.jpg" width="463" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">hurstmonceaux</span>: gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_323_2">
-<img src="images/i_323_2.jpg" width="600" height="386" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">bodiam</span>: north front and gatehouse</p></div>
-
-<p>The most imposing of our later castles, which may be considered
-primarily as military buildings, is Bodiam in Sussex (<a href="#i_323">323</a>). On 21st
-October 1385, Sir Edward Dalyngrugge had licence to crenellate his
-manor of Bodiam “by the sea,” and “to make a castle thereof in defence
-of the adjacent country against the king’s enemies.”<a id="FNanchor_351_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_351_351" class="fnanchor">351</a> The main
-object of this licence was evidently<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_325">325</a></span> to provide against a French
-attack upon the ports of Rye and Winchelsea, at the mouth of the
-Rother: in the following March, Sir Edward was named first upon the
-commission appointed by letters patent to fortify and wall the town of
-Rye.<a id="FNanchor_352_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_352_352" class="fnanchor">352</a> Bodiam stands upon the left bank of the Rother, some miles
-above Rye, and commands from its site, at some little height above the
-valley, a long stretch of marsh in the direction of the mouth of the
-river. The walls of the castle descend sheer into a lake, formed by the
-damming up of a stream. The castle is simply a rectangular enclosure
-surrounded by a lofty curtain. Each angle is capped by a cylindrical
-tower, and in the middle of each face is a rectangular tower: the great
-gatehouse, however, in the north face, has two rectangular towers, one
-on each side of the entrance. The tower in the centre of the opposite
-face is the lesser gatehouse of the castle. The plan bears a striking
-analogy to that of the castle of Villandraut (Gironde), built about
-1250: Nunney in Somerset (1373) and Shirburn in Oxfordshire (1377)
-are coeval English examples. The interior is surrounded by domestic
-buildings. Against the south curtain were the hall and kitchen: the
-screens at the west end of the hall formed a passage to the lesser
-gateway. The wall dividing the screens from the kitchen still remains,
-with the three doorways which gave access to the kitchen, pantry,
-and buttery (<a href="#i_326">326</a>). The private apartments were returned along the
-east curtain, and at their north end was the chapel, which had the
-usual arrangement of a western gallery, entered from the chambers on
-the first floor of this range of building. Servants’ quarters and
-barracks occupied the west side of the enclosure. All the buildings
-were plentifully supplied with garde-robes in the towers; and the upper
-portion of the south-west tower was arranged as a pigeon-house.</p>
-
-<p>In spite of the ample space given to the domestic buildings, the
-defensive nature of the works at Bodiam is very clearly apparent, not
-only in the strength of the walls, the height of which (40 feet) is
-equal to the height of the walls at Harlech, but in the provision made
-for the defence of the approaches. The main gateway was protected by
-a barbican, which occupied a small island in the lake, some 54 feet
-in front of the gatehouse. A causeway, which is in part, at any rate,
-original, connected the gateway with the barbican; but it is probable
-that this had a bridge at one or both ends. A bridge, spanning a gap
-of 6 feet, connected the outer end of the barbican with an octagonal
-island in the middle of the broad moat. The straight causeway by which
-this island is now reached from the mainland does not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_326">326</a></span> represent the
-original approach; but a longer and more tortuous approach was planned
-from a pier set against the west bank of the moat and joined, probably
-by a double drawbridge, to the octagonal island, which thus stood at
-a point where the road, commanded throughout by the curtain and its
-flanking towers, turned at a right angle towards the north gatehouse
-of the castle. The approach to the smaller or south gate has now
-disappeared; but two walls project into the moat on each side of the
-entrance, and against the south bank of the moat remains the pier on
-which the outer drawbridge dropped.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_326">
-<img src="images/i_326.jpg" width="600" height="531" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Bodiam Castle; Courtyard</p></div>
-
-<p>The labour and pains which were taken to strengthen this castle are
-shown by the revetting of the earthwork, not only of the main island,
-but also of the lesser islands in the moat, and of portions of the
-causeways of approach. The isolation of the castle in the middle of a
-lake may have been suggested by the plan adopted, at a much earlier
-date, at Leeds in Kent. The great barbican of Leeds, however, divided
-by wet ditches into three separate parts, forms the approach to the
-main bridge across the moat. It is, in fact, the <i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i> of the
-castle, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_327">327</a></span> does not occupy a separate island, as at Bodiam, between
-the mainland and the gateway.</p>
-
-<p>The gatehouse of Bodiam is an imposing building, and the
-castle-builders, from the days of Edward I. onwards, paid an attention
-to their gatehouses almost equal to that which the late Norman builders
-had given to their tower-keeps.<a id="FNanchor_353_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_353_353" class="fnanchor">353</a> To the same twenty-five years
-within which Bodiam was built and the two great towers at Warwick
-were completed, belongs the greatest of English gatehouses, that of
-the castle of Lancaster. It is known to have been built as late as
-about 1405; for the arms of Henry V. as prince of Wales appear on a
-shield above the gateway. It is therefore one of the latest military
-works in the castles of the duchy, and the last of the series of
-gatehouses which owed their origin to lords of the house of Lancaster,
-and includes the noble structures at Dunstanburgh, Tutbury, and the
-great tower between the wards at Knaresborough. The castle to which
-it was added was surrounded by a curtain, largely of twelfth-century
-date,<a id="FNanchor_354_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_354_354" class="fnanchor">354</a> and contained a tower-keep and domestic buildings which
-appear to have been in the main of the thirteenth century. Situated
-at the head of a very steep hill, and flanked by two huge octagonal
-towers, this gatehouse is the perfection of the type which is seen,
-with more slender flanking towers, at Bothal and in the keep of
-Alnwick. The window openings towards the field are few and small: the
-battlements are boldly corbelled out, and machicolations of large size
-are left between them and the wall. In a corner of each of the flanking
-towers rises a turret, the interior of which apparently served as a
-magazine for ammunition. The interior of this gatehouse, although the
-space is ample, is fully in keeping with its sombre exterior. Each of
-the two upper floors contains<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_328">328</a></span> three rooms, one in the central block of
-the gatehouse, the others in the towers at the sides. These rooms are
-large and lofty, and their original wooden ceilings still retain traces
-of colour; but they are gloomy and ill-lighted to the last degree. The
-apartments on the first floor communicate directly with one another,
-but those on the second floor are entered from an outer passage, which
-passes between them and the inner or west wall of the gatehouse. The
-guard-rooms on the ground-floor are approached in the usual way, by
-doorways near the inner entrance. The main stair is a vice in the
-south-west corner of building.</p>
-
-<p>In the important additions made to the castle of Warkworth about 1400,
-the compromise attained between the requirements of defence and comfort
-is very striking. The plan of this castle, throughout its history, like
-the plan of Warwick, remained that of the original mount-and-bailey
-fortress. We have noticed already the addition of the stone curtain to
-the bailey, and the building of a large mansion against its western
-and southern faces. It is probable that a shell-keep was added to the
-mount, when the stone curtain was made; for the foundations of the
-present strong house on the mount are of masonry of an earlier and
-rougher character than the elaborately dressed stonework of the house
-itself. This house (<a href="#i_221">221</a>), which combines the features of keep and
-private residence in a most unusual way, appears to have been built
-by the first earl of Northumberland, who died in 1407.<a id="FNanchor_355_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_355_355" class="fnanchor">355</a> The shape
-is that of a square with chamfered angles; but from the centre of
-each face projects a bold half-octagon, so that the ground-plan is a
-Greek cross with short arms and a large central block. The elevation
-consists of a basement and three floors. The basement contains tanks
-and a vault with a corbelled roof, which was certainly a prison, and
-bears a strong likeness to a similar vault in the inner gatehouse at
-Alnwick. There is no basement stair, communication with the vaults
-being through trap-doors in the floor above. On this floor are a number
-of dark vaulted store-rooms, one of which was the wine-cellar, and
-has its own stair to the da&iuml;s end of the hall on the floor above. The
-two upper floors are comparatively cheerful and well lighted: a shaft
-in the centre of the building gave light to the inner passage between
-the hall and kitchen. The main stair is in the south half-octagon,
-the chief doorway being in the west face of this projection, on the
-first floor. From<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_329">329</a></span> the lobby on the second floor, at the head of the
-stair, two doorways open. That on the right leads into the hall, which
-occupies the south-east angle of the central block, and is of the
-full height of the two upper floors. That on the left leads to the
-servants’ quarters and the kitchens, which occupied the western part
-of the second floor, and communicated by separate doorways with the
-hall and chapel. The great kitchen filled the north-west angle of the
-central block, and, like the hall, was two stories in height. The north
-half-octagon and the north-east angle of the main block adjacent to it,
-were divided into two floors. The lower room in the half-octagon was
-probably the private room of the master of the house, communicating
-with the lower room in the main block, which was probably the common
-room of his immediate retinue. Similarly, upon the upper floor were a
-ladies’ bower and a separate room for the countess of Northumberland’s
-own use. Between the private apartments and the hall, occupying the
-centre of the east side of the main block and the half-octagon beyond,
-was the chapel. The chancel, in the half-octagon, was the height of
-both floors; but the western part of the chapel was in two floors, the
-upper forming a gallery, with a doorway from the ladies’ bower. From
-the south-east corner of this gallery, another doorway opened upon a
-narrow stone gallery, formed by the internal thickening of the lower
-part of the east wall of the hall: this may have served the purpose of
-a minstrels’ gallery, or may have been used by the ladies of the house,
-when they wished to watch the festivities below. The wall beneath this
-gallery is pierced by a long vestry or priest’s chamber, opening out
-of the south wall of the chapel, and built with a rising floor, in
-order to give head-way to the stair from the wine-cellar below. The
-ground-floor of the chapel also communicated with the hall and the
-men’s apartments. In addition to the rooms already mentioned, there
-were third-floor rooms in the south-west angle of the main block and
-in the western half-octagon, which communicated with the gallery of
-the chapel. The area covered is not large, but the ingenuity of the
-plan is remarkable; and the disposition of the various apartments must
-have required an amount of thought and skill, which no other medieval
-dwelling-house shows in so high a degree.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_331">
-<img src="images/i_331.jpg" width="522" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">raglan castle</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_331_2">
-<img src="images/i_331_2.jpg" width="600" height="420" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">thornton abbey</span>: gatehouse and barbican</p></div>
-
-<p>While the lower portions of the walls of the strong house at Warkworth
-are of great solidity and strength, the upper floors are lighted by
-large traceried window-openings, and the tall oblong windows of the
-hall, and those of the chancel of the chapel, convey no idea of the
-military purpose of the building. It is a curious fact that, in spite
-of the pains which were evidently<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_330">330</a></span> expended upon this tower-house, the
-period of its employment as a residence seems to have been unusually
-short. The various lords of Warkworth were never satisfied with one
-residence for any length of time; and there is evidence that when
-John, duke of Bedford, was sent by his father, Henry IV., to pacify
-the north after Northumberland’s rebellion, he took up his quarters at
-Warkworth in the gatehouse. Later in the fifteenth century, the old
-mansion, already described, in the bailey, was restored and altered:
-a porch-tower was made at the north-east end of the hall, and a
-stair-turret intruded in the south-east angle. The dwelling-house,
-which had been built within the castle about 1200, was converted,
-in fact, into a stately mansion; and the house on the mount was
-practically abandoned. No better instance could be found of the gradual
-weakening of the military ideal in favour of domestic comfort. All the
-castles of the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are examples
-of this in some degree. At Warwick the domestic buildings are at
-least of equal importance with the defences. The dwelling-house at
-Ludlow gradually increased in size and splendour, while nothing was
-added to its military defences. Even the outer walls of Bolton, a
-strong and well-guarded castle, are pierced with windows which admit
-a considerable amount of light. Bodiam and Raglan (<a href="#i_331">331</a>), relying on
-the great breadth of their moats, have large outward window openings.
-In all these instances, however, the dwelling-house, even at Raglan,
-is still regarded as a house within a castle. In the planning of the
-tower house at Warkworth the military and domestic ideals were both
-present to the minds of the builders. Neither can be said to prevail:
-the building was equally useful as house and castle. The hall at
-Warkworth, on the other hand, when it was rebuilt, was treated with
-an architectural splendour quite apart from any idea of its position
-within the walls of a place of defence. Those walls had become
-obsolete, and the house was the one object present to the aims of the
-restorers. A step further was taken at Hurstmonceaux (<a href="#i_323">323</a>), where the
-great brick house has the semblance of a castle, but little of its
-reality. At Carew in Pembrokeshire, three stages in the development
-of the domestic ideal as applied to military architecture can be
-studied in close proximity. On the east side of the ward are the
-earlier domestic apartments, somewhat cramped and gloomy, with outer
-windows which, wherever they occur, as in the chapel (<a href="#i_248">248</a>) and adjacent
-rooms, admit daylight very faintly. On the west side is the great hall
-built in the fifteenth century by Rhys ap Thomas, with its imposing
-porch-tower and entrance stair, a large and amply lighted room. On the
-north are the additions made in the sixteenth century by<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_333">333</a></span> Sir John
-Perrott. The eastern rooms are those of a house within a castle: the
-western hall is that of a house which, although military considerations
-have had no part in its planning, is still confined within an earlier
-curtain. On the north side, however, the curtain has been broken
-through, and a series of apartments has been built out beyond its
-limits, proclaiming, with their long mullioned windows piercing the
-walls from floor to roof, that the day of castles is over, and that the
-dwelling-house has the field to itself.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_334">334</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII<br />
-
-<br />THE AGE OF TRANSITION: THE FORTIFIED DWELLING-HOUSE</h2></div>
-
-<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Some</span> account has now been given of the change which came over the
-English castle in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The life
-of the feudal warrior in his stronghold gradually became the life of
-the country gentleman in a house whose fortification, such as it was,
-was of a merely precautionary character. It now remains for us to say
-something of those domestic buildings which are the principal feature
-of the English castles of the later middle ages, and of those houses
-which, while preserving the name and to some extent the appearance of
-castles, were designed primarily as dwelling-houses. In these examples
-the main lines of the normal dwelling-house plan, which have already
-been described, were preserved. The hall still formed the nucleus of
-the buildings and the centre of the life of the household: the kitchen,
-buttery, and pantry still took their place at the end of the hall next
-the screens, while the two-storied block, with the great chamber on
-the first floor, was found at the other end behind the dais. But, with
-the increase of comfort and splendour, came the desire for more space
-and greater privacy. The great hall at Ludlow (<a href="#i_096">96</a>), reconstructed in
-the early part of the fourteenth century, had a first-floor chamber
-at either end of the hall; and the additions made to these domestic
-buildings in the fifteenth century considerably increased the number
-of private apartments in a house which was already of great size. At
-Manorbier (<a href="#i_208">208</a>) the whole dwelling-house was enlarged and the number
-of rooms increased by a reconstruction in the second half of the
-thirteenth century. The dwelling-house in the inner ward of Conway,
-the hall and its adjacent rooms at Caerphilly, were planned on a more
-liberal scale than had been thought necessary in the castles of the
-eleventh and twelfth centuries. The essentially military character,
-however, of the Edwardian castle cramped the free development of
-domestic buildings within the precinct; and it was not until the middle
-of the fourteenth century that the plan of the dwelling-house in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_335">335</a></span>
-castle had reached the stage at which it began to be considered for its
-own sake, apart from the curtain wall which protected it.</p>
-
-<p>The development of the private mansion within the castle is well
-illustrated at Porchester. The outer defences of the castle, the
-twelfth-century great tower, the curtain of the inner ward, the
-fourteenth-century barbican, were all kept under repair; for the French
-wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries made the defence of
-Portsmouth harbour a desirable factor in English strategy, and the
-considerations which prompted the building of Bodiam also demanded that
-the military character of Porchester castle should be preserved. The
-barbican, however, was the last important addition to the defences. The
-later work included the remodelling of the twelfth-century hall against
-the south curtain.<a id="FNanchor_356_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_356_356" class="fnanchor">356</a> This was in great part rebuilt, the hall on the
-first floor being supplied with large traceried windows towards the
-interior of the bailey: late in the fifteenth century, a porch with
-an upper floor was added at the end next the screens. Along the west
-side of the inner ward, between the great hall and the keep, a smaller
-hall was added late in the fourteenth century, the towers upon the east
-curtain were converted to domestic purposes, and a range of buildings
-was eventually added upon this side of the bailey (<a href="#i_097">97</a>).</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_336">
-<img src="images/i_336.jpg" width="380" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Carew Castle; Entrance to great hall</p></div>
-
-<p>Externally, Porchester castle is simply a fortress: internally, the
-domestic buildings rivet the attention, and only the imposing mass of
-the keep (<a href="#i_131">131</a>) reminds us of the military origin of the stronghold.
-Similarly, in the Cornish castle of Restormel, where the one ward
-is nearly circular in shape, and is surrounded by a deep ditch, the
-whole interior face of the curtain is covered by a series of domestic
-buildings, with partition walls radiating from the centre of the plan.
-The position of the hall, kitchen, and great chamber can easily be
-traced: the chapel was on the east side of the ward, separated from the
-hall by the great chamber, and the chancel, with a substructure, formed
-a rectangular projection from the curtain at this point. Here, too,
-as at Porchester, Ludlow, or Manorbier, the dwelling-house was masked
-by the fortress. But there are also castles in which the importance
-of the dwelling-house, as time went on, began to overshadow its
-military surroundings. At Tutbury the strong position of the castle, an
-entrenched stronghold which was probably ditched<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_336">336</a></span> about for the first
-time long before the Conquest, the high mound raised by the Norman
-founder of the castle, and the fine fourteenth-century gatehouse<a id="FNanchor_357_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_357_357" class="fnanchor">357</a>
-(<a href="#i_237">237</a>), approached by an ascent which was commanded by the whole length
-of the eastern curtain, strike the visitor far less than the remains of
-the great hall and its adjacent chambers. This beautiful work, often
-attributed, like so much else in castles of the duchy of Lancaster,
-to John of Gaunt, is probably of the middle of the fifteenth century:
-there is a remarkable similarity between the details of the stonework
-here and at Wingfield, a house the date of which is well known to be
-somewhat later than 1441. As a whole, the castles which, like Tutbury,
-became merged in the possessions of the house of Lancaster, and came
-to the Crown on the accession of Henry IV., furnish us with some of
-the best examples of castle dwelling-houses on a palatial scale. At
-Pontefract, for example, a range of buildings, known later as John
-of Gaunt’s buildings, rose upon the site of the eastern mound. The
-drawings of Pontefract and of Melbourne in Derbyshire, preserved
-among the duchy records, show us castles which have utterly changed
-their aspect, and have become palaces. Nowhere, however, is this more
-noticeable to-day than at Kenilworth, where the erection of the great
-hall may be fairly attributed to John of Gaunt.<a id="FNanchor_358_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_358_358" class="fnanchor">358</a> The whole of the
-north and part of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_337">337</a></span> west side of the inner ward, on the summit of
-the raised ground on which the castle stands, are covered by a splendid
-series of late fourteenth-century buildings, chief among them the hall,
-probably the finest apartment of its date in England, Westminster hall
-alone excepted (<a href="#i_337">337</a>). Later still, just as at Carew, the transformation
-of the stronghold was completed by the addition, in Henry VIII.’s time,
-of apartments, which have now disappeared, along the south side of the
-ward; and, in the reign of Elizabeth, the south-west angle was filled
-by a tall block of buildings erected by the earl of Leicester.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_337">
-<img src="images/i_337.jpg" width="358" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Kenilworth Castle; Entrance to hall</p></div>
-
-<p>One may compare the growth of the domestic element at Kenilworth
-with that of the French ch&acirc;teau of Blois, where the military aspect
-of the building was obliterated by degrees. To the great hall in the
-north-east corner of the castle bailey<a id="FNanchor_359_359"></a><a href="#Footnote_359_359" class="fnanchor">359</a> were added, first, the
-buildings of Charles of Orl&eacute;ans (1440-65) on the west face.<a id="FNanchor_360_360"></a><a href="#Footnote_360_360" class="fnanchor">360</a> Then
-came the late Gothic work, on the east, of Louis XII. (1498-1502). In
-the sixteenth century the hall was joined to Charles of Orl&eacute;ans’ block
-by the Renaissance pile of building raised under Francis I. and Henry
-II. The castle by this time had become a palace, and the transformation
-was completed in the seventeenth century (1635) by the erection of the
-tall range of Palladian buildings in the north-west angle, which is the
-most prominent feature in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_338">338</a></span> northern view of the ch&acirc;teau.<a id="FNanchor_361_361"></a><a href="#Footnote_361_361" class="fnanchor">361</a> A
-similar work of transformation took place at Amboise under Louis XII.
-and Francis I. In both these instances, however, the chief changes
-were made at a period when the Renaissance was exercising a powerful
-influence on French life and thought. As a rule, French castles of
-the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, while increasing in
-splendour, preserved much of the character of the feudal stronghold.
-The two splendid halls and the northern range of buildings at Coucy,
-built by Enguerrand VII., lord of Coucy, in the last quarter of the
-fourteenth century, were added without detriment to the strength of
-the fortress; and to this same period belongs the talus covering the
-spring at the foot of the donjon curtain, a work of purely military
-character.<a id="FNanchor_362_362"></a><a href="#Footnote_362_362" class="fnanchor">362</a> In the ch&acirc;teaux of M&eacute;hun-sur-Y&egrave;vre (Cher), built by
-John, duke of Berry, between 1370 and 1385, and Pierrefonds (Oise),
-built by Louis, duke of Orl&eacute;ans, between 1390 and 1420, the splendour
-of the palace was equally balanced by the strength of the fortress.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_340">340</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_340">
-<img src="images/i_340.jpg" width="398" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">haddon</span>: upper courtyard and tower</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_341">
-<img src="images/i_341.jpg" width="600" height="391" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Lamphey Palace</p></div>
-
-<p>In tracing the development of the castle until it is merged in the
-manor-house, we must not forget that the fortified dwelling-house was
-not merely the creation of an age which was ceasing to build castles.
-Many of the strongholds to which allusion has been made, especially
-in the north and west of England, were dwelling-houses rather than
-castles. Acton Burnell, Aydon, Markenfield, Haughton, or those
-houses which, like Mortham in Yorkshire or Yanwath in Westmorland,
-have pele-towers attached to them, whether as part of their original
-equipment or as a later addition, are all fabrics in which military
-precautions had to be taken, but the everyday needs of the occupants
-were first considered. A castle is a military post which may include
-one or more dwelling-houses within its walls: the house which may
-be turned into a castle, when occasion requires, is on a different
-footing. Bishops’ palaces, such as Auckland, Cawood, Wells, or Lincoln,
-are examples of the large manor-house in which fortification was
-merely a measure of precaution. The splendid houses of the bishops of
-St David’s are not the least remarkable of the remains of medieval
-architecture, half-domestic, half-military, which are common in
-south-west Wales. Bishop Henry Gower (1328-47) developed at Swansea
-castle, and at his manor-houses of Lamphey and St David’s, a type of
-architecture which deserves mention on account of its originality. The
-three houses mentioned are somewhat different from each other.
-<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_341">341</a></span>
-Swansea castle is a large block of building, obviously military in
-character, and in general appearance not unlike the earlier castle
-which so nobly commands the town of Haverfordwest. Bishop Gower’s
-hall at Lamphey is a plain building, the chief architectural feature
-of which is the great cellar on the ground-floor: this was covered by
-a pointed barrel-vault, originally strengthened by heavy transverse
-ribs, most of which have fallen away. The vast palace of St David’s,
-on the other hand, displays in all its details, and especially in the
-ogee-headed doorway of the porch of its larger hall, a sumptuousness
-of decoration which is not often found in the domestic architecture of
-the time. The great hall on the west side of the courtyard, the smaller
-hall and private apartments on the south side, the vaulted cellars
-which occupy the whole of the basement in each range, are planned upon
-a scale equal to that of a castle of first-rate size. But, although
-these buildings differ so much in general character, they have a common
-feature in the parapet, pierced with a row of wide pointed arches,
-and corbelled out above the top of the walls. Comparatively rough and
-coarse at Swansea and Lamphey (<a href="#i_341">341</a>), this parapet at St David’s is
-treated with much delicacy, and the jambs of the arches are furnished
-with slender shafting. Whether there was any thought of its employment
-in war is a doubtful point; although it might be useful in such a
-case, it was probably intended in the first instance merely as an
-ornament. The corbelling is very slight,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_342">342</a></span> without machicolation. The
-whole design of the parapet is a curious feature which deserves special
-notice. There is another and later hall at Lamphey, west of the earlier
-building; and adjoining this on the north is the handsome chapel, built
-by Bishop Vaughan early in the sixteenth century. The gatehouse at
-Llawhaden, another manor of the bishops of St David’s, appears to be
-of the fifteenth century, and, with its flanking towers, rounded to
-the field, has a more distinctly warlike appearance than anything at
-Lamphey or St David’s.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_343">343</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_343">
-<img src="images/i_343.jpg" width="512" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">haddon</span>: chapel</p></div>
-
-<p>We may now take a few typical examples which illustrate the change
-from the fortified residence to the large dwelling-house, which
-was accomplished by the beginning of the sixteenth century. At a
-comparatively early date, a divorce between military and domestic
-architecture is manifest in such a house as Stokesay (<a href="#i_306">306</a>). Here the
-hall and its adjacent buildings are those of a private house pure
-and simple; and the defensive portion of the plan is confined to the
-polygonal tower at the south end of the range of buildings, which,
-in time of war, could be used as a separate stronghold, and was
-ingeniously planned and well lighted.<a id="FNanchor_363_363"></a><a href="#Footnote_363_363" class="fnanchor">363</a> But at Stokesay (<a href="#i_207">207</a>) the
-tower appears to be a somewhat later addition to a thirteenth-century
-dwelling-house. Defensive precautions are added. Of the opposite case,
-in which they disappear, Haddon hall (<a href="#i_340">340</a>), the most attractive and
-most thoroughly preserved of English medieval houses, is the best
-example. In its earliest state, it appears to have been a mere pele,
-occupying a portion of its present site, with a tower at its north-east
-and highest corner. The chapel (<a href="#i_343">343</a>), in which large portions of
-twelfth-century work still remain, was probably built outside the
-palisade, as the parochial chapel of the hamlet of Nether Haddon.
-As time went on, the fortified enclosure enlarged its boundaries. A
-wall was built round it, and the chapel was taken into the line of
-circumference.<a id="FNanchor_364_364"></a><a href="#Footnote_364_364" class="fnanchor">364</a> In the fourteenth century the present hall was
-<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_345">345</a></span>built between the upper and lower courts.<a id="FNanchor_365_365"></a><a href="#Footnote_365_365" class="fnanchor">365</a> At its north end were
-the screens, forming the communication between the two courts, with
-the pantry, buttery, and passage to the kitchen leading directly out
-of them. At the south end, behind the dais, was the cellar with the
-great chamber above. Later on, a porch with an upper chamber was built
-at the entry to the screens. During the fifteenth century, the upper
-courtyard was gradually surrounded by buildings; a new chancel and
-octagonal bell-turret were built to the chapel; and, at the end of this
-period, the old curtain wall, between the chapel and the great chamber,
-was covered by an outer wall on either side, and reduced to the state
-of a mere partition wall on which wooden upper buildings were carried.
-Wide windows were opened in the west walls of the cellar and the great
-chamber, and the cellar was turned into a private dining-room at the
-back of the hall. Early in the sixteenth century, the buildings round
-the entrance court were completed, and the timber stage east of the
-chapel was rebuilt in stone. Finally, in the reign of Elizabeth, came
-the addition which marks the last stage in this transition from pele
-to dwelling-house, when, on the south side of the upper courtyard,
-was built the long gallery, with its row of wide mullioned windows,
-and deep bays projecting towards the garden. While the manor-house at
-Wingfield, not many miles distant, is practically all of one period,
-and illustrates a definite compromise between war and peace, Haddon is
-a growth of from four to five centuries, and from an early date showed
-a tendency to rid itself of its military character.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_346">346</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_346">
-<img src="images/i_346.jpg" width="366" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Wingfield Manor; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>Wingfield manor is probably the most striking example of a later
-English manor-house with certain defensive features. It was begun by
-Ralph, Lord Cromwell, between 1441 and 1455. Its position is naturally
-strong. From an almost isolated hill, with steep slopes to the east,
-north, and west, it commands the valley in which it stands, but is
-itself commanded by the much higher hills which separate it from the
-Derwent valley on the west.<a id="FNanchor_366_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_366_366" class="fnanchor">366</a> The buildings are arranged round two
-courtyards (<a href="#i_346">346</a>).<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_347">347</a></span> The outer and larger court, which is entered by
-a wide gateway, with a postern on one side, at the south end of the
-east wall, contained store-houses and farm-buildings, with a large
-barn on the south side. This base-court, like the “barmkin” of a
-fortified house in the north of England, would be useful in time of war
-for the protection of tenants and their flocks and herds, who had no
-other means of defence. A gatehouse in the north wall gives admission
-to the second court, which was surrounded by buildings on all sides
-but the east. The whole length of the north side was covered by a
-magnificent block of buildings, which included the hall, kitchen, and
-chief private apartments (<a href="#i_349">349</a>). These buildings have not received the
-full attention which they deserve, but they obviously belong to two
-periods of work, the great kitchen block at the west end being added
-as an afterthought.<a id="FNanchor_367_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_367_367" class="fnanchor">367</a> The plan is curious and unusual. The hall
-occupies the eastern extremity of the block. Although the roof and a
-large part of the south wall are entirely gone, and the north wall was
-mutilated by the later partition of the hall into two floors and a
-number of rooms, the porch, with its upper chamber, and the bay-window,
-at opposite ends of the south wall, are still fairly perfect. The hall
-was the full height of the block, and had a high-pitched roof, with
-large window openings in the gables: it is not certain whether the
-fireplace was in the centre of the room, with a louvre in the roof for
-the smoke, or in the south wall. The porch led into screens at the
-west end, over which was probably a minstrels’ gallery. At the north
-end of the screens was a lobby, from which a vice led to the upper
-floor of the building dividing the hall from the kitchen; while a wide
-and well-moulded doorway opened upon a stair which descended into the
-garden behind the hall. On this side the slope of the ground is very
-abrupt, and the hall is built upon a very large and handsome cellar
-(<a href="#i_348">348</a>), divided into two longitudinal halves by a row of five columns.
-The aisles thus formed are vaulted in oblong compartments upon broad
-four-centred ribs. The bold wave-mouldings of the ribs and the carving
-of the bosses at their junction are carved with a masculine vigour of
-design which gives this cellar a place among the chief architectural
-masterpieces of its age. There is a short vice with broad steps at
-each corner of the cellar: those at the north-east and south-east
-corners communicated directly with the dais and sideboard of the hall,
-the entrance to the south-east stair being<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_348">348</a></span> a lobby opening on the
-bay-window. The south-west vice was entered from the courtyard, while
-the north-west stair opened into a room on one side of the passage from
-the hall to the kitchen.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_348">
-<img src="images/i_348.jpg" width="600" height="380" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Wingfield Manor; Cellar of hall</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_349">349</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_349">
-<img src="images/i_349.jpg" width="399" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">wingfield</span>: bay-window of hall</p></div>
-
-<p>The kitchen and its offices were not entered in the usual way,
-directly from the screens. A block of buildings, with its main axis
-at right angles to that of the hall, intervenes. There are, however,
-three doorways, as usual, in the west wall of the hall. Of these,
-the middle and largest was that of a central passage leading to the
-kitchen. A smaller doorway, on either side of this, gave access to two
-ground-floor rooms, beneath which were cellars. The whole floor above
-these, entered by a vice from the large lobby at the garden end of the
-screens, was the great chamber, which had a high-pitched roof, and
-was lighted, towards the courtyard, by a large window-opening of four
-lights, with good rectilinear tracery and transoms, beneath a segmental
-arch. It need hardly be said that the position of the great chamber,
-at the entrance end of the hall, is most unusual. The best parallel
-example is found in connection with the hall of the thirteenth-century
-bishop’s palace at Lincoln. Here the slope at the north end of the hall
-prevented the construction of a large block of buildings on that side.
-At the south end the ground fell away almost vertically, and here, upon
-a vaulted<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_351">351</a></span> substructure, was built a block of two stories, the lower
-of which contained the pantry, buttery, and passage to the kitchens,
-while the upper was the great chamber. The kitchen was contained in a
-detached tower, between which and the intermediate block was a bridge,
-with a covered passage on the first floor. The two-storied block has
-now been converted into the bishop’s chapel, of which the windows of
-the great chamber form the clerestory; while the passage across the
-kitchen bridge has been turned into a vestry.</p>
-
-<p>At Wingfield the great chamber was evidently placed at the entrance end
-of the hall to avoid the type of construction which had been adopted
-as a <i>pis aller</i> at Lincoln, and the side of the hall was chosen where
-the ground was comparatively level. Nevertheless, at the dais end of
-the hall, where there is a fall of several feet in the ground, there
-are considerable remains of buildings on the lower level; and it is
-possible that the first kitchen buildings may have been planned at
-this end. The position, with easy access to the large cellar, and,
-by a stair which still partly remains, to the hall, would not have
-been inconvenient, and expense in building would have been saved by
-this reversal of the usual arrangement, which placed the more costly
-great chamber block on level foundations, although at the far end of
-the hall. The four stairs of the cellar made it easy, whatever the
-position of the kitchen might be, to serve food directly to the dais,
-or through the screens to the lower end of the hall. However, whether
-this was the original arrangement or not, the kitchen block west of
-the great chamber was an addition made probably a few years after the
-original planning of the house.<a id="FNanchor_368_368"></a><a href="#Footnote_368_368" class="fnanchor">368</a> The central passage below the
-great chamber was continued to the kitchen, passing between a large
-pantry and buttery. Its south wall, next the buttery, is pierced by
-two broad arched openings, forming a buttery hatch upon a magnificent
-scale, through which drink would be served. There were upper floors to
-the buttery and pantry; but the kitchen itself, which contained three
-fireplaces, filled the whole west end of the block. Its floor is sloped
-and grooved, to facilitate drainage: the floor-drains were emptied
-through spouts in the west wall.</p>
-
-<p>The use of the buildings on the south side of the inner courtyard,
-on either hand of the gateway, cannot be determined with certainty;
-but the west side of the court is covered by an<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_352">352</a></span> important range of
-buildings, between the kitchen on the north and the high tower at the
-south-west corner of the enclosure. Of these buildings, which belong
-to the original fifteenth-century work, little remains but the west
-and the foundations of the east wall, in which were two bay-windows.
-They were probably a suite of private rooms, containing a smaller hall
-or private dining-room, such as is found at Conway and Porchester, and
-in most of our castles from the later thirteenth century onwards.<a id="FNanchor_369_369"></a><a href="#Footnote_369_369" class="fnanchor">369</a>
-At the south end of this block stands the one distinctively military
-feature of the manor-house, the tall tower of four stories, which,
-containing comfortable apartments in time of peace, could be isolated
-and converted into a stronghold in time of war.<a id="FNanchor_370_370"></a><a href="#Footnote_370_370" class="fnanchor">370</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_353">353</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_353">
-<img src="images/i_353.jpg" width="399" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">wingfield</span>: strong tower</p></div>
-
-<p>This provisional arrangement for defence is characteristic of the
-age. The primary object of the house at Wingfield was comfort and
-pleasure; and its type is as far removed from the military perfection
-of Caerphilly or Harlech as it can possibly be. The need of a
-perpetual garrison was not felt; for, in case of war, siege would
-be only the last resort of an attacking force. Consequently, the
-defences of the house, apart from the accommodation for barracks and
-the safety of refugees in the base-court, and from ordinary strength
-of the gateways,<a id="FNanchor_371_371"></a><a href="#Footnote_371_371" class="fnanchor">371</a> were restricted to the provision of a tower as
-a last resource. The house, however, which the builder of Wingfield
-constructed at Tattershall in Lincolnshire between 1433 and 1443, on
-the site of an earlier stronghold, took the shape of a brick tower
-of four stages, with a basement half below the ground (<a href="#i_356">356</a>). There
-is an octagonal turret at each angle, the vice which leads from the
-ground-floor to the roof being contained in the south-east turret
-(<a href="#i_357">357</a>). The walls are of considerable thickness throughout, but are
-pierced above the basement with large two-light windows, two in each
-stage of the west wall. In the east wall are the chimneys of the
-fireplaces on the ground-floor and first floor; but behind these the
-wall is pierced by mural passages, lighted to the field. The north
-wall on the first and third floor also is pierced by passages. These
-<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_355">355</a></span>communicated with chambers in the turrets and with garde-robes. The
-internal features, the vaulted stairs and passages in the thickness
-of the walls, and the stone fireplaces on the upper floors, with
-rectangular mantels ornamented with shields of arms,<a id="FNanchor_372_372"></a><a href="#Footnote_372_372" class="fnanchor">372</a> are elaborate
-and sumptuous; but the tower is a shell, and the floors above the
-vaulted basement are gone. A peculiar feature of the tower, however, is
-the covered gallery which is corbelled out on stone arches above each
-wall of the building between the turrets: the floor is machicolated
-between the corbels, and the gallery has rectangular windows opening to
-the field. Such a gallery is seen in French military architecture, as,
-for example, in the Pont Valentr&eacute; at Cahors, but appears to be unique
-in England.<a id="FNanchor_373_373"></a><a href="#Footnote_373_373" class="fnanchor">373</a> In the same part of Lincolnshire, and about the same
-period, towers of the type of Tattershall are not uncommon. Kyme tower,
-in the fens north-east of Sleaford, Hussey tower, on the north-east
-side of Boston, and the Tower on the Moor, between Tattershall and
-Horncastle, are cases in point: none of these, however, can compare
-with Tattershall in beauty and size, or can show anything like the same
-union of defensive with purely domestic arrangements.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_356">
-<img src="images/i_356.jpg" width="426" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Tattershall Castle</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_357">
-<img src="images/i_357.jpg" width="337" height="600" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Tattershall Castle; Plan</p></div>
-
-<p>Brick-work was employed in all these Lincolnshire towers: they lie in
-a district where stone was not abundant, and where brick-making on the
-spot was a more simple process than the conveyance of building-stone
-from Ancaster or Lincoln. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
-brick was very freely used for domestic architecture in the eastern
-counties; and houses like Oxburgh in Norfolk or the rectory at Hadleigh
-in Suffolk, with their gatehouse towers, are prominent examples
-of late fifteenth-century work.<a id="FNanchor_374_374"></a><a href="#Footnote_374_374" class="fnanchor">374</a> The old hall at Gainsborough
-in Lincolnshire is a large mansion of the fifteenth and sixteenth
-centuries. This again is chiefly of brick, but with a considerable
-amount of timber and plaster employed in the hall and one of the wings;
-while the bay-window of the hall is of the grey Yorkshire limestone in
-large blocks, which was much used in the churches of the lower Trent
-valley. At one corner, however, is a polygonal tower entirely of brick,
-with cross-loops in the walls of the ground-floor, and battlements
-at the top. These battlements are corbelled out, so as to give an
-impression of machicolation: there is, however, no machicolation<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_356">356</a></span> at
-all, and the spaces between the corbels are arched and filled with
-simple tracery. The principle here is the same as that at Wingfield
-and Tattershall: the residence is provided with its strong tower,
-which, at Tattershall, as at Warkworth, is identical with the residence
-itself. But while, at Warkworth, considerations<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_357">357</a></span> of safety and comfort
-were fairly balanced, with perhaps a slight inclination of the scales
-to safety, at Tattershall, in spite of the covered gallery with its
-machicolated floor, the balance is on the side of comfort. Both at
-Tattershall and Wingfield the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_358">358</a></span> splendid residence is studied in the
-first instance, while the defensive stronghold is a secondary idea. The
-tower at Gainsborough is simply an imitation of the strong towers of
-the past, conceived in admiration of their strength and conservative
-love of their beauty, but with no serious idea of practical
-utility.<a id="FNanchor_375_375"></a><a href="#Footnote_375_375" class="fnanchor">375</a></p>
-
-<p>The fine manor-house of Compton, in a secluded Devonshire valley a few
-miles west of Torquay, was probably built about 1420 by one of the
-family of Gilbert. The main entrance, in the centre of the east front,
-beneath a tall archway including the ground-floor and first floor in
-its height, is flanked by bold rectangular projections finishing in
-corbels some feet above the ground. It does not lead, however, into a
-vaulted passage barred by portcullises and flanked by guard-rooms, but
-into one giving direct access to the hall. This no longer exists, and
-a modern building covers part of the site, but the weathering of the
-high-pitched roof still remains, and at its south end we can still see
-the entrances of the kitchen and buttery, and the stair-door of the
-minstrels’ gallery. The courtyard and domestic buildings are enclosed
-by a wall with a continuous rampart-walk, from the parapet of which
-are corbelled out at intervals machicolated projections which are so
-arranged as to be directly above doorways and windows, and thus to
-protect the most vulnerable points of the house, such as the large
-four-light east window of the chapel, north of the hall. The house
-was not surrounded by a ditch; but the space between it and the road
-probably formed a base-court, although any remains of fortification
-have disappeared. The whole building is a good example of the reversal
-of the usual process. The dwelling-house has not grown up within a
-castle, but has been converted by a very thorough process of walling
-and crenellation into a fortified post to which the name of castle may
-well be applied. The situation is anything but commanding, but the
-house lying hidden in its valley, might be a formidable obstacle, like
-the neighbouring castle of Berry Pomeroy, to marauders pushing their
-way inland from Tor Bay.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_359">
-<img src="images/i_359.jpg" width="337" height="500" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">Hurstmonceaux Castle; Chapel</p></div>
-
-<p>The character of house first, and castle afterwards, which is
-remarkable at Wingfield, is also prominent in two of the great
-Yorkshire residences of the house of Percy, Spofforth and Wressell,
-princely manor-houses dignified by the name of castle. But perhaps the
-best example in England of a castle which is one only in name is the
-brick house of Hurstmonceaux in Sussex. This splendid building was
-begun about 1446 by Sir Roger<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_359">359</a></span> Fiennes. Its position, in a sheltered
-hollow at the head of a small valley, has no military advantages: it
-may be compared with the secluded site of Compton Wyniates, or with
-the low sites, within easy reach of water, which the builders of
-Elizabethan houses were fond of choosing. The house was surrounded by
-a wet ditch—a feature shared by Compton Wyniates, Kentwell, and other
-Tudor houses.<a id="FNanchor_376_376"></a><a href="#Footnote_376_376" class="fnanchor">376</a> The imposing gatehouse is in the centre of the south
-front, a rectangular building flanked by tall towers,<a id="FNanchor_377_377"></a><a href="#Footnote_377_377" class="fnanchor">377</a> with its
-portal and the room above recessed beneath a tall arch which at once
-recalls the machicolated archways that guard the entrance to castles
-like Chepstow and Tutbury. The gatehouse has certain military features:
-its rampart and that of the towers is machicolated, and the entrance
-was closed by a portcullis (<a href="#i_323">323</a>). If cannon had made the curtain of
-comparatively little importance, it was still advisable to defend the
-gatehouse. There was no base-court, like that at Wingfield, in advance
-of the main buildings. The castle was simply a collection of buildings
-arranged round a series of courtyards, none of which was of any great
-size, or corresponded to that distinctive feature of the military
-stronghold—the open ward or bailey, which served as the muster-ground
-for the garrison. The hall was in its usual position, on the side
-of the first court opposite<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_360">360</a></span> the main entrance. Most of the private
-apartments were against the east wall, from which the chancel of the
-chapel (<a href="#i_359">359</a>) projected in a half-octagonal apse.</p>
-
-<p>An unrivalled opportunity for studying the progress of the castle
-in England is provided by a comparison of Hurstmonceaux with its
-neighbours at Pevensey and Bodiam. Pevensey, taking us back, in its
-outer circuit, to the Roman era, is, so far as the actual castle
-area is concerned, a Norman mount-and-bailey stronghold, with stone
-fortifications chiefly of the thirteenth century. Bodiam represents
-one of the last and highest efforts of perfected castle building in
-England. Hurstmonceaux is a house designed for ease and comfort,
-but keeping something of the outer semblance of the stronghold of
-an English landowner. A further step was taken at Cowdray, near
-Midhurst. Here the house, nominally a castle, was built about 1530 by
-Sir William Fitzwilliam: the battlements of the great hall and its
-beautiful porch-tower are the only relic of military architecture
-which it retains; and these are really no more military in character
-than the battlements of a church tower or clerestory. The comparison
-and contrast between these Sussex buildings may be further extended
-by including in the list the early fortresses of Lewes and Hastings,
-and the episcopal castle of Amberley.<a id="FNanchor_378_378"></a><a href="#Footnote_378_378" class="fnanchor">378</a> In these, with what remains
-of the early castle of Arundel, we have as perfect an epitome of the
-history of the rise and decline of castle architecture in England as
-any county can afford.</p>
-
-<p>Castle building, after the fitful examples of later Plantagenet times,
-ceased altogether under the powerful monarchy of the Tudors, when
-prominent subjects were made to feel the reality of the influence of
-the Crown. Only once again, during the civil wars of the seventeenth
-century, were castles generally resorted to as strongholds. The three
-sieges of Pontefract, the operations of the royal troops in the Trent
-valley, between the castles of Newark and Belvoir and the fortified
-house of Wiverton, the defence of Denbigh, Rockingham, and Scarborough,
-show that the private fortress could still be used on occasion; while
-such a mansion as Basing house proved itself capable of stubborn
-resistance. To this belated castle warfare we owe much destruction: it
-was followed by the “slighting” of defences, and the general reduction
-of castles to their present state of picturesque ruin.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_361">361</a></span> In concluding
-this account of military architecture, it may be useful to gather, from
-some of the surveys drawn up in the reign of Henry VIII., the state
-of some of our principal castles at a period when medieval ideas were
-disappearing. The coloured drawings, already mentioned, of castles
-among the duchy of Lancaster records, which probably belong to the
-early part of the reign of Elizabeth, may owe something to fancy. But
-of the general accuracy of these verbal surveys, apart from inadequate
-measurements, there can be less doubt. They all show clearly that
-castles, as military strongholds, were obsolete, and that not merely
-their defences, but even their domestic buildings, were allowed to
-go to decay in time of peace. A survey of Carlisle castle, returned
-22nd September 1529, is eloquent of the neglect of the fortress by
-its constable, Lord Dacre. The wooden doors of the gatehouse of the
-base-court had rotted away: the lead of the roof had been cut away,
-probably with an eye to business, so that the rain soaked through the
-timber below, and had leaked through the vault into the basement, which
-was at this time used as the county gaol. The gatehouse of the inner
-ward was in a not much better state; but the gates were of iron and
-offered more resistance to the weather. The domestic buildings, on the
-east side of the inner ward, had been roofed with stone slates: the
-roof of the great chamber had fallen in, and the gallery or passage
-between the great chamber and hall was “clean gone down.” The chapel
-and a closet adjoining were partly unroofed: the closet chimney had
-fallen, and the parlour beneath was in a ruinous state. The hall itself
-was “like to fall”: the kitchen and some of its offices had fallen, and
-the bakehouse and pantry were on the point of falling, while rain had
-gone through the pantry floor into the buttery, which in this case was
-apparently on a lower level. The great tower, “called the Dungeon,”
-was, through the decay of the leaden roof, open to rain, and the floors
-of its three “houses” or stages were gradually rotting. The castle
-was supplied with artillery, but this was of “small effect and little
-value.” It included twenty-three iron serpentines or small cannon, six
-of which were provided with iron axletree pins or trunnions for use
-on gun-carriages; a small brass serpentine, a foot long; nine other
-serpentines; forty-five chambers; one iron sling for discharging stone
-shot; four “hagbushes” (arquebuses or hand-guns); and two bombards or
-mortar-shaped cannon. The ammunition for the serpentines and arquebuses
-consisted of 560 leaden bullets: there was also some stone shot and
-gunpowder. Some gun-stocks, bows, and arrows complete the list of
-artillery.<a id="FNanchor_379_379"></a><a href="#Footnote_379_379" class="fnanchor">379</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_362">362</a></span></p>
-
-<p>Sheriff Hutton castle in Yorkshire, surveyed during the same year, was
-better off as regards its dwelling-house; for this, as we know from
-contemporary history, had been occupied with little intermission from
-the end of the fourteenth century onwards. There were three wards,
-the outermost being evidently a large base-court, and the middle ward
-probably, as at Carew, a small court in advance of the inner gatehouse.
-The hall, kitchen, buttery, pantry, bakehouse, chapel, and lodgings for
-the lord were in the inner ward. In the base-court were the brew-house
-and horse-mills, with stables, barns, and granaries. The lead on the
-roofs was in a generally bad state, and the gutters and spouts wanted
-mending; but the timber of the inner roofs was still fairly good. The
-walls and towers of the inner ward, the plan of which, as we have seen,
-was akin to that of the contemporary Bolton castle, were “strong and
-high, but must be mended with lime and sand.” Three tons of iron were
-required to mend the gate of the inner ward. The “mantlewall” of the
-middle ward was defective and partly in ruin; while the base-court was
-“all open,” its walls decayed, and its gates gone. In the inner ward
-was a well, and ponds “for baking and brewing” were near the outer
-walls. The artillery included “six brass falcons with their carts” and
-twenty-one arquebuses, for which six barrels of powder and ten score
-iron shots were provided, bows, bowstrings, and arrows, and two bullet
-moulds.<a id="FNanchor_380_380"></a><a href="#Footnote_380_380" class="fnanchor">380</a></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_364">364</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_364">
-<img src="images/i_364.jpg" width="600" height="436" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">CAERLAVEROCK CASTLE</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" id="i_364_2">
-<img src="images/i_364_2.jpg" width="600" height="422" alt="" />
-<p class="caption">MAXSTOKE CASTLE</p></div>
-
-<p>After the attainder and execution of the third duke of Buckingham in
-1521, two royal escheators took a survey of his lands and houses.
-Their return, contained in a book of eighty-eight pages,<a id="FNanchor_381_381"></a><a href="#Footnote_381_381" class="fnanchor">381</a> supplies
-details as to eleven manor-houses and castles. Of these, Caus castle,
-in west Shropshire, was a mere ruin. Huntingdon castle was decayed,
-but a tower was reserved for prisoners. The description of Oakham
-castle might be repeated at the present day. It was “all ruinous, being
-a large ground within the mantell wall.” The hall, however, was in
-excellent repair, “and of an old fashion”: the escheators recommended
-its preservation, because the courts were held there. The three
-towers of the castle of Newport next the Usk are mentioned, with the
-water-gate below the middle tower, “to receive into the said castle a
-good vessel”: the hall and other lodgings were decayed, especially in
-timber, but the stone could be renewed with a quantity of freestone
-and rubble stored in the castle. Here, as at Carlisle, Launceston, and
-elsewhere, the basement of the gatehouse was used as a prison; and its
-maintenance is therefore insisted upon. The hall at Brecon castle had
-a new<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_365">365</a></span> and costly roof with pendants: it was “set on height,” with
-windows at either end, and none upon the sides. As a matter of fact,
-the remains of this hall stand above a twelfth-century substructure,
-which was vaulted from a central row of columns: the south side wall
-still remains, and is pierced with a row of lancet windows, so that
-the statement of the survey may refer to a newer hall which has
-disappeared. There was a new hall in the inner ward at Kimbolton, which
-had been built some sixty years before by the duke’s great-grandmother.
-The old curtain against which it stood was in a bad way, and threatened
-to ruin the hall. Round the inner ward was a moat: the base-court on
-the outer edge was overgrown with grass, but the barn and stables were
-in good condition.</p>
-
-<p>“The strongest fortress and most like unto a castle of any other
-that the Duke had” was the castle of Tonbridge, a mount-and-bailey
-stronghold whose shell-keep is still one of the finest examples of the
-type. The keep or “dungeon”—no mention of the mount is made—was at this
-time covered with a lead roof, half of which was gone. Otherwise, the
-castle and its curtain were in good repair, the rampart-walk keeping
-its battlemented outer parapet and rear-wall. The gatehouse, on the
-north side of the castle, was “as strong a fortress as few be in
-England”: on the east curtain was a square tower called the Stafford
-tower, and at the south-east corner, next the Medway, was the octagonal
-Water tower. The river constituted the chief southern defence of the
-castle, and there was no south curtain: the substructure of the hall
-and lodgings, 26 feet high and built of ashlar, was on this side, but
-the buildings themselves had never been finished.</p>
-
-<p>Castles of a later type were Stafford, and Maxstoke (<a href="#i_364">364</a>) in
-Warwickshire. Stafford castle at this time consisted of a single block
-of lodgings with two towers at either end and another in the middle
-of the south front. The hall was in the centre of the block, with the
-kitchen, larder, buttery, and pantry beneath it: at one end of the
-hall was the great chamber with a cellar below, and at the other was a
-“surveying chamber,” or service-room, to which dishes would be brought
-from the kitchen. Each of the five towers contained three rooms, in
-each of which was a fireplace. The towers were machicolated, “the
-enbatelling being trussed forth upon corbelles.” Outside the house
-were the chapel, gatehouse, and another kitchen; but this front court
-was apparently without defensive walls. Maxstoke, originally a castle
-of the Clintons, which was built and fortified in or after 1345,<a id="FNanchor_382_382"></a><a href="#Footnote_382_382" class="fnanchor">382</a>
-had been largely repaired by the duchess Anne,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_366">366</a></span> the builder of the
-hall at Kimbolton. There was a base-court with a gatehouse, stables,
-and barns, which were walled with stone and covered with slate. Round
-the castle, “a right proper thing after the old building,” was a moat.
-The house, with a tower at each corner, was built round a quadrangle,
-and in the side next the bridge over the moat was a gatehouse tower,
-with a vaulted entry. The hall, the chapel, the great chamber, and
-the lodgings generally were in good condition, although they were not
-entirely finished and much glazing was still necessary. The provision
-of fireplaces is specially mentioned, as well as a point in the
-planning of the house—the convenient access to the chapel, or, rather,
-to its gallery or galleries, from the various first-floor rooms at “the
-over end” of the hall and great chamber.</p>
-
-<p>The moated manor-house of Writtle in Essex can hardly be counted among
-castles: it was a timber building round a cloistered quadrangle. There
-was no hall, but “a goodly and large parlour instead.” Thornbury castle
-in Gloucestershire, however, which was in great part of the duke’s own
-building, was one of those houses in which some semblance of military
-architecture was kept. There was no moat, but a base-court and an inner
-ward. The buildings of the base-court itself had been set out, but
-were in a very incomplete state, and little had been finished beyond
-the foundations of the north and west sides. The entrance to the inner
-ward was in the west face of the quadrangle; but of the west and north
-blocks only the lower story had been completed. This was of ashlar,
-while in the base-court ashlar had been used only for the window
-openings, doorways, and quoins. The hall and kitchen offices formed the
-east block, “all of the old building, and of a homely fashion”; but
-the south block, of the newer work, was “fully finished with curious
-works and stately lodgings,” and from it a gallery of timber cased with
-stone, with an upper and lower passage, crossed the south garden to the
-parish church and the duke’s chapel therein. A magnificent feature of
-this house, which became more and more characteristic of the palaces of
-noblemen of the age, were the great parks to the east of the castle,
-and the gardens on its east and south side. Between the east garden
-and the New park was the orchard, “in which are many alleys to walk
-in openly,” and round about the orchard were other alleys on a good
-height, with “roosting places,” covered with white thorn and hazel.</p>
-
-<p>Thornbury castle had reached this degree of unfinished splendour only
-a few years before the survey was made. The gateway of the outer ward
-still bears an inscription with the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_367">367</a></span> date 1511, while at the base
-of the moulded brick chimneys of the south block is the date 1514.
-Remains may still be seen of most of the buildings mentioned in these
-surveys. Thornbury and Maxstoke are still occupied, and of Thornbury
-in particular the details of the survey still hold good. The great
-value of these descriptions is the fact that they tell us something,
-on the eve of the Renaissance period, of the state of a series of
-fortresses which represented almost every type of an architecture
-that had grown up under the influence of conditions rapidly becoming
-obsolete. At Tonbridge we see the mount-and-bailey fortress of early
-Norman times, built to meet needs which were purely military, and
-strengthened with a stone keep and walls and towers of stone as those
-needs became more pressing. At Carlisle we have the fortress with its
-compact inner ward and great tower, approached through the spacious
-base-court which served the needs of the garrison and might shelter
-flocks and herds in time of war. No castle of the most perfect type,
-planned in the golden age of military architecture, is represented. At
-Brecon, however, we can study the growing importance of the domestic
-buildings of the castle. At Sheriff Hutton we have the quadrangular
-castle of the fourteenth century with its angle-towers, and its walled
-base-court serving the purposes of a farm-yard. Stafford castle, the
-plan of which has been imitated in the modern house on the site, is
-a fortified residence built in a single block, to which some of the
-strong houses of the north of England are analogous. The moated house
-of Maxstoke preserves the quadrangular plan, and has its provisions for
-defence; but its domestic character was the first aim of its builders,
-and its walls and towers are without the formidable height and strength
-of Sheriff Hutton and Bolton. Here and at Thornbury the base-court
-was still retained; but at Thornbury the energy of the builders was
-concentrated in the beautiful mansion, and the idea of the defensive
-stronghold had almost departed. The day of the castle and the walled
-town was over, and, in the face of methods of attack of which the
-builders of Norman castles had never dreamed, military engineers were
-beginning to move along new lines to which architectural considerations
-were no longer a matter of great importance. An architecture which,
-developed from earthwork in the beginning, reproduced in stone, at
-its height, the disposition of the concentric earthworks of primeval
-times, gave place in its turn to a science in which the employment of
-earthwork and the natural resources of a defensive position played an
-increasingly prominent part.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_369">369</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES:</h2></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">1</span></a> Plan in Allcroft, <i>Earthwork of England</i>, 1908, p. 647.
-The same feature is well seen in the fine camp of Bury Ditches (<a href="#i_006">6</a>) in
-Shropshire, between Clun and Bishops Castle.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">2</span></a> The defences of Old Sarum are now in process of
-excavation, and the plan of the medieval castle, in the centre of the
-early camp, has been recovered. See <i>Proceedings Soc. Antiquaries</i>, 2nd
-series, vol. xxiii., pp. 190-200 and 501-18.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">3</span></a> It is well seen at Bury ditches (<a href="#i_006">6</a>), where the diagonal
-entrance is also a feature of the south-west side of the camp, and on
-the west side of Caer Caradoc, between Clun and Knighton.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">4</span></a> The effect of similar conditions on the construction of
-early Norman castles will be noticed in a later chapter.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">5</span></a> Plan in Allcroft, <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 686; the camp is
-described fully pp. 682-97.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">6</span></a> See Bruce, <i>Hand-Book to the Roman Wall</i>, 5th ed., 1907
-(ed. R. Blair), pp. 19-21.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">7</span></a> The list from the <i>Notitia Dignitatum</i> is given, <i>ibid.</i>,
-pp. 11, 12.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">8</span></a> The bank is, strictly speaking, the <i>agger</i>, the <i>vallum</i>
-being the rampart on the top of the bank.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">9</span></a> The large villas of Romano-British landowners, as at
-Bignor (Sussex), Chedworth (Gloucestershire), Horkstow (Lincolnshire),
-were within easy reach of the military roads, but were not directly
-upon them.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">10</span></a> The topography of Roman Lincoln is described by Dr E. M.
-Sympson, <i>Lincoln</i> (Ancient Cities), 1906, chapter I.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">11</span></a> See <i>Arch&aelig;ologia</i>, vol. liii., pp. 539-73.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">12</span></a> See <a href="#westgateway">below</a> as to the blocking of the main gateways at
-Cilurnum after the building of the great wall. The small single
-gateways at Cilurnum are on the south side of the wall. At Amboglanna
-both gateways were south of the wall.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">13</span></a> Borcovicus is described by Bruce, <i>u.s.</i>, pp. 140-60.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">14</span></a> Plan in Besnier, <i>Autun Pittoresque</i>, 1888. The
-north-west and north-east gateways of the Roman city remain, but the
-centre of the city was shifted in the middle ages.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">15</span></a> Plan in Allcroft, <i>u.s.</i>, p. 322. As Burgh Castle had the
-sea on its west side, it possibly had no west wall. Another tower, on
-the east side of the north gateway, has fallen away from the wall.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">16</span></a> At Pevensey the foundation of the wall is of chalk and
-flint, covered in one part by an upper layer of concrete, composed of
-flints bedded in mortar. Below the foundation is a layer of puddled
-clay, in which oak stakes were fixed vertically at intervals. See L.
-F. Salzmann, F.S.A., <i>Excavations at Pevensey</i>, 1906-7, in <i>Sussex
-Arch&aelig;ol. Collections</i>, vol. li.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">17</span></a> Cilurnum is described by Bruce, <i>u.s.</i>, pp. 86-119, with
-plan. See also the description and plan in <i>An Account of the Roman
-Antiquities Preserved in the Museum at Chesters</i>, 1903, pp. 87-120.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">18</span></a> This was not invariable. At Cilurnum the main street
-was from east to west, and this was also the case at Corstopitum
-(Corbridge-on-Tyne).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">19</span></a> In this case, the first cohort of the Tungri.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">20</span></a> The tenth cohort of the legion had its quarters here:
-hence the name.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">21</span></a> Or the east and west gateways, as already noted, at
-Cilurnum. The <i>forum</i> occupied the centre of Cilurnum, the <i>praetorium</i>
-forming a block of buildings east of the centre. The first wing or
-squadron of the Astures was stationed at Cilurnum.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">22</span></a> Prof. Haverfield holds the view that this southern
-extension is post-Roman. See <i>Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>, lxvi. 350.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">23</span></a> The same thing happened at Lincoln, where the eastern
-wall of the city followed a line now covered by the eastern transept of
-the cathedral.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">24</span></a> Wat’s dyke, of which remains can be traced south of
-Wrexham and near Oswestry, was to the east of Offa’s dyke.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>A.-S. Chron.</i>, anno 547.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">26</span></a> Bede, <i>Hist. Ecc.</i>, iii. 16.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">27</span></a> It may be noted that not all names in “borough” and
-“bury” are derived from <i>burh</i> and <i>byrig</i>. Some are merely derived
-from <i>beorh</i> or <i>beorg</i> = a hill (dative <i>beorge</i>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">28</span></a> See Oman, <i>Art of War</i>, p. 120.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">29</span></a> In Germany the word <i>burg</i> is also applied to the
-citadel of a town or to a castle. In England and France more careful
-discrimination was made between the two types of stronghold.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">30</span></a> References to <i>burhs</i> wrought by Edward and his sister
-&AElig;thelfl&aelig;d will be found in <i>A.-S. Chron</i>. under the dates mentioned in
-the text. There is some variety of opinion with regard to the exact
-accuracy of these dates.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">31</span></a> <i>A.-S. Chron.</i>, sub anno.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">32</span></a> <i>A.-S. Chron.</i>, sub anno. The true date seems to be 837
-or 838.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">33</span></a> The chief authority for the early invasions of the
-Northmen in France is the <i>Annales Bertinenses</i>, of which the portion
-from 836 to 861 is attributed to Prudentius, bishop of Troyes.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">34</span></a> <i>Timbrian</i> is the ordinary Anglo-Saxon word for “to
-build,” but it indicates the prevalent material used for building.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">35</span></a> This is the main contention of the theory so attractively
-enunciated by the late G. T. Clark, and endorsed by the authority of
-Professor Freeman.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">36</span></a> Nottingham castle is, in fact, considerably to the west
-of the probable site of the Saxon <i>burh</i>, which was more or less
-identical with the “English borough” of the middle ages, the western
-part of Nottingham being known as the “French borough.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">37</span></a> The Danes were again at Tempsford in 1010, and, if the
-earthwork is of pre-Conquest date, it is more likely to have been
-thrown up during the earlier than during the later visit.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">38</span></a> The story (<i>A.S. Chron.</i>, sub an. 755) of the murder of
-Cynewulf and its consequences, mentions the <i>burh</i> or <i>burg</i> of Merton
-with its gate: the house in which the king was murdered within the
-<i>burh</i> is called <i>bur</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, bower, private chamber).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">39</span></a> Dr J. H. Round, <i>Feudal England</i>, 1909, p. 324, points
-to the phrase <i>hoc castellum refirmaverat</i> in the Domesday notice
-of Ewias, as indicative of the existence of the castle before the
-Conquest, and gives other reasons for the identification.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">40</span></a> Domesday, i., f. 23; “Castrum Harundel Tempore Regis
-Edwardi reddebat de quodam molino xl solidos,” etc. “Castrum Harundel,”
-however, applies to the town, not the castle; and it does not follow
-that the name was given to the town before the Conquest.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">41</span></a> Ord. Vit., <i>Hist. Eccl.</i>, iii. 14; “id castellum situm
-est in acutissima rupe mari contigua.” The phrase may be used generally
-to describe a site which, in Ordericus’ own day, had become famous for
-its castle.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">42</span></a> Ord. Vit., <i>Hist. Eccl.</i> iv. 4.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">43</span></a> The Tower of London was outside the east wall of the
-medieval city. Baynard’s castle was at the point where the west wall
-approached the Thames.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">44</span></a> Ord. Vit., <i>op. cit.</i>, iv. 4; “pinnas ac turres ...
-in munimentis addebant vel restaurabant ... Port&aelig; offirmat&aelig; erant,
-dens&aelig;que turb&aelig; in propugnaculis et per totum muri ambitum prostabant.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">45</span></a> The foundation of these castles is noted by Ord. Vit.,
-iv. 4, 5.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">46</span></a> The word “bailey” (<i>ballium</i>) literally means a palisaded
-enclosure. The synonym “ward,” applied to the various enclosed
-divisions of a medieval castle, means a guarded enclosure. The term
-“base-court” (<i>basse-cour</i>) is also applied to the bailey.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">47</span></a> It should be noted that at York there were not two
-distinct <i>burhs</i> or fortified towns, such as are found in the earlier
-cases. The river passed through and bisected the <i>burh</i>, which was
-surrounded by an earthen bank, save at the point where the Foss formed
-the boundary of the city.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">48</span></a> Domesday, i. 248 <i>b</i>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">49</span></a> An example of this is the fine earthwork at Lilbourne, in
-Northamptonshire. There are many other instances, and the lesser bailey
-at Clun partakes of this character.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">50</span></a> There are cases, of course, which give rise to
-perplexity. Thus at Earls Barton, in Northamptonshire, the famous
-pre-Conquest church tower stands on a site which appears to be within
-the original limit of the ditch of the adjacent castle mount. It is
-doubtful, however, whether the mount was ever ditched on this side; and
-the church does not encroach upon the mount.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">51</span></a> C&aelig;sar, <i>De Bell. Gall.</i>, vii. 73; “huic [vallo] loricam
-pinnasque adiecit, grandibus cervis eminentibus ad commissuras
-pluteorum atque aggeris, qui ascensum hostium tardarent.” See p. <a href="#Page_60">60</a>
-below.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">52</span></a> See Enlart, ii. 494.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">53</span></a> Domfront, however, on its rocky site, may, like Richmond,
-have been surrounded by a stone wall from the first.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">54</span></a> L. Blancheti&egrave;re, <i>Le Donjon ou Ch&acirc;teau f&eacute;odal de Domfront
-(Orne)</i>, 1893, pp. 29, 30.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">55</span></a> See note above, p. <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">56</span></a> Ord. Vit., iii. 5.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">57</span></a> The essential portions of these texts are quoted by
-Enlart, ii. 497-9.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">58</span></a> The “lesser donjon” at Falaise, which contained the great
-chamber, is a rectangular projection of two stories from the great
-donjon.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">59</span></a> Mrs Armitage in <i>Eng. Hist. Review</i>, xix. 443-7.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">60</span></a> Ord. Vit., viii. 12; “fossis et densis sepibus.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">61</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, viii. 24; “Hic machinas construxit, contra
-munimentum hostile super rotulas egit, ingentia saxa in oppidum et
-oppidanos projecit, bellatores assultus dare docuit, quibus vallum et
-sepes circumcingentes diruit, et culmina domorum super inhabitantes
-dejecit.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">62</span></a> Ord. Vit., viii. 13; “Callidi enim obsessores in
-fabrili fornace, qu&aelig; in promptu structa fuerat, ferrum missilium
-callefaciebant, subitoque super tectum principalis aul&aelig; in munimentis
-jaciebant, et sic ferrum candens sagittarum atque pilorum in arida
-veterum lanugine imbricum totis nisibus figebant.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">63</span></a> See J. H Round, <i>Castles of the Conquest</i> (<i>Arch&aelig;ologia</i>,
-lviii. 333).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">64</span></a> <i>Adulterinus</i> = spurious, counterfeit.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">65</span></a> C&aelig;sar, <i>Bell. Gall.</i>, vii. 68 <i>seq.</i> Alesia, near the
-modern village of Alise-la-Reine, is in the C&ocirc;te d’Or department, some
-36 miles N.W. of Dijon.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">66</span></a> C&aelig;sar, <i>De Bell. Civ.</i>, ii. 1 <i>seq.</i></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">67</span></a> A detailed account of this siege is given by Oman, <i>Art
-of War</i>, pp. 140-7.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">68</span></a> Enlart, ii. 413, 414.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">69</span></a> Ord. Vit., vii. 10.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">70</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> “Rex itaque quoddam municipium in valle Beugici
-construxit ibique magnam militum copiam ad arcendum hostem constituit.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">71</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, viii. 2.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">72</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, viii. 23; Roger of Wendover.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">73</span></a> Thus Henry I., in his wars with Louis VI., conducted one
-blockade by building two castles, which the enemy called derisively
-Malassis and G&ecirc;te-aux-Li&egrave;vres (Ord. Vit., xii. 1). So also (<i>ibid.</i>,
-xii. 22) his castle of M&auml;te-Putain near Rouen. Many other instances
-might be named.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">74</span></a> Oman, <i>Art of War</i>, pp. 135, 139: his authority is Guy
-of Amiens, whose poetical rhetoric, however, may not be altogether
-accurate in description.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">75</span></a> Ord. Vit., viii. 24. <i>Cf.</i> viii. 16, where Robert of
-Normandy, another great Crusader, besieging Courcy-sur-Dives in 1091,
-caused a great wooden tower or belfry (<i>berfredum</i>) to be built, which
-was burned by the defenders. Robert of Bell&ecirc;me was also present at this
-siege.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">76</span></a> See below, p. <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">77</span></a> Suger, <i>Gesta Ludovici Grossi</i> (ed. Molinier, pp. 63-66).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">78</span></a> Pent-houses were sometimes elaborately defended. Thus
-Joinville describes the large “cats” made by St Louis’ engineers
-to protect the soldiers who were making a causeway across an arm
-of the Nile near Mansurah (1249-50). These had towers at either
-end, with covered guard-houses behind the towers, and were called
-<i>chats-ch&acirc;teaux</i>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">79</span></a> See the account of the sieges of Boves and
-Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard by Guillaume le Breton, <i>Philippis</i>, books ii. and
-vii. At the siege of Zara in the fourth Crusade, after five days of
-fruitless stone-throwing, the Crusaders began to undermine a tower
-which led to the surrender of the city (Villehardouin).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">80</span></a> Abbo: see the account of the siege of <a href="#Page_63">Paris</a> above.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">81</span></a> Ord. Vit., ix. 15: “Machinam, quam ligneum possumus
-vocitare castellum.” It was strictly a belfry (see <a href="#belfry">below</a>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">82</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">83</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> the account of the operations at the siege of
-Marseilles (C&aelig;sar, <i>De Bell. Civ.</i>, ii. 11): “Musculus ex turri
-latericia a nostris telis tormentisque defenditur.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">84</span></a> The <i>porte-coulis</i> is literally a sliding door. Its outer
-bars fitted into grooves in the walls on either side. See pp. <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">85</span></a> Vitruvius, <i>De Architectura</i>, x. 13, &sect; 3, mentions among
-Roman scaling-machines, an inclined plane, “ascendentem machinam qua ad
-murum plano pede transitus esse posset.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">86</span></a> Guillaume le Breton, <i>Philippis</i>, book vii. This poem is
-an important source of information for the wars of Philip Augustus, and
-for the siege of Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard in particular.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">87</span></a> Ord. Vit., ix. 13.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">88</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ix. 11.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">89</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xii. 36.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">90</span></a> This is the usual distinction. But the use of the names
-varies. In Vitruvius (<i>op. cit.</i>, x. 10, 11) the <i>catapulta</i> or
-<i>scorpio</i> is a machine for shooting arrows, while the <i>ballista</i> is
-used for throwing stones. The pointed stakes at the siege of Marseilles
-(C&aelig;sar, <i>De Bell. Civ.</i>, ii. 2) were shot from <i>ballistae</i>. Vitruvius
-indicates several methods of working the <i>ballista</i> by torsion: “aliae
-enim vectibus et suculis (levers and winches), nonnullae polyspastis
-(pulleys), aliae ergatis (windlasses), quaedam etiam tympanorum
-(wheels) torquentur rationibus.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">91</span></a> For the injuries inflicted by stone-throwing machines,
-see Villehardouin’s mention of the wounding of Guillaume de Champlitte
-at Constantinople, and of Pierre de Bracieux at Adrianople.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">92</span></a> Oman, <i>op. cit.</i>, 139, quotes Anna Comnena to this
-effect.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">93</span></a> Stone-throwing engines and <i>ballistae</i> alike were
-employed by the Saracens at Mansurah (1250), for hurling Greek fire
-at the towers constructed by St Louis to protect his causeway-makers
-(Joinville).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">94</span></a> Thus, in the first siege of Constantinople by the
-Crusaders (1203), Villehardouin emphasises the number of siege-machines
-used by the besiegers upon shipboard and on land, but gives no account
-of their use by the defenders. They were employed, however, by the
-defence, as we have seen at Marseilles; see also Chapter <a href="#catapult1">I</a>. above,
-for possible traces of their use in the stations of the Roman wall.
-A special platform might in some cases be constructed for them and
-wheeled to the back of the rampart-walk.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">95</span></a> Such crenellations are indicated even in the timber
-defences at Alesia and Trebonius’ second rampart at Marseilles. They
-are familiar features of oriental fortification, <i>e.g.</i>, of the great
-wall of China or the walls and gates of Delhi.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">96</span></a> This roof was sometimes gabled, the timbers, as in the
-donjon at Coucy, following and resting on the slope of the coping of
-the parapet.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">97</span></a> Sometimes, as at Constantinople in 1204 (Villehardouin),
-towers were heightened by the addition of one or more stages of wood.
-<i>Cf.</i> the heightening of the unfinished <i>t&ecirc;te-du-pont</i> at Paris in
-885-6.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">98</span></a> Clark, i. 68-120, gives an elaborate list of castles
-in England and Wales at this date. A large number, however, of those
-which he mentions, had been already destroyed; and many were of later
-foundation.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">99</span></a> Accounts of this rebellion are given by Benedict of
-Peterborough and Roger of Hoveden.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">100</span></a> Nottingham was a foundation of the Conqueror: Newark was
-not founded until after 1123.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">101</span></a> Ord. Vit., xi. 2, mentions the capture of the castle
-of Blyth (Blida castrum) by Henry I. from Robert de Bell&ecirc;me. By this
-Tickhill is probably meant. It is four miles from Blyth, where was a
-Benedictine priory founded by Roger de Busli, the first Norman lord of
-Tickhill, and granted by him to the priory of Ste-Trinit&eacute;-du-Mont at
-Rouen. Ordericus, who, as a monk of a Norman abbey, was familiar with
-the name of Blyth priory, may have supposed the castle of Roger de
-Busli to have been at Blyth.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">102</span></a> See Rymer, <i>Fœdera</i> (Rec. Com., 1816), vol. i. pt. i.
-p. 429: “castrum de Pontefracto, quod est quasi clavis in comitatu
-Eborum.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">103</span></a> The remains are chiefly of the second quarter of the
-fifteenth century; but it was a residence of the archbishops as early
-as the twelfth century.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">104</span></a> A. Harvey, <i>Bristol</i> (Ancient Cities), pp. 35, 116.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">105</span></a> Rob. de Monte, quoted by Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 8th
-ed., 1905, p. 128: “Rex Henricus coepit revocare in jus proprium urbes,
-castella, villas, quae ad coronam regni pertinebant, castella noviter
-facta destruendo.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">106</span></a> The curtain (Lat. <i>cortina</i>, Fr. <i>courtine</i>) is a
-general name for the wall enclosing a courtyard, and is thus applied to
-the wall round the castle enclosure.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">107</span></a> Mart&egrave;ne, <i>Thesaurus Anecdotorum</i>, iv. 47, quoted by
-Enlart, ii. 418. From <i>alatorium</i> is derived the word <i>allure</i>, often
-employed as a technical term for a rampart-walk.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">108</span></a> Ord. Vit., v. 19: “Lapideam munitionem, qua prudens
-Ansoldus domum suam cinxerat, cum ipsa domo dejecit.” In this case the
-wall seems to have been built, not round an open courtyard, but round a
-house or tower. The French term for a fortified wall, forming the outer
-defence of a single building, is <i>chemise</i>. Thus, in a mount-and-bailey
-castle, the palisade round the tower on the mount was, strictly
-speaking, a <i>chemise</i>, while that round the bailey was a curtain.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">109</span></a> Ord. Vit., vii. 10.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">110</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, viii. 23.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">111</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, viii. 5. Robert, son of Giroie, “castellum
-Sancti Cerenici ... muris et vallis speculisque munivit.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">112</span></a> “Herring-bone” masonry consists of courses of rubble
-bedded diagonally in mortar, alternating with horizontal courses of
-thin stones, the whole arrangement resembling the disposition of the
-bones in the back of a fish. The horizontal courses are frequently
-omitted, and their place is taken by thick layers of mortar.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">113</span></a> See <i>Yorks. Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>, xx. 132, where the
-evidence quoted points to the conclusion “that the doorway was not
-erected later than about 1075.” Harvey, <i>Castles and Walled Towns</i>,
-p. 85, assumes that the doorway was cut through the south wall of
-the tower at a later date: the evidence of the masonry is decisively
-against this idea.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">114</span></a> The architectural history of Ludlow castle has been
-thoroughly examined by Mr W. H. St John Hope in an invaluable paper in
-<i>Arch&aelig;ologia</i>, lxi. 258-328.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">115</span></a> The original design probably included an upper chamber
-of moderate height. There was, however, a considerable interval between
-the completion of the gateway and the building of the upper stage.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">116</span></a> The large outer bailey at Ludlow was an addition to the
-original castle, late in the twelfth century, and is contemporary with
-the blocking of the gatehouse entrance. Originally the castle consisted
-merely of the present inner ward. The outer bailey or base-court gave
-enlarged accommodation for the garrison, and contained stables, barns,
-and other offices for which there was no room in the inner ward.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">117</span></a> The explanation of this passage through the wall was
-long a mystery. Clark, ii. 278, recognised that it led from an outer to
-an inner “room,” but was puzzled by the bar-holes which showed that the
-doors had been carefully defended.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">118</span></a> Mr Hope thinks that it was originally intended to cover
-the gateway with a semicircular barrel-vault. The lower stage of the
-keep at Richmond has a ribbed vault with central column. This, however,
-with the vice, now blocked, in the south-west corner, was inserted
-many years after the building of the great tower on the site of the
-gatehouse.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">119</span></a> The string-courses of the upper stages of the tower, and
-the windows of the southern chamber, which was of the full height of
-the two upper stories, and probably formed the chapel of the castle,
-have further enrichment; but the detail is nowhere elaborate. See T. M.
-Blagg, F.S.A., <i>A Guide to Newark, &amp;c.</i>, 2nd ed., pp. 19-22.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">120</span></a> Harvey, <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 98, says that Newark castle
-“has now no trace of a keep, and possibly never possessed one.” The
-gatehouse, however, may fairly be considered as belonging to the
-category of tower-keeps, and has one characteristic of that type of
-building—viz., the cross-wall which divides the upper stages, and is
-borne by an archway in the centre of the gateway passage.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">121</span></a> The churches of Upton, near Gainsborough, Burghwallis,
-near Doncaster, and Lois Weedon in Northamptonshire, are examples of
-this type. “Herring-bone” work occurs at Brixworth, in a portion of
-the tower to which a pre-Conquest date cannot safely be attributed. At
-Marton, near Gainsborough, it occurs in a tower of “Saxon” type, which
-was probably not built until after the Conquest. It is found twice at
-York, but the date of the so-called Saxon work in the crypt of the
-minster is very doubtful; while the tower of St Mary Bishophill Junior,
-although Saxon in type, is more likely to be Norman in date. Examples
-of “herring-bone” work in the churches of Normandy are found, <i>e.g.</i>,
-at P&eacute;riers and in the apse at C&eacute;risy-la-For&ecirc;t (Calvados).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122"><span class="label">122</span></a> The donjon of Falaise belongs to the early part of the
-twelfth century, and is therefore a late example of “herring-bone”
-work. The “herring-bone” work in the keep at Guildford is probably
-still later, and that in the curtain wall at Lincoln, raised on the top
-of earthen banks, can hardly be attributed to a very early date.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">123</span></a> It has also been noted in the tower of Marton church,
-near Gainsborough.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">124</span></a> The lodge which now occupies its site was built in 1815,
-while the present main entrance to the castle, south-west of the mount,
-was made in 1810, and is quite outside the original <i>enceinte</i>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">125</span></a> See note <a href="#Footnote_122_122"><span class="fnanchor">122</span></a> on p. 100.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">126</span></a> A curtain is said to be flanked when its line is broken
-at intervals by projections, so near one another that the whole face
-of the piece of curtain between them can be covered by the fire of the
-defenders stationed in them.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">127</span></a> Much of the curtain of Lancaster castle is of fairly
-early date. For the supposed Roman origin of the castle and its
-probable history, see note <a href="#Footnote_354_354"><span class="fnanchor">354</span></a> on p. 327 below.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">128</span></a> These additions have given rise to the common theory
-that this hall is a work of late twelfth century date.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">129</span></a> Other examples of early stone halls will be mentioned in
-a later chapter.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">130</span></a> This is very noticeable in Shropshire, where a large
-number of parish churches, to which rectors were presented and
-instituted in the ordinary way, are described as free chapels in
-the registers of the bishops of Lichfield and Hereford during the
-thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">131</span></a> See Pat. Rolls, 18 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 28; 3 Hen. IV.,
-pt. 1, m. 6.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">132</span></a> Pat. 2 Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 4. The walls of this chapel,
-dedicated to St Peter, remain. In the fifteenth century it was enlarged
-as far as the west curtain by a western annexe, and in the sixteenth
-century it was divided into two floors, the upper floor being the
-court-house, and the lower floor the record-room of the court of the
-Marches.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">133</span></a> Pat. 2 Edw. II., pt. 2, m. 24.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">134</span></a> The word <i>keep</i> is a comparatively modern term, unknown
-to medieval castle-builders, to whom this part of the castle was the
-<i>donjon</i> or <i>dungeon</i>, or the <i>great tower</i>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">135</span></a> Other important shell keeps of the normal type are at
-Arundel, Cardiff (<a href="#i_114">114</a>), Carisbrooke (<a href="#i_111">111</a>), Farnham, Lewes, Pickering,
-Totnes, and Tonbridge—the last one of the most considerable and finest
-examples.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">136</span></a> Clifford’s tower at York is sometimes quoted as a shell
-keep. It was actually a tower with a forebuilding.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">137</span></a> See Enlart, ii. 500, 676: Anthyme Saint-Paul, <i>Histoire
-Monumentale</i>, p. 168, gives the date 993, with an expression of doubt.
-Fulk the Black was count of Anjou 987-1039.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">138</span></a> Enlart, ii. 685, says “d&eacute;but du xiiᵉ si&egrave;cle.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">139</span></a> Ord. Vit., xii. 14.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">140</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, viii. 19.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">141</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, x. 18.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">142</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xi. 20: <i>adulterina castella</i> is the phrase
-used.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">143</span></a> Enlart, ii. 710. Blancheti&egrave;re, <i>op. cit.</i>, 83, mentions
-Henry’s operations in 1123, but believes in an earlier date for the
-donjon.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">144</span></a> Rad. de Diceto, <i>Abbrev. Chron.</i>, sub anno.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">145</span></a> <i>Pipe Roll Soc.</i>, vol. i., pp. 13, 14; iv. 23.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">146</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, i. 27.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">147</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, i. 29, 30, 31; ii. 14; iv. 36; v. 50; vi. 57,
-58; vii. 11, 12; xii. 79; xiii. 31.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">148</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ii. 12; v. 49.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">149</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, iv. 35.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">150</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, iv. 39.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">151</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, iv. 40.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">152</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, viii. 89; ix. 59, etc.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">153</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xiii. 107, 108; xv. 132; xvi. 32.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">154</span></a> <i>E.g.</i>, <i>ibid.</i>, xiii. 140.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">155</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xvi. 32; xviii. 110.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">156</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xviii. 110.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">157</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xiii. 161.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">158</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, v. 35.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">159</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xix. 53.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">160</span></a> Charles Dawson, <i>Hastings Castle</i>, ii. 524.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">161</span></a> <i>Pipe Roll Soc.</i>, ix. 17; xi. 18; xii. 15; xiii. 95; xv.
-2; xvi. 2.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">162</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xviii. 16; xix. 68.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">163</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xix. 167; xxi. 77; see also xvi. 92.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">164</span></a> <i>Pipe Roll Soc.</i>, xvi. 118, 119.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">165</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xvi. 141.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">166</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xvi. 137.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">167</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xix. 81.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">168</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xviii. 7; xix. 173.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">169</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xviii. 66; xix. 110; xxii. 183. Malcolm, king
-of Scots, yielded Bamburgh, Carlisle, and Newcastle to Henry II. in
-1157; and the towers at all three places were begun within a few years
-of this event. That at Bamburgh is mentioned in 1164.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">170</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, xix. 2.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">171</span></a> See evidence brought by Mrs Armitage, <i>Eng. Hist. Rev.</i>,
-xix. 443-7.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">172</span></a> Ord. Vit., iv. 1. He calls these strongholds <i>firmamenta
-quaedam</i>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">173</span></a> <i>A.S. Chron.</i>, sub anno.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">174</span></a> Such cross-walls, found in the larger towers, were
-not merely useful as partitions between the rooms. They enabled
-the builders to lay their floors more conveniently, as timber of
-sufficient scantling for so large an undivided space was obtainable
-with difficulty. In case of the great tower being taken by storm, the
-cross-wall on each floor formed a barrier to the besiegers, shutting
-off the tower as it did into two halves. This is well seen, for
-example, at Porchester.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">175</span></a> At Norham and Kenilworth the towers are at an angle of
-the inner ward where the two wards are adjacent. At Porchester it is at
-an outer angle of the inner ward, so that two of its sides are on the
-outer curtain of the castle.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">176</span></a> At Hedingham and Rochester there are mural galleries
-above the level of the second floor, the height of which therefore
-corresponds to that of two external stories. Both towers are
-exceptionally lofty, Rochester being 113, Hedingham 100 feet high.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">177</span></a> We know from the Pipe Roll for 1173-4 that work was
-being done at Guildford in that year (<i>Pipe Roll Soc.</i>, xxi. 3).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">178</span></a> This points to two separate dates for the structure. The
-earlier masonry has been attributed to Bishop Flambard, who founded the
-castle in 1121; the later to Bishop Pudsey, who made additions to the
-castle about 1157. If this is so, the history of the tower is parallel
-to that of Porchester—a low stone tower, possibly of the reign of Henry
-I., heightened in the reign of Henry II.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">179</span></a> Porchester, in spite of its great size, is a tower which
-was apparently built for exclusively military purposes. The floors are
-feebly lighted, and there is no fireplace in the building.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">180</span></a> Both these castles belong to the class of cliff
-strongholds which were walled from their earliest foundation.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">181</span></a> Further alterations were made in the fifteenth century,
-when a new stair was inserted in the north-east angle, and the outer
-stair against the west wall was removed.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">182</span></a> For the reason, see note <a href="#Footnote_174_174"><span class="fnanchor">174</span></a> on pp. 121, 122.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">183</span></a> Legends about the cruelties practised on prisoners,
-often connected with these basement chambers, need not be believed
-too readily. Specially constructed prison chambers in castles usually
-belong to a period later than the twelfth century. On the origin of the
-word “dungeon” see Chapter <a href="#CHAPTER_III">III</a>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">184</span></a> See the description of the tower at Ardres in Chapter
-<a href="#CHAPTER_III">III</a>. Such upper floors were probably divided into rooms by wooden
-partitions.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">185</span></a> It was thus impossible to reach the roof from the first
-floor without passing through the second-floor chamber—a precaution
-which was adopted also in the cylindrical tower at Conisbrough.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">186</span></a> Here the basement was probably used as a prison. The
-upper part of the original stair still remains.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">187</span></a> There are indications, however, of a second chapel in
-the keep itself, occupying the south-east angle of the third floor.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">188</span></a> The recently excavated chapel of the great tower of Old
-Sarum was a vaulted building occupying the south-eastern part of the
-basement of the tower itself. It was entered directly from the bailey,
-and had no direct communication with the first floor of the tower.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">189</span></a> Such as the so-called oratories in the fore-buildings of
-Dover and Newcastle.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">190</span></a> At Old Sarum, the room in the basement, west of the
-chapel, was probably the kitchen.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">191</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> the employment of one of the angle towers at
-the later castle of Langley in Northumberland as a garde-robe tower.
-Some of the late medieval pele-towers of the north of England,
-<i>e.g.</i>, Chipchase and Corbridge, provide excellent examples of mural
-garde-robes with corbelled-out seats.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">192</span></a> Roger of Wendover, ann. 1215.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">193</span></a> See the description of the fortifications of Antioch in
-Oman, <i>Art of War</i>, pp. 527-9; plan facing p. 283.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">194</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 526-7.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">195</span></a> Enlart, ii. 504.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">196</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ii. 508: it is attributed to Amaury, count of
-Evreux (1105-37): the masonry (<i>ibid.</i>, 461) is of coursed rubble with
-bonding-courses of ashlar.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">197</span></a> See note <a href="#Footnote_161_161"><span class="fnanchor">161</span></a>, p. 119. The keep of Orford is described at
-some length by Harvey, <i>Castles and Walled Towns</i>, pp. 106-111.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">198</span></a> Enlart, ii. 505.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">199</span></a> Possibly there was a trap-door in the centre of each
-floor: see below. All the floors are gone above the entrance stage.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">200</span></a> An embrasure is the splay or inner opening of a window.
-The word is also applied to the openings between the <i>merlons</i> or solid
-pieces of a crenellated parapet.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">201</span></a> See pp. <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">202</span></a> It may also be noted that the practice of placing
-windows immediately above one another would be naturally avoided, as
-tending to weaken the masonry of the whole wall at these points. This
-is well seen in the irregular position of the numerous loops which
-light the vice of the donjon at Coucy.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">203</span></a> Enlart, ii. 735, gives the date of the donjon (Tour
-Guinette) at Etampes as about 1140.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">204</span></a> Enlart, ii. 674, gives the date of completion at
-Issoudun as 1202.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">205</span></a> Or <i>m&acirc;checoulis</i>. <i>Coulis</i> = a groove. The first part
-of the word is probably derived from <i>m&acirc;cher</i> = to break or crush, and
-implies the purpose effected by missiles sent through those openings.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">206</span></a> Drawing in Enlart, ii. 504. Here there are two
-rectangular towers, with rounded angle-turrets, connected by a lofty
-intermediate building.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">207</span></a> The same cause undoubtedly led, at an earlier date, to
-the covering of Syrian churches with roofs of stone.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">208</span></a> Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard was on the French side of the Seine, in
-territory purchased by Richard I. from the archbishop of Rouen.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">209</span></a> E. Lef&egrave;vre-Pontalis, <i>Le Ch&acirc;teau de Coucy</i>, pp. 48,
-49, shows that the donjon forms part of the latest work undertaken by
-Enguerrand III., lord of Coucy, the founder of the present castle, who
-died in 1242: it was evidently completed about 1240.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">210</span></a> The town walls appear to be rather earlier than the
-castle (<i>ibid.</i>, 34).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">211</span></a> On the third floor, these niches are divided into two
-stages and connected by an upper gallery which pierces the abutments of
-the vault, and surrounds the whole apartment. The method of vaulting
-this gallery behind the abutments, so as to give additional resistance
-to the masonry of the tower, is described by Lef&egrave;vre-Pontalis, <i>op.
-cit.</i> 94: see plan <i>ibid.</i>, p. 93.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">212</span></a> In the angle-towers at Coucy, however, the stairs take
-the form of vices, and do not curve with the wall, although ceasing at
-each floor.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">213</span></a> The gabled coping of the parapet formed the central
-support for the sloping roof of the outer gallery and of the
-corresponding <i>coursi&egrave;re</i> on the inner side.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">214</span></a> It stands on a promontory between two creeks at the head
-of the inlet known as the Pembroke river.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">215</span></a> The domestic buildings may be in part earlier, but were
-largely reconstructed in the thirteenth century.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">216</span></a> The tower is sometimes described as being of five
-stages: the dome, however, was merely a vault, and did not form a
-separate stage.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">217</span></a> An account of Flint castle is given by Harvey, <i>Castles
-and Walled Towns</i>, p. 123 <i>seq.</i> Speed’s map of Flintshire, made <i>c.</i>
-1604, shows that the tower was joined to the adjacent curtain by a
-wall, the rampart-walk of which probably gave access to the entrance on
-the first floor of the tower.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">218</span></a> In 1277 the castle of Flint was a timber structure, so
-that the present work cannot be earlier than the end of the thirteenth
-century. The masonry is composed of large blocks of yellow sandstone,
-decayed where they are exposed to the tide. There was an outer bailey,
-the platform of which alone remains, with a ditch between it and the
-castle proper.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">219</span></a> These holes do not, however, surround the tower, so that
-the passage may have been only partially roofed.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">220</span></a> The keep of Launceston was probably built about the
-close of the twelfth century: that at Flint later, as already noted.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">221</span></a> Reproduced in <i>Memorials of Old Yorkshire</i>, 1909,
-opposite p. 256.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">222</span></a> <i>I.e.</i>, retaining walls used to face (<i>rev&ecirc;tir</i>) a
-sloping surface.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">223</span></a> A bartizan is a small turret or lookout corbelled out at
-an angle of a tower or on the surface of a wall. The word is connected
-with “brattice” (<i>bret&egrave;che</i>); and such turrets, like the machicolated
-parapet, are the stone counterpart of the bratticing and hoarding of
-timber applied to fortresses at an earlier date.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">224</span></a> Ventress’s model of the castle, made in 1852, shows the
-great hall near the north-east corner of the outer ward, its west end
-being nearly opposite the main entrance of the castle. The outer ward
-nearly surrounded the small inner ward, which contained the keep.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">225</span></a> At Richmond the hall and its adjacent buildings were
-unusually complete for their date, and the tower-keep was not planned
-as a dwelling-house. None of our tower-keeps, Porchester excepted, are
-so purely military in character.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">226</span></a> The origin of this term is doubtful; some think it to be
-a corruption of “barbican”—a work covering the entrance to the house
-or castle proper. Large outer baileys, as at Ludlow (<a href="#i_096">96</a>) and Coucy,
-correspond to the “barmkins” of the north of England.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">227</span></a> At Arundel, Cardiff, and Warwick, mount-and-bailey
-castles which are still inhabited, the present great halls stand on
-sites which were doubtless occupied by the original halls built by the
-founders. All three were largely rebuilt at a later date, and have been
-further restored in modern times. Warwick was one of the Conqueror’s
-earliest castles; Arundel was founded before 1086, Cardiff about 1093.
-A large portion of the <i>enceinte</i> at Cardiff follows the line of the
-curtain of the Roman station (see <i>Arch&aelig;ologia</i>, lvii. pp. 335-52).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">228</span></a> At Boothby Pagnell there is a cylindrical chimney-shaft
-very similar to that of the hall at Christchurch.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">229</span></a> The usual arrangement even in small cottages: <i>cf.</i>
-Chaucer, <i>Cant. Tales</i>, B. 4022 (the house of the dairy-woman in the
-Nonne Preestes Tale), “Ful sooty was hir bour, and eek hir halle.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">230</span></a> The word “solar” or “soller” (<i>solarium</i> = a terrace
-exposed to the sun) was used indiscriminately of any room, gallery, or
-loft above the ground-level of a building: <i>e.g.</i>, the loft or gallery
-above a chancel-screen was commonly known as a “solar,” and the same
-word should be applied to the chamber, inaccurately called a “parvise,”
-on the first floor of a church porch. The word, however, is sometimes
-applied to a well-lighted parlour facing south, without respect to
-the floor on which it stands, <i>e.g.</i>, the abbot’s solar at Haughmond
-(<i>Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>, lxvi. 307) and at Jervaulx (<i>Yorks. Arch&aelig;ol.
-Journal</i>, xxi. 337).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">231</span></a> Ord. Vit., iv. 19: “Super solarium ... tesseris ludere
-ceperunt.” The word “solarium” may be used, of course, in this passage
-with reference merely to the site of the house—<i>i.e.</i>, it may mean “the
-first floor above the ground.” In this case William and Henry may have
-been playing dice in the hall itself, which, as at Christchurch, may
-have occupied the whole “solarium.” Robert was evidently outside the
-house.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">232</span></a> Bates, <i>Border Holds of Northumberland</i> attributes the
-walling, etc., of Warkworth castle “on its present general lines” to
-Robert, son of Roger (1169-1214), who obtained in 1199, for 300 marks,
-a confirmation of the grant of the castle and manor from John.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">233</span></a> So called in Clarkson’s survey, made in 1567. One
-explanation of the name is that the tower was similar to one in
-Carrickfergus castle, on Belfast Lough. Clarkson describes its
-polygonal form as “round of divers squares.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">234</span></a> This entrance has been blocked, and the modern entrance
-has been cut through a window-opening, in the adjoining bay to the
-west.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">235</span></a> The aisle-walls are low and the whole building is
-covered by a single high-pitched roof, so that there is no clerestory.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">236</span></a> The same feature occurs at the west end of the great
-hall at Auckland, where the da&iuml;s was placed: there are regular responds
-at the east end, but the eastern bay was made somewhat wider than the
-rest, to give room for the screens.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">237</span></a> Bishop Bek (1284-1311) probably heightened the
-aisle-walls and inserted traceried windows. Cosin (1660-72) rebuilt the
-greater part of the outer walls, renewed Bek’s windows, and added the
-present clerestory and roof: the splendid screen, which divides the
-chapel from the ante-chapel, was also part of his work.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">238</span></a> The work of this late period is attributed to Bishop
-Tunstall (1530-59). Cosin at a later date made additions to the chapel.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">239</span></a> At the fortified manor-house of Drayton, some fourteen
-miles south-east of Rockingham, the great hall is a fabric of the later
-half of the thirteenth century, although the date has been obscured by
-later alterations. The vaulted cellar at the east end of the hall (<i>c.</i>
-1270) is almost intact; but the great chamber above was rebuilt about
-the end of the seventeenth century.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">240</span></a> As at Penshurst. The hearth-stone remains at Stokesay.
-At Haddon the great fireplace in the west wall was inserted several
-years after the hall was built.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">241</span></a> At Harlech the kitchen was at right angles to the hall,
-against the south curtain.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">242</span></a> The words “horn-work,” “demilune,” or “ravelin,” were
-applied in later fortification to flanked outworks which presented a
-salient angle to the field, <i>i.e.</i>, on the side of attack. To such
-defences in the middle ages the general name of “barbican” seems to
-have been given.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">243</span></a> The mining operations, so successful at
-Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, were not without their own danger to the miners. In
-the siege of Coucy by the count of Saint-Pol in 1411, the traditional
-method was used to undermine one of the towers of the base-court. A
-party of the besiegers descended to admire the preparations. The wooden
-stays, however, were not strong enough to support the weight of the
-tower, which fell unexpectedly, and buried the men in the mine. Their
-remains have never come to light.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_244_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_244"><span class="label">244</span></a> These are additions to the wall, probably made soon
-after the building of the great cylindrical tower. The wall seems to be
-of the earlier part of the twelfth century, and may have enclosed the
-bailey from the first. No traces of a mount remain.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_245_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_245"><span class="label">245</span></a> The position of Appleby town and castle, within a great
-sweep of the Eden, is somewhat similar.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_246_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_246"><span class="label">246</span></a> Apartments, known as the Constable’s lodging, were on
-the first floor of the gatehouse: the portcullis probably descended
-through the thickness of the south wall of this floor, which was not
-pierced for a window.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_247_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_247"><span class="label">247</span></a> The common idea that molten lead was poured through
-these holes on the besiegers is a mere legend. This valuable material
-would hardly have been employed for this purpose. Powdered quick-lime,
-however, may have been used, with even more deadly effect.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_248_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_248"><span class="label">248</span></a> This applies, of course, to almost all vaulted towers
-which are cylindrical in plan, and not to gatehouse towers alone:
-<i>e.g.</i>, the towers of the inner ward of Coucy. But, even where there
-is no vaulting, the interior plan of cylindrical towers is sometimes
-polygonal—<i>e.g.</i>, in the western angle-towers at Harlech, on all floors
-as well as in the basement. In the eastern angle-towers of the same
-castle, the interior of the basements is cylindrical. Clark, ii. 73,
-describes these angle-towers inaccurately.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_249_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_249"><span class="label">249</span></a> The entrances to such guard-rooms, where great thickness
-was given to the outer wall, took the form of narrow elbow-shaped
-lobbies, which would be a source of difficulty and deception to an
-attacking force.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_250_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_250"><span class="label">250</span></a> The Black gate was built in 1247: the entrance was
-protected by an outer barbican in 1358.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_251_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_251"><span class="label">251</span></a> Holes in the masonry for the beam to which the pulley
-was fixed may be seen, <i>e.g.</i>, in the gateways at Conway and Rhuddlan.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_252_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_252"><span class="label">252</span></a> At Sandal (<a href="#i_086">86</a>) there was a barbican guarding the
-entrance to a shell-keep.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_253_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_253"><span class="label">253</span></a> Conisbrough is virtually a castle of one ward set on an
-isolated hill, not unlike Restormel in Cornwall.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_254_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_254"><span class="label">254</span></a> The entrance may be compared to the more perfect plan of
-the barbican and platform at Conway (<a href="#i_254">254</a>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_255_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_255"><span class="label">255</span></a> The wall of <i>enceinte</i> at Scarborough is probably in
-great part the wall which defended the castle from its foundation.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_256_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_256"><span class="label">256</span></a> They appear to have been a feature of the keep at
-Pontefract; <i>cf.</i> also Micklegate, Monk, and Bootham bars at York,
-which have bartizans at the outer angles. At Lincoln the wall of the
-upper floor of the gatehouse, between the bartizans, presents an obtuse
-angle to the field.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_257_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_257"><span class="label">257</span></a> The main gatehouse (Belle-Chaise) was built under abbot
-Tustin (1236-64); the <i>ch&acirc;telet</i> was added under Pierre Le Roy in 1393.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_258_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_258"><span class="label">258</span></a> The fortifications of Coucy were built in the thirteenth
-century: the round tower in front of the Porte de Laon was superseded
-in 1551 by a bastion of pentagonal form. The southern gate of Coucy
-(Porte de Soissons) was made in a re-entering angle of the town wall:
-the southern gate at Conway (Porth-y-Felin) shows the same disposition.
-The walls of Tenby were originally built early in the reign of Edward
-III.: letters patent, granting murage for seven years to the men of
-Tenby for the construction of their walls, were issued 6th March
-1327-28 (Pat. 2 Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 22).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_259_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_259"><span class="label">259</span></a> Plan in Oman, <i>Art of War</i>, opposite p. 530.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_260_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_260"><span class="label">260</span></a> The northern rampart-walk at Coucy was widened by the
-building of an arcade of thirteen pointed arches against the inner face
-of the wall, connecting a series of internal buttresses. Part of the
-western wall of the town of Southampton was widened, some time later
-than the actual building of the wall, by the addition of eighteen
-arches upon the outer face (<a href="#i_293">293</a>). The soffits of the arches were
-pierced by long machicolations—a necessary precaution in so exceptional
-an arrangement.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_261_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_261"><span class="label">261</span></a> In the battlement of the donjon of Coucy, each piece of
-solid wall between the arched embrasures is pierced by an arrow-loop
-(<a href="#i_177">177</a>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_262_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_262"><span class="label">262</span></a> Viollet-le-Duc, <i>La Cit&eacute; de Carcassonne</i>, p. 27, has a
-drawing of a similar device with an upper and lower shutter (<a href="#i_245">245</a>): the
-upper shutter is propped open by iron guards: while the lower is hung
-in iron hooks fixed in the face of the wall.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_263_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_263"><span class="label">263</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> sections of church parapets in Bond, <i>Gothic
-Architecture in England</i>, pp. 385-8.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_264_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_264"><span class="label">264</span></a> At Kenilworth the Water tower, on the south curtain of
-the base-court, has a fireplace in the basement.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_265_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_265"><span class="label">265</span></a> Garde-robes built upon arches across re-entering angles
-of a wall occur on each side of a large buttress in the west wall of
-Southampton. A similar feature occurs at the junction of the north
-curtain of Porchester castle with one of the Roman towers. In both
-cases the addition was probably made in the fourteenth century.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_266_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_266"><span class="label">266</span></a> These towers appear to be of the fourteenth century, and
-are therefore much later in date than the towers of the inner curtain.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_267_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_267"><span class="label">267</span></a> At Flint, Rhuddlan, and several other castles, the
-angle-towers were three-quarter circles, the face towards the
-bailey being a flat wall, on which, at Rhuddlan as at Harlech, the
-rampart-walk was corbelled out.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_268_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_268"><span class="label">268</span></a> These walls, pierced by seven gates and flanked by
-thirty-nine rectangular towers, were begun under Pope Clement VI.
-in 1345, and finished <i>c.</i> 1380. The rampart is reached by stairs
-set against the inner face of the walls. The walls of Aigues-Mortes,
-built 1272-5, and of Carcassonne, begun earlier and completed later
-than Aigues-Mortes, belong to an earlier period of fortification,
-corresponding to that of our Edwardian castles. Of other well-known
-French examples, the walls of Mont-Saint-Michel are of various dates
-from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century: those of Domfront are
-partly of the thirteenth, those of Foug&egrave;res (<a href="#i_250">250</a>) of the fifteenth
-century, and those of Saint-Malo chiefly of the fifteenth and sixteenth
-centuries. The thirteenth-century <i>enceinte</i> of Coucy has already
-been referred to. A list of the numerous remains of town walls in
-France will be found in Enlart, ii. 623 <i>seq.</i>, under the name of each
-department.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_269_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269_269"><span class="label">269</span></a> Clark, i. 460, 312, 314.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_270_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270_270"><span class="label">270</span></a> The cross-wall at Carnarvon is gone.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_271_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271_271"><span class="label">271</span></a> The polygonal towers which flank the great gatehouse at
-Denbigh had the same characteristic of obtuse angles, as can be still
-seen where the masonry has not been stripped from the rubble core.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_272_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272_272"><span class="label">272</span></a> The threshold of the gateway was from 35 to 40 feet
-above the bottom of the ditch.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_273_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273_273"><span class="label">273</span></a> The eastern gateway was defended in the same way.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_274_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274_274"><span class="label">274</span></a> Le Krak (Kala’at-el-Hosn) was rebuilt in 1202, and held
-by the Franks till 1271 (Enlart, ii. 536). It was a frontier fortress
-of the county of Tripoli in Syria, commanding the mountain country to
-the east, and must be distinguished from the great castle of Kerak in
-Moab, near the Dead sea, built about 1140, and surrendered in 1188,
-“the eastern bulwark of the kingdom of Jerusalem” (Oman, <i>Art of War</i>,
-541). The entrance to the castle of Kerak has been described above, pp.
-240, 241.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_275_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275_275"><span class="label">275</span></a> One feature of the defences of Berkhampstead is the
-series of earthen bastions, applied to the outer bank on the north side
-of the castle, probably at a date long after the foundation of the
-stronghold.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_276_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276_276"><span class="label">276</span></a> The breadth of the “lists” or intermediate defence
-of the town-walls at Carcassonne varies. On the steep western and
-south-western sides they are very narrow, and in one place are covered
-by the rectangular Bishop’s tower. The ground-floor of this was a
-gateway, which could be used to shut off one part of the lists from
-each other. Of the castle and its defences more will be said later.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_277_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277_277"><span class="label">277</span></a> At Newcastle the plan was nearly concentric; but the
-curtains of the outer and inner ward met at one point, and the outer
-ward was a large space, containing the domestic buildings, while
-the inner was nearly filled by the keep. The concentric scheme was
-therefore almost accidental, and no simultaneous use of both lines of
-defence was possible.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_278_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278_278"><span class="label">278</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> the outer ditch constructed to cover the barbican
-at Alnwick, where there was possibly a further outwork next the town.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_279_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279_279"><span class="label">279</span></a> All these gatehouses, like the gatehouse at Rockingham
-and others of the same period, have a central passage, flanked by round
-towers towards the field. Traitors’ gate, however, has an entrance of
-great breadth, wide enough to admit a boat from the river; and the
-interior is an oblong pool, without flanking guard-rooms. The round
-towers cap the outer angles, but are of relatively small importance in
-the plan. The interior pool is actually part of the ditch between the
-outer ward and the Thames, and the gateway is “a barbican ... placed
-astride upon the ditch” (Clark, ii. 242).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_280_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280_280"><span class="label">280</span></a> These angle-towers appear to belong in great part to the
-end of the twelfth century: the Beauchamp tower is generally attributed
-to the reign of Edward III.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_281_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281_281"><span class="label">281</span></a> These and the adjacent curtain are largely of the
-twelfth century: the Bloody tower was added in the fourteenth century.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_282_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282_282"><span class="label">282</span></a> Thus protecting the quay outside Traitors’ gate. <i>Cf.</i>
-the spur-wall at Beaumaris.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_283_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283_283"><span class="label">283</span></a> The thirteenth-century work in the great hall (<a href="#i_103">103</a>) of
-Chepstow castle is unusually elaborate for military work of the period:
-nowhere in English castles have we such splendour and beauty of detail
-as that of which there remain many indications at Coucy.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_284_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284_284"><span class="label">284</span></a> It was begun about 1267 by Gilbert de Clare, eighth earl
-of Gloucester and seventh earl of Hertford (d. 1295).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_285_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285_285"><span class="label">285</span></a> The inner ward at Kenilworth lay at all points within an
-outer line of defence. The outer ward, narrow on the south and west,
-was very broad on the east and north, and its western half was cut up
-into sections by cross-walls: it was also crossed by a ditch in front
-of the inner ward. The lake did not surround the castle, and on the
-north its outer defence was a very deep dry ditch.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_286_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286_286"><span class="label">286</span></a> The partisans of the Despensers held Caerphilly against
-Queen Isabel in 1326: its defenders were granted a general pardon, from
-which Hugh, son of Hugh le Despenser the younger, was excepted, 15th
-February 1326-7 (Pat. 1 Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 29). One of the defenders,
-John Cole, received a special pardon on 20th February (<i>ibid.</i>, m. 32).
-There is no record of a definite siege.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_287_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287_287"><span class="label">287</span></a> The earthwork or redoubt on the north-west side of
-the castle is probably of this period: no definite details of the
-destruction of the castle are preserved.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_288_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288_288"><span class="label">288</span></a> The inner buildings at Rhuddlan have entirely
-disappeared: traces of one or two fireplaces are left in the curtain.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_289_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289_289"><span class="label">289</span></a> At Rhuddlan a passage, protected by an outer wall ending
-in a square tower, descended the river-bank to the water-gate.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_290_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290_290"><span class="label">290</span></a> Clark (i. 217) places the date of foundation about 1295.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_291_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291_291"><span class="label">291</span></a> The outer drum towers are large and imposing, though
-low: the inner angles are capped by smaller towers, which bear much the
-same relation to the gatehouses as the outer round towers to Traitors’
-gate in the Tower of London.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_292_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292_292"><span class="label">292</span></a> Of these towers, that on the west has an outer salient
-or spur, on the sides of which two bartizans are corbelled out: these
-are united into one, so that the outer face of the upper stage of the
-tower is rounded into a semicircle. The eastern tower is smaller, with
-a solid base: the western part of the upper portion is corbelled off
-in the angle between the tower and a rectangular southern projection.
-The upper stages of the towers completely command the approach, while
-the projection just mentioned would conceal a small body of defenders
-posted between the gateway and the spur-wall (<a href="#i_236">236</a>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_293_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293_293"><span class="label">293</span></a> This was not founded by the Crown, like the great
-castles of North Wales, but, like Caerphilly, was a private foundation.
-It passed by marriage, early in the fourteenth century, into the
-possession of the house of Lancaster. Some of the most important
-English castles—<i>e.g.</i>, Kenilworth, Knaresborough, Lancaster, Lincoln,
-Pontefract, and Pickering—came at various times into the possession of
-this royal house, and, at the accession of Henry IV., became castles of
-the Crown as seized of the duchy of Lancaster.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_294_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294_294"><span class="label">294</span></a> The stair to the rampart-walk, built against the
-curtain, was, however, normal in the defences of towns (<a href="#i_241">241</a>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_295_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295_295"><span class="label">295</span></a> It may be compared with the division of the outer face
-of the polygonal tower at Stokesay into two smaller half-octagons
-(<a href="#i_306">306</a>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_296_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296_296"><span class="label">296</span></a> Viollet-le-Duc’s drawing (<i>La Cit&eacute; de Carcassonne</i>,
-p.75) shows a rampart-walk on each of the enclosing walls of this
-passage. He also shows the passage crossed by a series of looped
-barriers, so placed that each formed a separate line of defence,
-guarded by a few soldiers, and compelled an enemy to pursue a zigzag
-course through the passage. Much allusion has been already made to
-oblique and elbow-shaped contrivances for impeding an enemy’s progress:
-the antiquity of these is evident from the entrances to earthworks like
-Maiden Castle (see Chapter <a href="#CHAPTER_I">I</a>.).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_297_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297_297"><span class="label">297</span></a> Description and plan in Blancheti&egrave;re, <i>Le Donjon ... de
-Domfront</i>, pp. 59-63. The date there given is actually earlier than the
-probable epoch of construction.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_298_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298_298"><span class="label">298</span></a> The progress of fire-arms in English warfare was slow.
-See the various articles by R. Coltman Clephan, F.S.A., in <i>Arch&aelig;ol.
-Journal</i>, lxvi., lxvii., and lxviii. The earliest picture of a cannon
-is in a MS. at Christ Church, Oxford, written in 1326 (lxviii. 49),
-while the earliest mention of a hand-gun in England appears to be in
-1338 (lxvi. 153-4). The long-bow continued to be the popular weapon of
-the individual English soldier until long after this date.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_299_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299_299"><span class="label">299</span></a> The ramparts of Saint-Paul-du-Var (Alpes Maritimes) are
-said to belong to the epoch of the wars between Francis I. and Charles
-V. To the same period belong the fortifications of Lucca, Verona,
-and Antwerp. The present walls of Berwick were begun somewhat later,
-in 1558, enclosing a space considerably smaller than the original
-<i>enceinte</i> of the town, as fortified by Edward I.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_300_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300_300"><span class="label">300</span></a> Holes with embrasures for cannon were in many cases
-pierced in the walls of fortresses during the fifteenth century, or
-were formed, as in the eastern tower at Warkworth, by blocking the
-ordinary cross-loops through most of their height.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_301_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301_301"><span class="label">301</span></a> This is very clearly seen in the fortified towns of
-Italy, or in the towns founded by Edward I. and by the kings of France
-in the southern districts of France.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_302_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302_302"><span class="label">302</span></a> <i>Pomerium</i> = the space <i>pone muros</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, at the back
-of the walls. The word was at first applied to the sacred boundary of
-Rome and other towns, which limited the <i>auspicia</i> of the city.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_303_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303_303"><span class="label">303</span></a> The re-erection of the rectangular wall-turrets at
-Newcastle, which are of very slight projection from the wall, appears
-to date from 1386: a writ of aid was granted to the mayor and bailiffs
-on 29th November in that year for the repair of the walls and bridge of
-the town (Pat. 10 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 8).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_304_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304_304"><span class="label">304</span></a> <i>I.e.</i>, the lower gate. The north-western gateway is the
-upper gate, Porth Uchaf.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_305_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305_305"><span class="label">305</span></a> Every monastery was, of course, surrounded by a wall;
-but it was only in certain cases and after a certain period that such
-walls were crenellated.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_306_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306_306"><span class="label">306</span></a> Pat. 4 Edw. I., m. 12.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_307_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307_307"><span class="label">307</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 13 Edw. I., m. 22.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_308_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308_308"><span class="label">308</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_309_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_309"><span class="label">309</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, m. 15.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">310</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 14 Edw. I., m. 24.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_311_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_311"><span class="label">311</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, m. 19 (sched.).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_312_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312_312"><span class="label">312</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 24 Edw. I., m. 8.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_313_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313_313"><span class="label">313</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 27 Edw. I., m. 29.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_314_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314_314"><span class="label">314</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 2 Edw. II., pt. 2, m. 25. The abbot and convent
-of St Mary’s, York, had licence to crenellate their wall, except on the
-side towards the city, 12th July 1318 (<i>Ibid.</i>, 12 Edw. II., pt. I, m.
-31).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_315_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315_315"><span class="label">315</span></a> September 1315 (Pat. 9 Edw. II., pt. 1, m. 18), and 24th
-February 1315-6 (<i>Ibid.</i>, pt. 2, m. 31).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_316_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316_316"><span class="label">316</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 12 Edw. II., pt. 1, m. 7. No licence for
-crenellation had previously been given. The licences, here and
-elsewhere, explain that homicide and other crimes in the close by night
-made walling desirable. The gates were to be closed from twilight to
-sunrise.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_317_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317_317"><span class="label">317</span></a> Burghersh also had licence to crenellate his
-manor-houses of Stow Park and Nettleham in Lincolnshire and Liddington
-in Rutland, 16th November 1336 (Pat. 10 Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 18). A
-comprehensive licence was granted, 20th July 1377 (<i>Ibid.</i>, 1 Rich.
-II., pt. 1, m. 26) to Ralph Erghum, bishop of Salisbury, to wall and
-crenellate the city of Salisbury and his manor-houses at Salisbury,
-Bishop’s Woodford, Potterne, Bishops Cannings, and Ramsbury in Wilts,
-Sherborne in Dorset, Chardstock in Devon, Sonning in Berks, and his
-house in Fleet Street.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_318_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318_318"><span class="label">318</span></a> There were four of these double gatehouses in the
-<i>enceinte</i>. The fifth gatehouse, Pottergate, was single.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_319_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319_319"><span class="label">319</span></a> Bishop Wyvill had a grant, 1st March 1331-2, of the
-stones of the cathedral of Old Sarum and the old residential houses,
-for the repair of the cathedral and enclosure of the precinct (Pat. 5
-Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 27).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_320_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320_320"><span class="label">320</span></a> Licence to crenellate Whalley, “the church and close,”
-was granted 10th July 1348 (Pat. 22 Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 20).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_321_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321_321"><span class="label">321</span></a> Pat. 6 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 22: a further licence to
-crenellate the abbey precinct bears date 1389, 6th May (Pat. 12 Rich.
-II., pt. 2, m. 13).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_322_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322_322"><span class="label">322</span></a> Pat. 3 Rich. II., pt. 2, m. 10.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_323_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323_323"><span class="label">323</span></a> The beautiful rectangular gatehouse of Battle abbey is
-earlier than Thornton. Licence to crenellate was granted 9th June 1339
-(Pat. 12 Edw. III., pt. 2, m. 28).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_324_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324_324"><span class="label">324</span></a> One of these towers remains: the other, with the
-adjacent curtain, is gone.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_325_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325_325"><span class="label">325</span></a> Pat. 19 Edw. I., m. 2.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_326_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_326"><span class="label">326</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 2 Edw. II., pt. 2, m. 19.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_327_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_327"><span class="label">327</span></a> Pat. 3 Edw. II., m. 18.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_328_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328_328"><span class="label">328</span></a> 28th August 1315 (Pat. 9 Edw. II., pt. 1, m. 25).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_329_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329_329"><span class="label">329</span></a> See a commission to Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, to
-survey and repair defects in Dover castle, 22nd May 1425 (Pat. 3 Hen.
-VI., pt. 2, m. 17).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_330_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330_330"><span class="label">330</span></a> It will be remembered that the gatehouse of the
-quasi-concentric castle of Kidwelly, only a few miles distant from
-Llanstephan, is also situated upon the outer line of defence.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_331_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331_331"><span class="label">331</span></a> Bishop Bek enfeoffed Henry Percy of the manor and town,
-19th November 1309 (Pat. 3 Edw. II., m. 23).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_332_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332_332"><span class="label">332</span></a> It has been already pointed out that this older house
-may have simply taken the form of a series of buildings against the
-encircling wall of a large shell-keep.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_333_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333_333"><span class="label">333</span></a> John, Lord Neville, obtained licence from Bishop
-Hatfield of Durham to crenellate Raby in 1378 (O. S. Scott, <i>Raby, its
-Castle and its Lords</i>, 1906, P-47).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_334_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334_334"><span class="label">334</span></a> At Middleham, where the plan of the fore-building is
-rather exceptional, there was a passage through the eastern part of
-the ground-floor of the forebuilding: this, however, was not the only
-way from the northern to the southern half of the castle. The first
-floor of the tower at Knaresborough, which formed a great guard-room,
-is in a very ruinous state; but there are clear indications of the main
-entrance near the north-east angle, and the inner entrance in the south
-wall, at right angles to the outer, still remains. There is also a vice
-in the south wall, by which the inner ward could be reached when the
-gates were closed. This tower, of course, never contained the domestic
-buildings of the castle; but the kitchen was in the basement, to which
-there were three doors of entry from the inner ward. The approach to
-each gateway from outside seems to have been a rising causeway built on
-arches.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_335_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335_335"><span class="label">335</span></a> The tower of Belsay measures 51&frac12; by 47&frac12; feet. The
-tower of Knaresborough, which is of the same period, measures 62 by 54
-feet; while that of Gilling measures 79&frac12; by 72&frac12; feet.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_336_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336_336"><span class="label">336</span></a> This is said to have been the medieval vicarage of the
-church, which was appropriated to the cathedral priory of Carlisle. A
-pele-tower forms part of the rectories of Elsdon and Rothbury and of
-the vicarage of Embleton, Northumberland.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_337_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337_337"><span class="label">337</span></a> The term “pele-yard” is applied to the base-court of the
-castle of Prudhoe in Pat. 1 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 1; where there is a
-licence to Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus, to apply a rent to the
-augmentation of a chaplain’s stipend in the “chantry of St Mary in le
-Peleyerde of Prodhowe.”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_338_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338_338"><span class="label">338</span></a> Enlart (ii. 623-753) quotes 242 examples of French
-churches which show remains of fortification. Most of the midland
-and southern departments of France contain a few; but the thickest
-clusters occur near the northern frontier (15 in the Aisne, 10 in the
-Ardennes department), and on the coast of Languedoc and Roussillon,
-where inroads of pirates were common (Pyr&eacute;n&eacute;es-Orientales 22; H&eacute;rault,
-12). Among the larger fortified churches were the cathedrals of Agde,
-B&eacute;ziers, Lod&egrave;ve, and Saint-Pons (H&eacute;rault), Elne (Pyr&eacute;n&eacute;es-Orientales),
-Pamiers (Ari&egrave;ge), Viviers (Ard&egrave;che), and Saint-Claude (Jura),
-and the abbey churches of Saint-Denis (Seine), Saint-Victor at
-Marseilles (Bouches-du-Rh&ocirc;ne), La Chaise-Dieu (Haute-Loire), Moissac
-(Tarn-et-Garonne), and Tournus (Sa&ocirc;ne-et-Loire). The example of Ewenny
-was followed in one or two churches of the same district, such as
-Newton Nottage, and in the peninsula of Gower.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_339_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339_339"><span class="label">339</span></a> At Llanfihangel-cwm-Du, near Crickhowell, there was a
-fireplace upon the first floor of the tower until recently: the vent
-for the smoke remains in one of the corner turrets of the tower.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_340_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340_340"><span class="label">340</span></a> The constant pressure of Scottish invasion upon
-the northern border is illustrated by the persistence of military
-architecture in the counties of Northumberland and Cumberland. Thus,
-as late as 1399, William Strickland undertook the building of Penrith
-castle “for fortifying that town and the whole adjacent country” (Pat.
-22 Rich. II., pt. 2, m. 16; <i>cf.</i> pt. 3, m. 37).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_341_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341_341"><span class="label">341</span></a> Bishop Burnell was building this house in 1284. He left
-the king at Conway on 25th July, to look after the progress of the
-works (Pat. 12 Edw. I., m. 7).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_342_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342_342"><span class="label">342</span></a> 4th July (Pat. 3 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 43). A contract is
-still preserved, of 14th September 1378.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_343_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_343_343"><span class="label">343</span></a> 26th April (Pat. 5 Rich. II., pt. 2, m. 21).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_344_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_344_344"><span class="label">344</span></a> The builder of Raby, John, Lord Neville (d. 1388), was
-also responsible for the fortification of Sheriff Hutton.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_345_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_345_345"><span class="label">345</span></a> This date is given in the 43rd Report of the
-Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records, p. 71. The licence, as the castle
-was within the palatinate, was granted by Bishop Skirlaw.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_346_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_346_346"><span class="label">346</span></a> The licence to Thomas de Heton to “make a castle or
-fortalice” of Chillingham bears date 27th January 1343-4 (Pat. 18
-Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 46). Some of the masonry in the angle-towers is,
-however, of a much earlier date than this.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_347_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_347_347"><span class="label">347</span></a> The mount remains at the west end of the enclosure, but
-the shell-keep on its summit has been removed.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_348_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_348_348"><span class="label">348</span></a> The gatehouse and barbican in the east curtain, as well
-as the older portion of the dwelling-house, were the work of Thomas
-Beauchamp, earl of Warwick (d. 1369): C&aelig;sar’s tower and Guy’s tower
-were the work of his son Thomas, who died in 1401.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_349_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_349_349"><span class="label">349</span></a> This-is the usual date given for the tower, which is
-entered from the first floor of the great donjon, and from the lower
-floor of the “lesser donjon” attached to one side of the keep. E.
-Lef&egrave;vre-Pontalis, <i>Le Ch&acirc;teau de Coucy</i>, p. 82, departs from the usual
-date to assign the tower to Philip Augustus, two centuries earlier.
-The details certainly appear to be of a period much earlier than the
-fifteenth century.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_350_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_350_350"><span class="label">350</span></a> The turrets attached to some of the towers at Conway and
-Harlech are at the side, not in the centre. Such raised turrets were
-useful as look-out posts, and a watcher posted upon them could inform
-the defenders on the rampart-walk below of movements which they might
-not be able to follow for themselves.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_351_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_351_351"><span class="label">351</span></a> Pat. 9 Rich. II., pt. 1, m. 22.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_352_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_352_352"><span class="label">352</span></a> Pat. 9 Rich. II., pt. 2, m. 24.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_353_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_353_353"><span class="label">353</span></a> An interesting gatehouse, belonging to the later years
-of Edward I., is that of Denbigh, which was probably built by Henry de
-Lacy, the last earl of Lincoln (d. 1310). Here a noble archway, flanked
-by two octagonal towers, gives access through a passage to an octagonal
-central hall, beyond which is a smaller octagonal guard-room. The inner
-gateway to the enclosure is set in a side of the octagon, obliquely to
-the outer entrance. The plan is apparently unique. The upper portion of
-the gatehouse is badly ruined, and the walls have been much stripped;
-but there is a statue, probably of the founder, left above the entrance
-archway, which is set in a niche and panel treated with a considerable
-amount of ornamental detail.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_354_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_354_354"><span class="label">354</span></a> The barrel-vault of a basement chamber in one of the
-curtain-towers retains the marks of the wattled centering on which it
-was built. This is persistently asserted to be a mark of Roman origin.
-As a matter of fact, no part of the present castle can be proved to be
-earlier than the beginning of the twelfth century, when Roger of Poitou
-may have moved the head of his honour here from Penwortham, south of
-the Ribble. The castle, however, lies partly within, and partly outside
-the limits of a Roman military station.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_355_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_355_355"><span class="label">355</span></a> This is the date proposed by Bates, <i>Border Holds</i>: C.
-H. Hartshorne (<i>Arch&aelig;ol. Inst.</i>, Newcastle, vol. ii.) proposed a later
-date, <i>c.</i> 1435-40. Mr Bates’ date is more likely than the other: for
-neither is there any direct evidence.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_356_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_356_356"><span class="label">356</span></a> New works were begun at Porchester in 1386, when Robert
-Bardolf, the constable, was appointed to impress masons, carpenters,
-etc., and to take materials at the king’s expense (Pat. 8 Rich. II.,
-pt. 2, m. 23). This probably applies to the building of the barbican,
-but the hall may also have been remodelled at this period. There are
-considerable remains of twelfth-century work in the substructure of the
-hall, as already noted.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_357_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_357_357"><span class="label">357</span></a> The stone gatehouse of the Norman castle appears to be
-incorporated in the fourteenth-century work, the outer archway, which
-was covered by a barbican, being merely a facing added to earlier work.
-The inner walls of the gatehouse were also lengthened, as part of the
-fourteenth-century enlargement.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_358_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_358_358"><span class="label">358</span></a> John of Gaunt was duke of Lancaster 1362-99. The
-gatehouse of Lancaster castle, known as John of Gaunt’s gateway, was
-not built until after his death. See p. <a href="#Page_327">327</a>.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_359_359"></a><a href="#FNanchor_359_359"><span class="label">359</span></a> This hall was probably built late in the thirteenth or
-early in the fourteenth century.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_360_360"></a><a href="#FNanchor_360_360"><span class="label">360</span></a> Charles also seems to have rebuilt the chapel on the
-south side of the enclosure.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_361_361"></a><a href="#FNanchor_361_361"><span class="label">361</span></a> See the drawing by Androuet du Cerceau and plans in W.
-H. Ward, <i>French Ch&acirc;teaux and Gardens in the XVIth Century</i>, Plates
-III., IV., and p. 11.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_362_362"></a><a href="#FNanchor_362_362"><span class="label">362</span></a> See p. <a href="#Page_285">285</a> above.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_363_363"></a><a href="#FNanchor_363_363"><span class="label">363</span></a> The three principal features of the strong tower at
-Stokesay are (1) its isolation from the range of buildings adjoining
-it, its only entrances being from the outside, in the basement and on
-the first floor; (2) the division of its face towards the field into
-two small half-octagons; (3) the stairs carried from floor to floor in
-the thickness of the wall. The stair from the basement to the first
-and second floors crosses the entrance-lobby on the first floor; but,
-in order to reach the roof, the second-floor chamber has to be passed
-through, and a new stair entered in the embrasure of a window. This was
-planned partly, as at Richmond and Conisbrough, to give the defenders
-complete control of the stair, and partly to keep the stair within the
-wall of the tower which was least open to attack, and could therefore
-be lightened most safely.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_364_364"></a><a href="#FNanchor_364_364"><span class="label">364</span></a> This was done towards the end of the twelfth century.
-The licence stated that the wall was to be without crenellations (<i>sine
-kernello</i>).</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_365_365"></a><a href="#FNanchor_365_365"><span class="label">365</span></a> The hall may be a little earlier than the fourteenth
-century: the windows seem to indicate the period 1290-1310. The great
-chimney and the heavy battlement were added when the porch to the hall
-was built.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_366_366"></a><a href="#FNanchor_366_366"><span class="label">366</span></a> Such a position for a medieval stronghold was not
-unusual. Thus Richmond castle is commanded by much higher hills on the
-north and south-west. In medieval warfare, however, before fire-arms
-had received any full development, an enemy would have gained little
-advantage by occupying a commanding position at some distance from
-the place attacked. In 1644, the Parliamentary force which besieged
-Wingfield attempted to breach the walls from Pentrich common, on
-slightly higher ground to the south-east. This was found impossible,
-and the cannon had to be moved to a wood on the west side of the manor
-before any damage was done.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_367_367"></a><a href="#FNanchor_367_367"><span class="label">367</span></a> The additions at this end were possibly the work of John
-Talbot, second earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1460), to whom Cromwell sold the
-manor shortly before his death. The earl certainly did some building at
-Wingfield: see the short, but carefully compiled <i>Guide to Wingfield
-Manor</i>, by W. H. Edmunds, p. 11.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_368_368"></a><a href="#FNanchor_368_368"><span class="label">368</span></a> This can clearly be seen from the small open courtyard
-on the north-west side of the great chamber block. The kitchen block
-is there seen to have been built up against the west wall of the great
-chamber and its lower stage, without any bonding.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_369_369"></a><a href="#FNanchor_369_369"><span class="label">369</span></a> At Conway, Porchester, etc., however, the large hall
-was probably intended for the use of the garrison. The great hall at
-Wingfield was essentially the hall of a dwelling-house, in which the
-inner court is kept quite separate from the base-court, where possibly
-a common hall was provided for the men-at-arms who might be lodged
-there.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_370_370"></a><a href="#FNanchor_370_370"><span class="label">370</span></a> This tower, like that at Stokesay, can be entered only
-by an outer door. This is at the foot of a turret containing a broad
-vice. The doorway had no portcullis, but was commanded by a slit in the
-wall from the stair, which ascends on the left of the entrance lobby.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_371_371"></a><a href="#FNanchor_371_371"><span class="label">371</span></a> The gateways of the outer and inner courtyards each had
-double doors. There was no provision for portcullises. Each gateway has
-a small postern entrance on one side of the main archway. This would be
-used after the great doors had been closed for the night.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_372_372"></a><a href="#FNanchor_372_372"><span class="label">372</span></a> These have recently been removed, to the great detriment
-of this noble tower.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_373_373"></a><a href="#FNanchor_373_373"><span class="label">373</span></a> The high tower at Wingfield is not machicolated, and
-affords a curious contrast in this respect to Tattershall.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_374_374"></a><a href="#FNanchor_374_374"><span class="label">374</span></a> The late thirteenth-century hall at Little Wenham, near
-Hadleigh, is an early example of a brick house in this district.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_375_375"></a><a href="#FNanchor_375_375"><span class="label">375</span></a> Other Lincolnshire examples of brick-work are the
-gatehouse of Thornton abbey (1382), already described, and the early
-sixteenth-century manor-house on the Trent above Gainsborough, known as
-Torksey castle.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_376_376"></a><a href="#FNanchor_376_376"><span class="label">376</span></a> The ditch at Hurstmonceaux is now dry. That at
-Compton Wyniates has been partly filled up. The moat of Kentwell, an
-Elizabethan house, is still perfect.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_377_377"></a><a href="#FNanchor_377_377"><span class="label">377</span></a> The upper stories of these towers only are semicircular.
-The two lower stages are half octagons. The towers have circular upper
-turrets like those at Warwick.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_378_378"></a><a href="#FNanchor_378_378"><span class="label">378</span></a> The castle of Amberley was built about 1379 by Bishop
-Rede of Chichester, and is therefore nearly contemporary with Bodiam.
-It is rectangular in shape, with lofty curtains, and has a gatehouse
-flanked by round towers.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_379_379"></a><a href="#FNanchor_379_379"><span class="label">379</span></a> <i>Lett. and Pap. Hen. VIII.</i>, vol. IV., nos. 2,655,
-2,656.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_380_380"></a><a href="#FNanchor_380_380"><span class="label">380</span></a> <i>Lett. and Pap. Hen. VIII.</i>, vol. IV., no. 1,089.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_381_381"></a><a href="#FNanchor_381_381"><span class="label">381</span></a> Calendared <i>ibid.</i>, vol. III., no. 1,186.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_382_382"></a><a href="#FNanchor_382_382"><span class="label">382</span></a> Pat. 19 Edw. III., pt. 1, m. 25.</p></div>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<h2 id="INDEX_OF_PERSONS">INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES</h2></div>
-
-<p><i>N.B.—Illustrations are denoted by numbers followed by the name of the
-photographer, draughtsman, or source from which the picture is derived.</i></p>
-
-<p class="center">A</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">Acton Burnell (Salop), castle, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Adrianople, siege of, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li id="AEthelflaed" class="indx">
-&AElig;thelflaed, lady of the Mercians, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
-<li id="AEthelwulf" class="indx">
-&AElig;thelwulf, king of Wessex, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Agde (H&eacute;rault), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Aigues-Mortes (Gard), <a href="#i_077">77</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Aire river, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Aisne department, fortified churches in, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li id="Alan" class="indx">
-Alan of Brittany, earl of Richmond, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Albi (Tarn), fortified cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Alen&ccedil;on (Orne), castle, <a href="#i_289">289</a>, A. Thompson</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Alen&ccedil;onnais, the, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Alesia [Alise (C&ocirc;te-d’Or)], siege of, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-<li id="Alexander" class="indx">
-Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-<li id="Alfred" class="indx">
-Alfred the Great, king, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Alne river, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Alnwick (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#i_115">115</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#i_243">243</a>, J. P. Gibson;
-<a href="#i_310">310</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li>
-<li id="Amaury" class="indx">
-Amaury, count of Evreux, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Amberley (Sussex), castle, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Amboglanna (Cumberland), <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Amboise (Indre-et-Loire), castle, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Amiens (Somme), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ancaster (Lincoln), <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Anderida (Sussex), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#pevensey">see</a></i> Pevensey</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Andover (Hants), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Angers (Maine-et-Loire), <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Angevins, war of William I. with, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Anglesey, isle of, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Angus, earl of, <i><a href="#umfraville">see</a></i> Umfraville</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Anjou, count of, <i><a href="#Fulk">see</a> </i>Fulk</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Anker river, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Antioch (Syria), siege of, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Antwerp, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ardennes department, fortified churches in, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ardres (Pas-de-Calais), castle, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Arles (Bouches-du-Rh&ocirc;ne), <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Arnold, son of Robert, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Arras (Pas-de-Calais), <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li id="Arundel" class="indx">
-Arundel (Sussex), castle, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ashbourne (Derby), <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Astures, Roman auxiliaries, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-<li id="Auckland" class="indx">
-Auckland (Durham), castle, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Autun (S&acirc;one-et-Loire), <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Avignon (Vaucluse), palace of the popes, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">walls, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Avon river (Bristol), <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">(Warwick), <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Axholme, isle of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Aydon (Northumberland), castle or fortified house, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">B</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Badbury (Dorset), <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bakewell (Derby), <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li id="Bamburgh" class="indx">
-Bamburgh (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#i_091">91</a>, J. P. Gibson, W. Maitland;
-<a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bardolf, Robert, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Barking (Middlesex), <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Barlborough (Derby), hall, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Barnard Castle (Durham), castle, <a href="#i_087">87</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_370">370</a></span>
-Baroche, la (Orne), <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Barwick-in-Elmet (Yorks, W.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Basing house (Hants), <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bath (Somerset), <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bath and Wells, bishop of, <i><a href="#Burnell">see</a> </i>Burnell</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Battle (Sussex), gatehouse of abbey, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Battlesbury (Wilts), <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bayeux (Calvados), castle, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— bishop of, <i><a href="#Odo">see</a> </i>Odo</li>
-<li id="BeauchampRoger" class="indx">
-Beauchamp, house of, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Thomas, earl of Warwick (d. 1369), <a href="#Page_321">321</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Thomas, earl of Warwick (d. 1401), <a href="#Page_321">321</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Beaugency (Loiret), castle, <a href="#i_116">116</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Beaumaris (Anglesey), castle, <a href="#i_277">277</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#i_236">236</a>, <a href="#i_278">278</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>-9, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Beauvais (Oise), <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bebbanburh, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Bamburgh">see</a> </i> Bamburgh</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bedale (Yorks, N. R.), church tower, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bedburn river, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bedford, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">John, duke of, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li>
-<li id="Bek" class="indx">
-Bek, Antony, bishop of Durham, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bell&ecirc;me, house of, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">Robert of, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Belsay (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#i_313">313</a>, J. P. Gibson;
-<a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Belvoir (Leicester), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Berkeley (Gloucester), castle, <a href="#i_142">142</a>, <a href="#i_186">186</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Berkhampstead (Herts), castle, <a href="#i_042">42</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Berry, John, duke of, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Berry Pomeroy (Devon), castle, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Berwick-on-Tweed, town walls, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Beverley (Yorks, E. R.), <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-B&eacute;ziers (H&eacute;rault), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bignor (Sussex), Roman villa, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Birdoswald (Cumberland), <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bishop Auckland (Durham), <a href="#Page_8">8</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#Auckland">see</a> </i> Auckland</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bishops Cannings (Wilts), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bishop’s Castle (Salop), <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bishop’s Woodford (Wilts), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Black mountains, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Blackbury castle (Devon), <a href="#i_007">7</a>, A. H. Allcroft;
-<a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Blackfriars, <i><a href="#London">see</a></i> London</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Blackwater river, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Blois (Loir-et-Cher), castle, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Blyth (Notts) castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i>see</i> Tickhill;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">priory, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bodiam (Sussex), castle, <a href="#i_323">323</a>, E. A. and G. R. Reeve;
-<a href="#i_326">326</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bokerley dyke, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bolton-in-Wensleydale (Yorks, N. R.), castle, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bolton-on-Swale (Yorks, N. R.), church tower, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Boothby Pagnell (Lincoln), manor-house, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-<li id="Borcovicus" class="indx">
-Borcovicus (Northumberland), <a href="#i_014">14</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_015">15</a>, <a href="#i_018">18</a>, A. Thompson (after Bruce);
-<a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bosham (Sussex), <a href="#i_036">36</a>, A. Thompson (after Bayeux tapestry);
-<a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Boston (Lincoln), Hussey tower at, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bothal (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bourbourg, Louis de, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bourges (Cher), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Boves (Somme), siege of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bowes (Yorks, N. R.), tower, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bowness (Cumberland), <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bracieux, Pierre de, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bradwell-juxta-Mare (Essex), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brancaster (Norfolk), <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brancepeth (Durham), castle, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brandenburg (Prussia), <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Branodunum (Norfolk), <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brecon beacons, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Breteuil, William of, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Br&eacute;val (Seine-et-Oise), <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bridgnorth (Salop), <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bridlington (Yorks, E. R.), gatehouse of priory, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brionne (Eure), castle, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bristol, castle, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">walls and gateways, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— channel, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brittany, mount-and-bailey castles in, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">Alan of, <i><a href="#Alan">see</a></i> Alan</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brixworth (Northants), church, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bronllys (Brecknock), castle, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bruce, house of, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brunanburh, battle of, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brutus, Marcus, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Buckingham, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— duke of, <i><a href="#Stafford">see</a></i> Stafford</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Builth (Brecknock), castle, <a href="#i_050">50</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
-<li id="Burghcastle" class="indx">
-Burgh Castle (Suffolk), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li id="Burghersh" class="indx">
-Burghersh, Henry, bishop of Lincoln, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Burghwallis (Yorks, W. R.), <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Burgundy, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li>
-<li id="Burnell" class="indx">
-Burnell, Robert, bishop of Bath and Wells, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, 317</li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_371">371</a></span>
-Bury ditches (Salop), <a href="#i_006">6</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk), <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">Moyses hall, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Busli, Roger de, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">C</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Cadbury (Somerset), <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Caen (Calvados), <a href="#Page_118">118</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">abbey churches, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Caer Caradoc (near Clun, Salop), <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Caerlaverock (Dumfries), castle, <a href="#i_364">364</a>, J. P. Gibson;
-<a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Caerphilly (Glamorgan), castle, <a href="#i_270">270</a>, <a href="#i_271">271</a>, <a href="#i_272">272</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>-2, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>-5, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cahors (Lot), walled town, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">Pont Valentr&eacute;, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Calder river, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Caldicot (Monmouth), castle, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Calleva Atrebatum (Hants), <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#Silchester">see</a></i> Silchester</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cambridge, castle, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— colleges, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Camulodunum (Essex), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#Colchester">see</a></i> Colchester</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Canterbury (Kent), <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">archbishops of, <i><a href="#RobertofJumieges">see</a></i> Robert of Jumi&egrave;ges, Sudbury</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— west gate, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Carcassonne (Aude), town and castle, <a href="#i_078">78</a>, <a href="#i_239">239</a>, <a href="#i_242">242</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_264">264</a>, <a href="#i_283">283</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;
-<a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cardiff (Glamorgan), <a href="#Page_274">274</a>;
-castle, <a href="#i_114">114</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_191">191</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Carew (Pembroke), castle, <a href="#i_248">248</a>, <a href="#i_336">336</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Carisbrooke (Isle of Wight), castle, <a href="#i_111">111</a>, R. Keene;
-<a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Carlisle (Cumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral priory, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Carnarvon, castle, <a href="#i_245">245</a>, <a href="#i_253">253</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#i_258">258</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_259">259</a>, F. Bond;
-<a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#i_251">251</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Carrickfergus (Antrim), castle, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Castles camp (Durham), <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Castleton (Yorks, N. R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Castrum Harundel (Sussex), <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#Arundel">see</a></i> Arundel</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Caus castle (Salop), <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cawood (Yorks, W. R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li id="Ceawlin" class="indx">
-Ceawlin, king of West Saxons, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cedd, St, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-C&eacute;risy-la-For&ecirc;t (Calvados), abbey church, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chaise-Dieu, la (Haute-Loire), abbey church, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Champlitte, Guillaume de, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chardstock (Devon), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li id="Charles" class="indx">
-Charles the Bald, king of Neustria, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— the Fat, king of Neustria, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— the Simple, king of Neustria, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li id="CharlesV" class="indx">
-—— V., emperor, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Martel, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chartres (Eure-et-Loir), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— count of, <i><a href="#Theobald">see</a></i> Theobald</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard (Eure), <a href="#i_163">163</a>, A. Thompson, after Enlart;
-<a href="#i_175">175</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ch&acirc;teau-sur-Epte (Eure), <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chauny (Aisne), <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chedworth (Gloucester), Roman villa, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chepstow (Monmouth), <a href="#Page_182">182</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#i_103">103</a>, <a href="#i_249">249</a>, <a href="#i_268">268</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_104">104</a>, A. Thompson (after <i>Official Guide</i>);
-<a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town and walls, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chester, castle, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— city and walls, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chesters (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_15">15</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#Cilurnum">see</a></i> Cilurnum</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chichester (Sussex), <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">bishop of, <i><a href="#Rede">see</a></i> Rede</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chilham (Kent), castle, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chillingham (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-China, great wall of, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chipchase (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Christchurch (Hants), castle, <a href="#i_123">123</a>, P. M. Johnston;
-<a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— priory church, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
-<li id="Cilurnum" class="indx">
-Cilurnum (Northumberland), <a href="#i_013">13</a>, A. Thompson (after Bruce);
-<a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cirencester (Gloucester), <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cissbury (Sussex), <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li id="Clare" class="indx">
-Clare (Suffolk), castle, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Gilbert de, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, <a href="#Page_270">270</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clark, G. T., <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clavering (Essex), castle, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clement VI., pope, <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cleveland (Yorks, N. R.), <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clifford’s hill (Northampton), <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clifton (Bristol), promontory forts, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clinton, family of, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_372">372</a></span>
-Clipsham (Rutland), <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clun (Salop), <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#i_043">43</a>, <a href="#i_127">127</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Clwyd river, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li>
-<li id="Cnut" class="indx">
-Cnut, king, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>
-<li id="Colchester" class="indx">
-Colchester (Essex), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#i_047">47</a>, <a href="#i_101">101</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cole, John, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Colne river (Essex), <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Compton castle (Devon), <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Compton Wyniates (Warwick), manor-house, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Conisbrough (Yorks, W. R.), castle, <a href="#i_166">166</a>, <a href="#i_167">167</a>, <a href="#i_168">168</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_217">217</a>, G. Hepworth;
-<a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Constantinople, siege of, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Conway (Carnarvon), <a href="#Page_317">317</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#i_234">234</a>, <a href="#i_256">256</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#i_261">261</a>, <a href="#i_262">262</a>, <a href="#i_263">263</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Coquet river, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Corbridge-on-Tyne (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Corstopitum">see</a></i> Corstopitum</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— pele-tower, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Corfe (Dorset), castle, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-<li id="Corstopitum" class="indx">
-Corstopitum (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li id="Cosin" class="indx">
-Cosin, John, bishop of Durham, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Coucy (Aisne), castle, <a href="#i_081">81</a>, <a href="#i_177">177</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Enguerrand III., seigneur de, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— VII., <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Courcy-sur-Dives (Calvados), <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Coutances (Manche), <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li id="Coventry" class="indx">
-Coventry and Lichfield, bishop of, <i><a href="#Langton">see</a></i> Langton</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cowdray castle (Sussex), <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cradyfargus tower at Warkworth, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cranborne (Dorset), <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cromwell, Ralph, Lord, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
-<li id="Cynewulf" class="indx">
-Cynewulf, king, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">D</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Dacre, Lord, of Gillesland, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dalyngrugge, Sir Edward, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Danby Wiske (Yorks, N. R.), church-tower, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Danelaw, the, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dead sea (Palestine), <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dee river, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Delhi, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Denbigh, castle, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Denmark, king of, <i><a href="#Swegen">see</a></i> Swegen</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Derby, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Derwent river (Derby), <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— (Durham and Northumberland), <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— (Yorks), <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Despenser, Hugh, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Devizes (Wilts), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Devon river, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Didier, St, bishop of Cahors, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dinan (Ille-et-Vilaine), castle, <a href="#i_046">46</a>, A. Thompson, after Bayeux tapestry;
-<a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-D’Oily, Robert, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dol (Ille-et-Vilaine), castle, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dolbadarn (Carnarvon), tower, <a href="#i_183">183</a>, <a href="#i_184">184</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dolebury (Somerset), <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dolwyddelan (Carnarvon), castle, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Domfront (Orne), castle, <a href="#i_284">284</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Don river, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Doncaster (Yorks, W.R.), <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dorchester (Dorset), <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dove river, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dover (Kent), <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#i_126">126</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Drayton house (Northampton), <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li>
-<li id="Dudley" class="indx">
-Dudley, Robert, earl of Leicester, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Duffield (Derby), castle, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dumfries, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dunheved (Cornwall), <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dunstanburgh (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Durham, bishops of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Bek">Bek</a>, <a href="#Cosin">Cosin</a>, <a href="#Flambard">Flambard</a>, <a href="#Hatfield">Hatfield</a>, <a href="#Pudsey">Pudsey</a>, <a href="#Skirlaw">Skirlaw</a>, <a href="#Tunstall">Tunstall</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Durham, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#i_199">199</a>, <i>Archaeol. Journal</i>; <a href="#i_201">201</a>, Billings;
-<a href="#i_203">203</a>, J. P. Gibson;
-<a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— University college, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dyrham (Gloucester), battle of, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">E</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Earls Barton (Northampton), castle and church, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Easingwold (Yorks, N.R.), <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-East Anglia, king of, <i><a href="#Edmund">see</a></i> Edmund</li>
-<li class="indx">
-&Eacute;chauffour (Orne), castle, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Eddisbury (Chester), <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_373">373</a></span>
-Eden river, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Edgar the &AElig;theling, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
-<li id="Edmund" class="indx">
-Edmund, king of East Anglia, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Ironside, king, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>
-<li id="EdwardtheConfessor" class="indx">
-Edward the Confessor, king, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li id="EdwardtheElder" class="indx">
-—— the Elder, king, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li>
-<li id="EdwardI" class="indx">
-—— I., king, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li id="EdwardII" class="indx">
-—— II., king, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
-<li id="EdwardIII" class="indx">
-—— III., king, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
-<li id="Egbert" class="indx">
-Egbert, king, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li id="Elizabeth" class="indx">
-Elizabeth, queen, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ellesmere (Salop), castle, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Elmham (Suffolk), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Elmley (Worcester), castle, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Elne (Pyr&eacute;n&egrave;es-Orientales), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Elsdon (Northumberland), fortified rectory, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Embleton (Northumberland), fortified vicarage, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Emperors, <i>see</i> <a href="#CharlesV">Charles V</a>., <a href="#HenrytheFowler">Henry the Fowler</a>, <a href="#Vespasian">Vespasian</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-England, kings of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Cnut">Cnut</a>, <a href="#EdwardI">Edward I</a>., <a href="#EdwardII">Edward II</a>., <a href="#EdwardIII">Edward III</a>., <a href="#HenryI">Henry I</a>., <a href="#HenryII">Henry II</a>., <a href="#HenryIII">Henry III</a>., <a href="#HenryIV">Henry IV</a>., <a href="#HenryV">Henry V</a>., <a href="#HenryVIII">Henry VIII</a>., <a href="#KingJohn">John</a>, <a href="#RichardI">Richard I</a>., <a href="#RichardII">Richard II</a>., <a href="#KingStephen">Stephen</a>, <a href="#WilliamI">William I</a>., <a href="#WilliamII">William II</a>.</li>
-<li class="indx">
-England, queens of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Elizabeth">Elizabeth</a>, <a href="#Isabel">Isabel</a></li>
-<li id="Erghum" class="indx">
-Erghum, Ralph, bishop of Salisbury, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ermine street, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Erve river, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Etampes (Seine-et-Oise), castle, <a href="#i_172">172</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li>
-<li id="Ethelred" class="indx">
-Ethelred the Redeless, king, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
-<li id="Eudes" class="indx">
-Eudes, count of Paris (Hugh Capet), <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Eustace, son of John, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Evreux (Eure), abbey of Saint-Taurin, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">count of, <i><a href="#Amaury">see</a></i> Amaury</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ewenny (Glamorgan), priory church, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ewias Harold (Hereford), castle, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Exeter (Devon), <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral close, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">F</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Falaise (Calvados), castle, <a href="#i_117">117</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Farnham (Hants), castle, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ferrers (Walkelin de), <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Fiennes, Sir Roger, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Fitzwilliam, Sir William, <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li>
-<li id="Flambard" class="indx">
-Flambard, Ranulf, bishop of Durham, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Flamborough head (Yorks, E.R.), <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Flint, castle, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Foss river, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Fosseway, the, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Foug&egrave;res (Ille-et-Vilaine), <a href="#i_250">250</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-France, Capetian kings of, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i>see</i> <a href="#HughCapet">Hugh Capet</a>, <a href="#LouisVI">Louis VI</a>., <a href="#LouisIX">Louis IX</a>., <a href="#PhilipI">Philip I</a>., <a href="#PhilipII">Philip II</a>., <a href="#PhilipIII">Philip III</a>.</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Carolingian kings of, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>see</i> <a href="#Neustria">Neustria</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Valois kings of, <i>see</i> <a href="#FrancisI">Francis I</a>., <a href="#HenryII">Henry II</a>., <a href="#LouisXII">Louis XII</a>.</li>
-<li id="FrancisI" class="indx">
-Francis I., king of France, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Freeman, Professor E. A., <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Frome river (Bristol), <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">(Dorset), <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-<li id="Fulk" class="indx">
-Fulk the Black, count of Anjou, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">G</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Gainsborough (Lincoln), <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— old hall, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Galmanho (York), <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Galtres forest (Yorks, N.R.), <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gannock’s castle, <i><a href="#Tempsford">see</a></i> Tempsford</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gariannonum (Suffolk), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#Burghcastle">see</a></i> Burgh castle</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Garonne river, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gaunt, John of, <i><a href="#LancasterJohndukeof">see</a></i> Lancaster, John, duke of,</li>
-<li class="indx">
-G&ecirc;te-aux-Li&egrave;vres, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gilbert, family of, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gilling, East (Yorks), castle, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gisors (Eure), castle, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gloucester, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— duke of, Humphrey, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— earl of, <i><a href="#Clare">see</a></i> Clare</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Godwin, earl, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Go&euml;l, Ascelin, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Goodmanham (Yorks, E.R.), <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Goodrich (Hereford), castle, <a href="#i_174">174</a>, C. Gethen, G. W. Saunders;
-<a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gower (Glamorgan), fortified churches in, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li id="Gower" class="indx">
-Gower, Henry, bishop of St David’s, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Goxhill (Lincoln), “priory,” <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gravesend (Kent), <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Guildford (Surrey), castle, <a href="#i_128">128</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-<li id="Gundulf" class="indx">
-Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gwendraeth Fach river, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">H</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Haddon, Nether (Derby), <a href="#Page_342">342</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">hall, <a href="#i_340">340</a>, H. Baker;
-<a href="#i_343">343</a>, G. J. Gillham;
-<a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hadleigh (Suffolk), rectory, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_374">374</a></span>
-Hallaton (Leicester), castle, <a href="#i_051">51</a>, A. Thompson</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Halton (Northumberland), pele-tower, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hambleton hills (Yorks, N.R.), <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hamelin Plantagenet, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hardwick hall (Derby), <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Harewood (Yorks, W.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Harlech (Merioneth), castle, <a href="#i_273">273</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#i_274">274</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li id="Harold" class="indx">
-Harold, king, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hastings (Sussex), <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#i_038">38</a>, A. Thompson (after Bayeux tapestry);
-<a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li id="Hatfield" class="indx">
-Hatfield, Thomas, bishop of Durham, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Haughmond abbey (Salop), <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Haughton (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Haverfordwest (Pembroke), castle, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hawarden (Flint), castle, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hedingham (Essex), castle, <a href="#i_135">135</a>, <a href="#i_147">147</a>, F. R. Taylor;
-<a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Helmsley (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li>
-<li id="HenryI" class="indx">
-Henry I., king, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li id="HenryII" class="indx">
-—— II., king, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li>
-<li id="HenryIII" class="indx">
-—— III., king, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a></li>
-<li id="HenryIV" class="indx">
-—— IV., king, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li>
-<li id="HenryV" class="indx">
-—— V., king, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li id="HenryVIII" class="indx">
-—— VIII., king, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— II., king of France, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li>
-<li id="HenrytheFowler" class="indx">
-—— the Fowler, emperor, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-H&eacute;rault department, fortified churches in, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hereford, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">earl of, <i><a href="#WilliamsonofOsbern">see</a></i> William, son of Osbern</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Herefordshire, Norman castle in, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hertford, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">earl of, <i><a href="#Clare">see</a></i> Clare</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hestengaceaster (Sussex), <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Heton, Thomas de, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hexham (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_317">317</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">fortified manor-house, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Higham Ferrers (Northampton), castle and church, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hingston down (Cornwall), battle of, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Holderness (Yorks, E.R.), <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Holy Island (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Horkstow (Lincoln), Roman villa, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Horncastle (Lincoln), <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Houdan (Seine-et-Oise), donjon, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Housesteads (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_15">15</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#Borcovicus">see</a></i> Borcovicus</li>
-<li id="Hubert" class="indx">
-Hubert, count of Maine, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li id="HughCapet" class="indx">
-Hugh Capet, king of France; <i><a href="#Eudes">see</a></i> Eudes</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hull (Yorks, E.R.), <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Humber estuary, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Huntingdon, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hurstmonceaux (Sussex), castle, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, E. A. and G. R. Reeve;
-<a href="#Page_359">359</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">I</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li id="Ida" class="ifrst">
-Ida, king of Northumbria, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ireland, passage from England to, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li>
-<li id="Isabel" class="indx">
-Isabel, queen of England, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Issoudun (Indre), donjon, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ivry (Eure), castle, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">J</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Jerusalem, kingdom of, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— siege of, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Jervaulx abbey (Yorks, N.R.), <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Jeufosse (Seine-et-Oise), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li id="KingJohn" class="indx">
-John, king, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Jublains (Mayenne), <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">K</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Kala’at-el-Hosn; <i><a href="#Krak">see</a></i> Krak des Chevaliers</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kenilworth (Warwick), castle, <a href="#i_132">132</a>, <a href="#i_337">337</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kentwell hall (Suffolk), <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kerak in Moab, castle, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kidwelly (Carmarthen), castle, <a href="#i_225">225</a>, <a href="#i_281">281</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_267">267</a>, G. T. Clark;
-<a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>-82, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kimbolton (Hunts), castle, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kinnard’s Ferry (Lincoln), castle, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kirkby Malzeard (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Knaresborough (Yorks, W.R.) castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Knighton (Radnor), <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
-<li id="Krak" class="indx">
-Krak, le, des Chevaliers, <a href="#i_176">176</a>, A. Thompson (after G. Rey);
-<a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kyme (Lincoln), tower, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">L</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Labienus, Titus, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li id="Lacy" class="indx">
-Lacy, Henry de, earl of Lincoln, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_375">375</a></span>
-—— Ilbert de, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Roger de, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Laigle (Orne), castle, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lamotte, significance of place-name, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lamphey (Pembroke), manor-house, <a href="#i_341">341</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lancaster castle, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— duchy of, castles of, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— —— records of, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li>
-<li id="LancasterJohndukeof" class="indx">
-—— John, duke of, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Thomas, earl of, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Langeais (Indre-et-Loire), castle, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Langley (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a></li>
-<li id="Langton" class="indx">
-Langton, Walter, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Languedoc, fortified churches in, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Laon (Aisne), <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Launceston (Cornwall), castle, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Laval (Mayenne), castle, <a href="#i_080">80</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lea river, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Leconfield (Yorks, E.R.), manor-house, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Leeds (Kent), castle, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— (Yorks, W.R.), <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Leicester, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— earl of, <i><a href="#Dudley">see</a></i> Dudley</li>
-<li id="LeRoy" class="indx">
-Le Roy, Pierre, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lewes (Sussex), castle, <a href="#i_050">50</a>, <a href="#i_098">98</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lichfield (Stafford), <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">bishop of, <i><a href="#Coventry">see</a></i> Coventry</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral close, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Liddington (Rutland), manor-house, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lilbourne (Northampton), castle, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lille (Nord), <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lillebonne (Seine-Inf&eacute;rieure), edict of, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lincoln, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— bishops of, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i>see</i> <a href="#Alexander">Alexander</a>, <a href="#Burghersh">Burghersh</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— bishop’s palace, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#i_040">40</a>, W. G. Watkins;
-<a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral close, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">gatehouses, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— city walls, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— earl of, <i><a href="#Lacy">see</a></i> Lacy</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lindsey, parts of (Lincoln), <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Llanberis (Carnarvon), <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Llandovery (Carmarthen), castle, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Llanfihangel-cwm-Du (Brecon), church tower, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Llanstephan (Carmarthen), castle, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Llawhaden (Pembroke), castle, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Loches (Indre-et-Loire), castle, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lod&egrave;ve (H&eacute;rault), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Loire river, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lois Weedon (Northampton), church, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li id="London" class="indx">
-London, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Baynard’s castle, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Blackfriars, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Fleet Street, house of bishops of Salisbury, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— St Paul’s cathedral close, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Tower of, <a href="#i_121">121</a>, <a href="#i_122">122</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_123">123</a>, P. M. Johnston;
-<a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Longchamp, William, bishop of Ely, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li>
-<li id="LouisVI" class="indx">
-Louis VI., king of France, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li>
-<li id="LouisIX" class="indx">
-—— IX., king of France, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li>
-<li id="LouisXII" class="indx">
-—— XII, king of France, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lucca (Tuscany), <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Luc&eacute; (Orne), castle, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ludlow (Salop), castle, <a href="#i_094">94</a>, <a href="#i_095">95</a>, <a href="#i_096">96</a>, <a href="#i_108">108</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_106">106</a>, R. Keene;
-<a href="#i_195">195</a>, C. Gethen;
-<a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ludlow, Lawrence of, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lumley (Durham), castle, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lundenburh, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">M</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Magdeburg (Prussian Saxony), <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Maiden Castle (Dorset), <a href="#i_002">2</a>, <a href="#i_003">3</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Maine, count of, <i><a href="#Hubert">see</a></i> Hubert</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Malassis, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
-<li id="MalcolmIV" class="indx">
-Malcolm IV., king of Scots, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Maldon (Essex), <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">battle of, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Malet, William, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mailing, West (Kent), St Leonard’s church, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Malton (Yorks, N. R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Manorbier (Pembroke), castle, <a href="#i_208">208</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_217">217</a>, C. Gethen;
-<a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_376">376</a></span>
-Mans, le (Sarthe), <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mansurah (Lower Egypt), <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mantes (Seine-et-Oise), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Markenfield (Yorks, W.R.), manor-house, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Marlborough (Wilts.), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Marmion, Robert, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Marne river, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Marrah (Syria), siege of, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
-<li id="Marseilles" class="indx">
-Marseilles (Bouches-du-Rh&ocirc;ne), abbey church of Saint-Victor, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— siege of, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
-<li id="MarshalWilliamearlofPembroke" class="indx">
-Marshal, William, earl of Pembroke and Striguil, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Marton (Lincoln), church, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Massilia, <i><a href="#Marseilles">see</a></i> Marseilles</li>
-<li class="indx">
-M&acirc;te-Putain, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Maule, siege of, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Maxstoke (Warwick), castle, <a href="#i_364">364</a>, H. Baker;
-<a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Medway river, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-M&eacute;hun-sur-Y&egrave;vre (Cher), castle, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Melbourne (Derby), castle, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Melsonby (Yorks, N.R.), church-tower, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Melun (Seine-et-Marne), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Merchem, castle of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mercia, kingdom of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">kings of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Offa">Offa</a>, <a href="#Penda">Penda</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mercians, lady of the, <i><a href="#AEthelflaed">see</a></i> &AElig;thelflaed</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Merseburg (Prussian Saxony), <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mersey river, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Merton (Surrey), <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mexborough (Yorks, W. R.), castle, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Middleham (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Midhurst (Sussex), <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Milford haven, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mitford (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Moel Siabod (Carnarvon), <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Moissac (Tarn-et-Garonne), abbey, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Monkchester, <i><a href="#Muncanceaster">see</a></i> Muncanceaster</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Monkton (Pembroke), priory church, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Monmouth, fortified bridge, <a href="#i_297">297</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Montauban (Tarn-et-Garonne), Pont des Consuls, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Montgomery castle, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Montmajour (Bouches-du-Rh&ocirc;ne), fortified abbey, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Montmartre (Seine), <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mont-Saint-Michel (Manche), abbey, <a href="#i_235">235</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_236">236</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">abbots of, <i>see</i> <a href="#LeRoy">Le Roy</a>, <a href="#Tustin">Tustin</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#i_291">291</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Morpeth (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mortham (Yorks, N. R.), manor-house, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mount Bures (Essex), <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mowbray, Robert, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— vale of (Yorks, N.R.), <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mowbrays, revolt of the, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li id="Muncanceaster" class="indx">
-Muncanceaster (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">N</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Naeodunum Diablintum (Mayenne), <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Nantes (Loire-Inf&eacute;rieure), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Narbonne (Aude), <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Naworth (Cumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Nettleham (Lincoln), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Neufmarch&eacute;, Bernard de, <i><a href="#Newmarch">see</a></i> Newmarch</li>
-<li id="Neustria" class="indx">
-Neustria, kingdom of, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">kings of, <i><a href="#Charles">see</a></i> Charles</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Neville, John, Lord, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Newark-on-Trent (Nottingham), castle, <a href="#i_099">99</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_157">157</a>, F. Bond;
-<a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Newcastle-on-Tyne (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#i_139">139</a>, <a href="#i_152">152</a>, J. P. Gibson;
-<a href="#i_227">227</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#i_293">293</a>, W. Maitland;
-<a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a></li>
-<li id="Newmarch" class="indx">
-Newmarch, Bernard of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Newport (Monmouth), castle, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Newton Nottage (Glamorgan), fortified church, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Nidd river, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Nile river, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Niort (Deux-S&egrave;vres), castle, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Noirmoutier (Vend&eacute;e), <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Norham (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#i_157">157</a>, J. P. Gibson;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Normandy, duchy of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">dukes of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Robert">Robert</a>, <a href="#Rollo">Rollo</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">mount-and-bailey castles in, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Northallerton (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Northampton, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town wall, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Northumberland, earls of, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#HenryPercy">see</a></i> Percy</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Northumbria, kingdom of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">king of, <i><a href="#Ida">see</a></i> Ida</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Norwich (Norfolk), castle, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral close, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town wall, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Nottingham, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Nunney (Somerset), castle, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Nuremberg (Middle Franconia), town walls, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">O<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_377">377</a></span></p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Oakham (Rutland), castle, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ockley (Surrey), battle of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Odiham (Hants), castle, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li id="Odo" class="indx">
-Odo, bishop of Bayeux, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
-<li id="Offa" class="indx">
-Offa, king of Mercia, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Offa’s dyke, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Oise river, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Oissel (Seine-Inf&eacute;rieure), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li id="OldSarum" class="indx">
-Old Sarum (Wilts), camp and castle, <a href="#i_004">4</a>, A. H. Allcroft;
-<a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Orford (Suffolk), castle, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Orl&eacute;ans, Charles, duke of, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Louis, duke of, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Orontes river, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Osbern, <i><a href="#WilliamsonofOsbern">see</a></i> William</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Oswestry (Salop), <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Othona (Essex), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Otley (Yorks, W.R.), <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ouse river, Great, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">(Yorkshire), <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Oxburgh (Norfolk), hall, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Oxford castle, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Christ Church, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— New college, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">P</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Pamiers (Ari&egrave;ge), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Paris (Seine), <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">count of, <i><a href="#Eudes">see</a></i> Eudes;</li>
-<li class="indx">Louvre, donjon of, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">siege of, by Danes, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Peak castle (Derby), <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pembroke, castle, <a href="#i_180">180</a>, <a href="#i_224">224</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <i>Archaeol. Journal</i>;
-<a href="#Page_213">213</a>, C. Gethen;
-<a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— St Mary’s church, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pembroke, earl of, <i><a href="#MarshalWilliamearlofPembroke">see</a></i> Marshal, William</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pembrokeshire, churches of, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li id="Penda" class="indx">
-Penda, king of Mercia, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Penmaenmawr (Carnarvon), <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Penrith (Cumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Penshurst (Kent), manor-house, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pentecost’s castle (Hereford), <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pentrich (Derby), <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Penwortham (Lancaster), castle, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Percy, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li>
-<li id="HenryPercy" class="indx">
-—— Henry, earl of Northumberland, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— house of, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-P&eacute;riers (Calvados), church, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Perrott, Sir John, <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Peterborough (Northants), <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— abbey precinct, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Petworth (Sussex), manor-house, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
-<li id="pevensey" class="indx">
-Pevensey (Sussex), Roman station and castle, <a href="#i_016">16</a>, <a href="#i_246">246</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li id="PhilipI" class="indx">
-Philip I., king of France, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li id="PhilipII" class="indx">
-—— II. (Augustus), king of France, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li>
-<li id="PhilipIII" class="indx">
-—— III., king of France, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pickering (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pierrefonds (Oise), castle, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pistes, edict of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pitt-Rivers, General A. H. L. F., <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Poitiers (Vienne), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Poitou, Roger of, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pons Aelii (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pontaudemer (Eure), <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pontefract (Yorks, W.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Porchester (Hants), Roman station and castle, <a href="#i_097">97</a>, <a href="#i_131">131</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Portishead (Somerset), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Portsmouth harbour, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Portus Adurni, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Magnus (Hants), <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Potterne (Wilts), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Poundbury (Dorset), <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Prague (Bohemia), bridge, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Provins (Seine-et-Marne), castle, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li>
-<li id="Prudentius" class="indx">
-Prudentius, bishop of Troves, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Prudhoe (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li id="Pudsey" class="indx">
-Pudsey, Hugh, bishop of Durham, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Puiset, le (Eure-et-Loir), siege of, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pyr&eacute;n&eacute;es-Orientales department, fortified churches in, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">R</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Raby (Durham), castle, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, <i>Archaeol. Journal</i>; <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Raglan (Monmouth), castle, <a href="#i_331">331</a>, G. W. Saunders;
-<a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ramsbury (Wilts), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li id="Raymond" class="indx">
-Raymond, count of Toulouse, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Reading (Berks), <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li id="Rede" class="indx">
-Rede, William, bishop of Chichester, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Reims (Marne), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_378">378</a></span>
-Rennes (Ille-et-Vilaine), castle, <a href="#i_045">45</a>, A. Thompson (after Bayeux tapestry)</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Restormel (Cornwall), castle, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rhiangol river, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rh&ocirc;ne river, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rhuddlan (Flint), castle, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rhymney river, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rhys ap Thomas, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ribble river, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li id="RichardI" class="indx">
-Richard I., king, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li>
-<li id="RichardII" class="indx">
-—— II., king, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
-<li id="Richborough" class="indx">
-Richborough (Kent), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Richmond (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#i_093">93</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">earl of, <i><a href="#Alan">see</a></i> Alan</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ripon (Yorks, W.R.), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rising (Norfolk), castle, <a href="#i_143">143</a>, G. H. Widdows;
-<a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-<li id="Robert" class="indx">
-Robert, duke of Normandy, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li id="RobertofJumieges" class="indx">
-—— of Jumi&egrave;ges, archbishop of Canterbury, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— son of Giroie, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— son of Roger, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Robert’s castle, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Roche-Guyon, la (Seine-et-Oise), castle, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Roche-sur-Ig&eacute;, la (Orne), castle, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rochester (Kent), Boley hill, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">bishop of, <i><a href="#Gundulf">see</a></i> Gundulf;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, frontispiece, J. Bailey;
-<a href="#i_145">145</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rockingham (Northants), castle, <a href="#i_205">205</a>, <a href="#i_226">226</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li id="Roger" class="indx">
-Roger, bishop of Salisbury, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— of Newburgh, earl of Warwick, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li id="Rollo" class="indx">
-Rollo, duke of Normandy, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rome, <a href="#Page_292">292</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rothbury (Northumberland), fortified rectory, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rother river, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rouen (Seine-Inf&eacute;rieure), <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">abbey of Saint-Ouen, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">priory of Ste-Trinit&eacute;-du-Mont, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Roussillon, fortified churches in, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Royat (Puy-de-D&ocirc;me), fortified church, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Runcorn (Chester), <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ruthin (Denbigh), castle, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rutupiae (Kent), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Richborough">see</a></i> Richborough</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rye (Sussex), <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ryedale (Yorks, N.R.), <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">S</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Saint-C&eacute;n&eacute;ri-le-G&eacute;rei (Orne), castle, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saint-Clair-sur-Epte (Eure), treaty of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saint-Claude (Jura), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-St David’s (Pembroke), bishop’s palace, <a href="#Page_338">338</a> <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— bishops of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Gower">Gower</a>, <a href="#Vaughan">Vaughan</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saint-Denis (Seine), abbey, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saint-Malo (Ille-et-Vilaine), town walls, <a href="#i_290">290</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saint-Paul-du-Var (Alpes-Maritimes), <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saint-Pol, count of, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saint-Pons (H&eacute;rault), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sainte-Suzanne (Mayenne), castle, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saintes-Maries-sur-la-Mer, les (Bouches-du-Rh&ocirc;ne), fortified church, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Salisbury (Wilts), <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">and <i><a href="#OldSarum">see</a></i> Old Sarum</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— bishop’s palace, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— bishops of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Erghum">Erghum</a>, <a href="#Roger">Roger</a>, <a href="#Wyvill">Wyvill</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral close, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— city walls, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sandal (Yorks, W.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <i>Yorks. Arch&aelig;ol. Journal</i>;
-<a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sandwich (Kent), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sarthe river, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Savernake park (Wilts), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Saracens in southern France, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Scarborough (Yorks, N. R.), <a href="#Page_296">296</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#i_129">129</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Scots, kings of, <i>see</i> <a href="#MalcolmIV">Malcolm IV</a>., <a href="#WilliamtheLion">William the Lion</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Scratchbury (Wilts), <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Searobyrig (Wilts), <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>see</i> <a href="#OldSarum">Old Sarum</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Segedunum (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Seine river, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sens (Yonne), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sept-Forges (Orne), castle, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Severn river, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sheffield (Yorks, W.R.), <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sherborne (Dorset), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sheriff Hutton (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Shirburn (Oxford), castle, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Shrawardine (Salop), castle, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Shrewsbury, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— church of St Julian, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— earl of, <i><a href="#Talbot">see</a></i> Talbot</li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_379">379</a></span>
-Shropshire, free chapels in, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li id="Silchester" class="indx">
-Silchester (Hants), <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Skelton (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Skenfrith (Monmouth), castle, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Skipsea (Yorks, E.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li id="Skirlaw" class="indx">
-Skirlaw, Walter, bishop of Durham, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sleaford (Lincoln), <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Soar river, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Soissons (Aisne), <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Solway firth, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sonning (Berks), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Southampton (Hants), castle, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, C. Gethen; <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Spennithorne (Yorks, N.R.), church-tower, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Spofforth (Yorks, W.R.), manor-house, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Spurn head (Yorks, E.R.), <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li id="Stafford" class="indx">
-Stafford, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stafford, Edward, duke of Buckingham, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Anne, duchess, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stainmoor, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stamford (Lincoln and Northampton), <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
-<li id="KingStephen" class="indx">
-Stephen, king, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stokesay (Salop), castle, <a href="#i_207">207</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_306">306</a>, R. Keene, C. Gethen;
-<a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stour river (Kent), <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stow Park (Lincoln), manor-house, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Strickland, William, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sudbury, Simon, archbishop of Canterbury, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Surrey, earl of, <i><a href="#Warenne">see</a></i> Warenne</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Swale river, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Swaledale, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Swansea (Glamorgan), castle, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li>
-<li id="Swegen" class="indx">
-Swegen, king of Denmark, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sweyn Godwinsson, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Syria, castles and churches in, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">T</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Tadcaster (Yorks, W.R.), <a href="#Page_295">295</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li id="Talbot" class="indx">
-Talbot, John, earl of Shrewsbury, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Talvas, Guillaume, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tamar river, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tame river, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tamworth (Stafford), <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#i_048">48</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tattershall (Lincoln), castle, <a href="#i_356">356</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <i>Archaeol. Journal</i>;
-<a href="#Page_318">318</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tavistock (Devon), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tees river, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li id="Tempsford" class="indx">
-Tempsford (Beds), <i>burh</i> and earthwork, <a href="#i_032">32</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tenby (Pembroke), town walls, <a href="#i_240">240</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tewkesbury (Gloucestershire), gatehouse of abbey, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thames river, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thanet, isle of (Kent), <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thelwall (Chester), <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li id="Theobald" class="indx">
-Theobald, count of Chartres, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Th&eacute;rouanne, bishop of, <i><a href="#Warneton">see</a></i> Warneton</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thetford (Norfolk), <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castle, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thirsk (Yorks, N.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thornbury (Gloucester), castle, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thornton (Lincoln), gatehouse of abbey, <a href="#i_302">302</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <i>Archaeol. Journal</i>;
-<a href="#i_331">331</a>, F. Bond;
-<a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Thurkill, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-<li id="Tickhill" class="indx">
-Tickhill (Yorks, W.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tinchebray (Orne), battle of, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Toledo (New Castile), bridge of Alcantar&agrave;, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tolleshunt Major (Essex), manor-house, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tonbridge (Kent), castle, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tor Bay, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Torksey (Lincoln), castle, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Torquay (Devon), <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Totnes (Devon), castle, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Toulouse (Haute-Garonne), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— count of, <i><a href="#Raymond">see</a></i> Raymond</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tournai (Hainault), fortified bridge, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tournus (Sa&ocirc;ne-et-Loire), abbey church, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tours (Indre-et-Loire), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Towcester (Northampton), <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tower on the Moor (Lincoln), <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Towy river, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Trebonius, Gaius, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Trecastle (Brecknock), castle, <a href="#i_044">44</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Trent river, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tre’r Ceiri (Carnarvon), <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tretower (Brecknock), castle, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tripoli (Syria), county of, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Troyes (Aube), <a href="#Page_22">22</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">bishop of, <i><a href="#Prudentius">see</a></i> Prudentius</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tungri, first cohort of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
-<li id="Tunstall" class="indx">
-Tunstall, Cuthbert, bishop of Durham, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-<li id="Tustin" class="indx">
-Tustin, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tutbury (Stafford), castle, <a href="#i_237">237</a>, R. Keene;
-<a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tweed river, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tyne river, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tynemouth priory (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-</ul>
-
-<p class="center"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_380">380</a></span>
-U</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li id="umfraville" class="ifrst">
-Umfraville, Gilbert de, earl of Angus, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Upton (Lincoln), church, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ure river, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Usk river, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">V</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li id="Vaughan" class="ifrst">
-Vaughan, Edward, bishop of St David’s, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Vercingetorix, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Vernon (Eure), <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Verona (Venetia), <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li id="Vespasian" class="indx">
-Vespasian, emperor, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Villandraut (Gironde), castle, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Villeneuve-d’Avignon (Gard), Ch&acirc;teau-Saint-Andr&eacute;, <a href="#i_307">307</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Vitr&eacute; (Ille-et-Vilaine), <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Viviers (Ard&egrave;che), cathedral, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">W</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Wakefield (Yorks, W.R.), <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wallsend (Northumberland), <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wansbeck river, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wansdyke, the, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Warburton, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li id="Warenne" class="indx">
-Warenne, Isabel de, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— William de, earl of Surrey, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wark (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Warkworth (Northumberland), castle, <a href="#i_049">49</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_221">221</a>, J. P. Gibson;
-<a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— fortified bridge, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li id="Warneton" class="indx">
-Warneton, John of, bishop of Th&eacute;rouanne, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Warrington (Lancaster), <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Warwick, <i>burh</i>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— castle, <a href="#i_231">231</a>, <a href="#i_319">319</a>, H. Baker;
-<a href="#i_234">234</a>, <a href="#i_321">321</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— church of St Mary, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— earls of, <i><a href="#BeauchampRoger">see</a></i> Beauchamp, Roger</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— town walls, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wat’s dyke, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wear river, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wedmore (Somerset), peace of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Welland river, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wells (Somerset), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— bishop’s palace, <a href="#i_300">300</a>, Mrs Jessie Lloyd;
-<a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral close, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Welshmen, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wenham, Little (Suffolk), hall, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wensleydale (Yorks, N.R.), <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wessex, kingdom of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— kings of, <i>see</i> <a href="#AEthelwulf">&AElig;thelwulf</a>, <a href="#Alfred">Alfred</a>, <a href="#Ceawlin">Ceawlin</a>, <a href="#Cynewulf">Cynewulf</a>, <a href="#Edmund">Edmund</a>, <a href="#EdwardtheConfessor">Edward the Confessor</a>, <a href="#EdwardtheElder">Edward the Elder</a>, <a href="#Egbert">Egbert</a>, <a href="#Ethelred">Ethelred</a>, <a href="#Harold">Harold</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Westminster palace, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Weston-super-Mare (Somerset), <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Whickham (Durham), church-tower, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Whalley (Lancashire), gatehouse of abbey, <a href="#Page_303">303</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wharfe river, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-<li id="WilliamI" class="indx">
-William I., king, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li>
-<li id="WilliamII" class="indx">
-—— II., king, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li id="WilliamtheLion" class="indx">
-William the Lion, king of Scots, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li id="WilliamsonofOsbern" class="indx">
-William, son of Osbern, earl of Hereford, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Winchelsea (Sussex), <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Winchester (Hants), castle, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Windsor (Berks), castle, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">
-St George’s chapel, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wingfield (Derby), manor, <a href="#i_346">346</a>, W. H. Edmunds’ <i>Guide</i>;
-<a href="#i_348">348</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#i_349">349</a>, <a href="#i_353">353</a>, G. J. Gillham;
-<a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Witham (Essex), <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Witham river, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wiverton (Notts), manor-house, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wollaton hall (Notts), <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wootton lodge (Derby), <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Worcester, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Worlebury (Somerset), <a href="#i_009">9</a>, A. H. Allcroft;
-<a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Worthing (Sussex), <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wressell (Yorks, E.R.), castle, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wrexham (Denbigh), <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Writtle (Essex), manor-house, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-W&uuml;rzburg (Lower Franconia), <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wye river, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></li>
-<li id="Wyvill" class="indx">
-Wyvill, Robert, bishop of Salisbury, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">Y</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Yanwath (Westmorland), manor-house, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-York, <a href="#i_017">17</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">archbishops of, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">bars, <a href="#i_229">229</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_237">237</a>, W. Maitland;
-<a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">castles, <a href="#i_185">185</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cathedral, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">cathedral close, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— St Mary’s abbey, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— St Mary Bishophill Junior, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Yorkshire, sheriff of, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ythanceaster (Essex), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">Z</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Zara (Dalmatia), siege of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-</ul>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_381">381</a></span></p>
-
-<h2 id="INDEX_RERUM">INDEX RERUM</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center">A</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Adulterine castles, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Adulterinus</i>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Agger</i>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Alatorium</i>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Allure, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Angle, dead, in fortification, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Angles, reduction of, in fortification, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Arbalast, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Crossbow">see</a></i> Cross-bow</li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Arx</i>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>arcem condere</i>, etc., <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Attack, science and methods of, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>-<a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Aula</i>, hall or manor-house, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Aula principalis</i>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Hall">see</a></i> Hall</li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">B</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Bailey, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Castlesplan">see</a></i> Castles, plan of</li>
-<li id="Ballista" class="indx">
-<i>Ballista</i>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Ballium</i>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Barbican, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>-6, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>-41</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Barmkin, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bartizan, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Base-court, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Basse-cour</i>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Bastille</i>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bastion, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Battering ram, <i><a href="#Ram">see</a></i> Ram</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bayeux tapestry, <a href="#i_036">36</a>, <a href="#i_038">38</a>, <a href="#i_045">45</a>, <a href="#i_046">46</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Belfry, <a href="#i_072">72</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;
-<a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Berfredum</i>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Berm, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bishop’s palaces, fortified, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bore, <a href="#i_070">70</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;
-<a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Borough, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Bourg</i>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bower, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brattice, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Bret&egrave;che</i>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Brick-work in eastern counties, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— tower of, at siege of Marseilles, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Bridges, fortified, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">London bridge, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">bridges at Paris, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Burg</i>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Burgus</i> or <i>burgum</i>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Burh</i>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>burhs</i> in Saxon England, map of, <a href="#i_031">31</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_25">25</a>-<a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>-<a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Byzantine military science, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">C</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Cabulus</i>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Carfax, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Castel</i>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Castellum</i>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>castellum construere</i>, etc., <a href="#Page_38">38</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>castellis, vastata in</i>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Castles, dwelling-houses in, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>-<a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-<li id="CastlesEnglandNorman" class="indx">
-—— in England, Norman, earthworks, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>-<a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li>
-<li id="Castlesplan" class="isubtwo">mount-and-bailey plan, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>-<a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>-<a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>-<a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">relative date of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">importance in warfare, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>-7;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">stone fortifications, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>-<a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— in relation to plan of walled towns, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>-<a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— plan of, with successive baileys, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">concentric, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>-82, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">mount-and-bailey, <i><a href="#CastlesEnglandNorman">see</a></i> Castles in England, Norman</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— strategic position in North of England, map illustrating, <a href="#i_084">84</a>, A. Thompson;
-<a href="#Page_83">83</a>-<a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— Syrian, <i><a href="#Crusaders">see</a></i> Crusaders</li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Castrum</i>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Cat, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li id="Catapult2" class="indx">
-Catapult, <a href="#i_074">73</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>-6;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>see</i> <i><a href="#Ballista">Ballista</a></i>, <i><a href="#Mangana">Mangana</a></i>, etc.</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Centering of vault at Lancaster castle, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Cervi</i>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
-<li id="Chamber" class="indx">
-Chamber, great, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Chapels in castles, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>-9, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>-11;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Keep">see</a></i> also Keep</li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Ch&acirc;telet</i>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_382">382</a></span>
-<i>Chats-ch&acirc;teaux</i>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Chemise</i>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Churches, fortified, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Cippi</i>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Closes of cathedrals, fortified, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-“Contour” forts, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Cortina</i>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Countervallation, wall of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Coursi&egrave;re</i>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Courtine</i>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Crenellate, licences to, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Crenellations, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-<li id="Crossbow" class="indx">
-Cross-bow, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Crusade, first, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">fourth, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-<li id="Crusaders" class="indx">
-Crusaders, castles of, in Syria, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Crusades, influence of, on military science, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">D</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Danegeld, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Danes, invasions of England and France by, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Defence, science and progress of, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>-<a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>-5</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Demi-lune, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Domesday Book, evidence with regard to early castles, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Domgio</i>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
-<li id="Donjon" class="indx">
-Donjon or dungeon, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Drainage of roofs, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Drawbridge, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Dungeon, <i><a href="#Donjon">see</a></i> Donjon</li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Dunio</i>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">E</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Earthworks in Britain, early, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>-<a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">defence of entrances, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>-<a href="#Page_7">7</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">dry-built walls, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">in Saxon England, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Embrasure, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">F</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Fire-arms, introduction of, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>-90</li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Firmamentum</i>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Firmitas</i>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li id="Flanking" class="indx">
-Flanking, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>-20</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Fore-building, <i><a href="#Keep">see</a></i> Keep</li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Forum</i>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-France, Gallo-Roman cities in, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— early castles in, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— mount-and-bailey castles in, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— progress of military art in, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— walled towns in, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Free chapels, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">G</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Galleries in walls of castles, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Garde-robes, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>see</i> also <a href="#Keep">Keep</a>, <a href="#Muralchambers">Mural chambers</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gatehouses of castle, early, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>-9;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">later, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>-9</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Gateways of Roman stations, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Geweorc</i>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Great chamber, <i>see</i> <a href="#Chamber">Chamber</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">H</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Haia</i>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li id="Hall" class="indx">
-Hall of castle, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>-3, <a href="#i_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-“Herring-bone” masonry, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>-<a href="#Page_102">102</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Herse, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hides, raw, used to protect palisades, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li id="Hoarding" class="indx">
-Hoarding, <a href="#i_079">79</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hooks, grappling, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Horn-work, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Hourd</i>; <i><a href="#Hoarding">see</a></i> Hoarding</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Hurdles, use of, in attack, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">I</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Italy, fortified towns in, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">K</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li id="Keep" class="ifrst">
-Keep, gradual disappearance of, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— cylindrical tower, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>-85;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">internal arrangements, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>-72, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— octagonal tower, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— quatrefoil tower, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>-7</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— rectangular tower, map of towers, <a href="#i_130">130</a>, A. Thompson;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">in France and Normandy, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>-8;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">in England, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-59;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">evidence for date, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-20;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">early Norman towers, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>-5;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">comparative measurements of towers, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>-8, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>-3;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">position in plan, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>-31;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">external treatment, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">entrance</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_383">383</a></span>and forebuilding, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>-8, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>-2;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">internal arrangement and cross-wall, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>-6;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">basement, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>-50;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">stairs, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">chapels, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>-4;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">kitchens, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">wells, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>;</li>
-<li id="Muralchambers" class="isubtwo">mural chambers and galleries, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-6;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">roof and rampart, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">drawbacks of shape, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>-2</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— , residential use of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>-5, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— shell, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>-6;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">combination with rectangular tower, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— wooden tower on mount, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>-5, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Kitchen in castles, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Keep">see</a> also</i> Keep</li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">L</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Lilium</i>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Lists, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Limestone, Yorkshire, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Logium</i>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">M</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Machicolations, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Malvoisin</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
-<li id="Mangana" class="indx">
-<i>Mangana</i>, mangon, mangonel, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mantlets, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of rope, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Merlon</i>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mile-castles on Roman wall, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mines, use of, in siege, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Monasteries, fortified, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Motte</i>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mount, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>-<a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>-<a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Mouse, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Municipium</i>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Munitio</i>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>munitionem firmare</i>, etc., <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Musculus</i>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">N</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Norman conquest, castle-building after, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Normans at court of Edward the Confessor, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">O</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Oppidum</i>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">P</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Palicium</i>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li id="Palisade" class="indx">
-Palisade and stockade, use of, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pantry, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Parapets, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Parvise, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pele, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pele-towers, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pele-yard, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Pent-houses, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Petraria</i>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Pierri&egrave;re</i>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Pomerium</i>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Porta decumana</i>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>praetoria</i>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>principalis</i>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Portcullis, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Porte-coulis</i>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Postern, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Praetorium</i>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Promontories, early camps on, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Propugnaculum</i>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">Q</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Quincunx</i>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">R</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li id="Ram" class="ifrst">
-Ram, <a href="#i_069">69</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;
-<a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">devices against, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Rampart-walk, <a href="#i_241">241</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;
-<a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Keep">see</a></i> also Keep</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Ravelin, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Revetment, walls of, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Roman military science, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>-<a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— occupation of Britain, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>-<a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— roads in Britain, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— stations, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>-<a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— wall in Northumberland and Cumberland, <a href="#i_011">11</a>, A. Thompson (after Bruce);
-<a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">S</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Saxon invasions of Britain, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— shore, fortresses of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— towns and villages, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Scaling, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">scaling-ladders, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Scorpio</i>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Shutter in embrasure, <a href="#i_245">245</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;
-<a href="#Page_242">242</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Siegecraft, engines used in, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>-<a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Catapult2">see</a></i> Catapult</li>
-<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_384">384</a></span>
-Sieges—</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of Alesia, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>-<a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of Antioch, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of Ch&acirc;teau-Gaillard, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of Constantinople, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of London by Danes, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of Marseilles, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of Paris, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-<li class="isubtwo">of Le Puiset, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Slingers, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Solar, <i>solarium</i>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Sow, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Spur at base of towers, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stakes used as missiles, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Stimuli</i>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Stockade, <i><a href="#Palisade">see</a></i> Palisade</li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">T</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Terebra</i>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li id="Testudo" class="indx">
-<i>Testudo</i>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>T&ecirc;te-du-pont</i>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Teutonic origin of mount-and-bailey castle, conjectural, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Timbrian</i>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tortoise, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Testudo">see</a></i> <i>Testudo</i></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tower at siege of Marseilles, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Tower, great, <i><a href="#Keep">see</a></i> Keep</li>
-<li class="indx">
-Towers on ramparts, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">in early Norman castles, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>-4;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i><a href="#Flanking">see</a></i> Flanking</li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— on walls of Roman stations, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>-<a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— strong, survivals of keep, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Towns; Saxon settlements, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-—— walled, <a href="#i_228">228</a>, <a href="#i_288">288</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">early, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo">in relation to castles, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>-<a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Trebuchet</i>, <a href="#i_075">75</a>, <a href="#i_076">76</a>, Viollet-le-Duc;
-<a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Turrets on Roman wall, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">U</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Urbs</i>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">V</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-<i>Vallum</i>, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Via praetoria</i>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li>
-<li class="isubtwo"><i>principalis</i>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Villa</i>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Villas in Roman Britain, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-<i>Vinea</i>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
-</ul>
-<p class="center">W</p>
-<ul class="index">
-<li class="ifrst">
-Ward, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li>
-<li class="indx">
-Wells in castles, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li>
-</ul>
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="blockquote">
-
-<p class="center"><i>Printed at</i> <span class="smcap">The Darien Press</span>, <i>Edinburgh</i></p></div>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<h2 id="GOTHIC_ARCHITECTURE_IN_ENGLAND">GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">An Analysis of the Origin and Development of English Church
-Architecture from the Norman Conquest to the Dissolution of the
-Monasteries</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">With 1254 Illustrations, comprising 785 Photographs, Sketches, and
-Measured Drawings, and 469 Plans, Sections, Diagrams, and Moldings.
-Imperial 8vo, 800 pp., handsomely bound in art canvas, gilt. Price 31s.
-6d. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">Published by B. T. BATSFORD, 94 High Holborn, London</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">SOME PRESS NOTICES</p>
-
-<p><i>The Times.</i>—“Mr Bond has given us a truly monumental work on English
-Gothic Architecture in his profusely illustrated and very fully indexed
-volume of some 800 pages.... As a mine of erudition, of detailed
-analysis and information, and of criticism on English Medi&aelig;val Church
-Architecture the book is worthy of all praise. For students it must
-be of lasting value; for authentic reference it will be long before
-it is likely to be in any way seriously superseded; while the lavish
-illustrations, many of them unpublished photographs, must be of
-permanent interest to all.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Athen&aelig;um.</i>—“This is, in every sense of the word, a great book. It
-at once steps to the front as authoritative.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Building News.</i>—“A remarkable book.... Perfectly orderly, and most
-complete and thorough, this great book leaves nothing to be desired.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Reliquary.</i>—“The more expert a man is as a Church Architect or as
-an intelligent ecclesiologist, the more grateful will he be to Mr Bond
-for the production of a noble volume like that now under notice.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Spectator.</i>—“The whole book is extraordinarily full,
-extraordinarily minute, and enriched by a wealth of illustrations, and
-must stand for many years to come as <i>the</i> book of reference on the
-subject of Ecclesiastical Gothic in England for all architects and
-archaeologists.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Westminster Gazette.</i>—“Mr Bond gives us an immense quantity of
-material—the result of the most painstaking and laborious research;
-he has illustrated every chapter, not only with photographs, but with
-the most admirable diagrams of mouldings and details; he has scarcely
-missed a church of any importance in his search for examples. In all
-these respects he places the architect and the architectural student
-under an immense obligation.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Pall Mall Gazette.</i>—“Arch&aelig;ologist, scholar, and geologist, he
-is something more than a mere enthusiast, for to the ardour of his
-argument he brings deep technical mastery, much wide research, and
-scientific knowledge.... The book is one of the most absorbing that we
-have read for a long time in any field.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Bulletin Monumental.</i>—“Le grand travail sur l’architecture gothique
-anglaise.”</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<h2 id="SCREENS_AND_GALLERIES_IN_ENGLISH_CHURCHES">SCREENS AND GALLERIES IN ENGLISH CHURCHES</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">A handsome volume, containing 204 pp., with 152 Illustrations,
-reproduced from Photographs and Measured Drawings. Octavo, strongly
-bound in cloth. Price 6s. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">SOME PRESS NOTICES</p>
-
-<p><i>Builder.</i>—“When we look at the detailed photographs we realise the
-richness of the field which Mr Bond has traversed, and congratulate
-him on the choice of his subject. His method is one of singular
-thoroughness from the ecclesiological standpoint.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Journal of the Architectural Association.</i>—“As a record of the screens
-remaining in our churches it cannot be valued too highly. No book till
-now has brought such a number together, or traced their development in
-so full and interesting a manner.... A most delightful book.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Builders’ Journal.</i>—“The author may be congratulated on the production
-of a book which, in text as well as in illustrations, is of striking
-and inexhaustible interest; it is the kind of book to which one returns
-again and again, in the assurance of renewed and increased pleasure at
-each reperusal.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Tablet.</i>—“The numerous excellent illustrations are of the greatest
-interest, and form a veritable surprise as to the beauty and variety of
-the treatment which our forefathers lavished upon the rood screen.”</p>
-
-<p><i>British Weekly.</i>—“The book abounds with admirable illustrations of
-these beautiful works of art, so perfect even in the minute details
-that any one interested in the art of woodcarving could reproduce the
-designs with ease from the excellent photographs which occur on almost
-every page. There is also a series of ‘measured drawings’ of great
-beauty and interest.”</p>
-
-<p><i>New York Nation.</i>—“It is not easy to praise too highly the simple and
-effective presentation of the subject and the interest of the book to
-all persons who care for ecclesiology or for decorative art.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Bibliophile.</i>—“This excellent book is a sign of the times; of the
-reawakened interest in the beautiful and historic.... A model of
-scholarly compression. Of the finely produced illustrations it is
-difficult to speak in too high terms of praise.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Daily Graphic.</i>—“Mr Bond has produced a work on our ecclesiastical
-screens and galleries which, like his larger work on the ‘Gothic
-Architecture of England,’ is in the first degree masterly. His
-knowledge of his subject, exact and comprehensive, is compressed into a
-minimum amount of space, and illustrated by a series of photographs and
-measured drawings which render the work of permanent value.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Bulletin Monumental.</i>—“Apr&egrave;s avoir analys&eacute;, aussi exactement que
-possible, l’int&eacute;ressant &eacute;tude de M. Bond, nous devons le f&eacute;liciter de
-nous avoir donn&eacute; ce compl&eacute;ment si utile &agrave; son grand ouvrage.”</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="FONTS_FONT_COVERS">FONTS &amp; FONT COVERS</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">BY FRANCIS BOND. M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">A handsome volume containing 364 pages, with 426 Illustrations
-reproduced from Photographs and Measured Drawings. Octavo, strongly
-bound in cloth. Price 12s. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">SOME PRESS NOTICES</p>
-
-<p><i>Guardian.</i>—“Mr Bond is so well known by his monumental work on ‘Gothic
-Architecture in England,’ and by his beautiful book on ‘Screens and
-Galleries,’ that his name alone is a sufficient guarantee for this new
-volume on ‘Fonts and Font Covers,’ the most complete and thorough that
-has yet appeared.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Church Times.</i>—“The finest collection of illustrations of fonts and
-font covers yet attempted.... A real delight to the ecclesiologist.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Commonwealth.</i>—“A sumptuous monograph on a very interesting subject;
-complete and thorough.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Church Quarterly Review.</i>—“It is most delightful, not only to indulge
-in a serious perusal of this volume, but to turn over its pages again
-and again, always sure to find within half a minute some beautiful
-illustration or some illuminating remark.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Irish Builder.</i>—“This book on ‘Fonts and Font Covers’ is a most
-valuable contribution to medi&aelig;val study, put together in masterly
-fashion, with deep knowledge and love of the subject.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Westminster Gazette.</i>—“Every one interested in church architecture
-and sculpture will feel almost as much surprise as delight in Mr
-Bond’s attractive volume on ‘Fonts and Font Covers.’ The wealth of
-illustrations and variety of interest are truly astonishing.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Journal of the Society of Architects.</i>—“The book is a monument of
-painstaking labour and monumental research; its classification is
-most admirable. The whole subject is treated in a masterly way with
-perfect sequence and a thorough appreciation of the many sources of
-development; the illustrations, too, are thoroughly representative.
-To many the book will come as a revelation. We all recognise that
-the fonts are essential, and in many cases beautiful and interesting
-features in our ancient churches, but few can have anticipated the
-extraordinary wealth of detail which they exhibit when the photographs
-of all the best of them are collected together in a single volume.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Outlook.</i>—“Mr Francis Bond’s book carefully included in one’s luggage
-enables one, with no specialist’s knowledge postulated, to pursue to a
-most profitable end one of the most interesting, almost, we could say,
-romantic, branches of ecclesiastical architecture.... This book, owing
-to its scholarship and thoroughness in letterpress and illustrations,
-will doubtless be classic; in all its methods it strikes us as
-admirable. The bibliography and the indexes are beyond praise.”</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="VISITORS_GUIDE_TO_WESTMINSTER_ABBEY">VISITORS’ GUIDE TO WESTMINSTER ABBEY</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">93 pages of text, abridged from the eighteenth and nineteenth chapters
-of the author’s larger work on “Westminster Abbey,” consisting chiefly
-of description of the Tombs, Monuments, and Cloisters, with 15 Plans
-and Drawings and 32 Photographic Illustrations. Price 1s. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">SOME PRESS NOTICES</p>
-
-<p><i>Guardian.</i>—“There is probably no better brief handbook. Mr Bond’s
-qualifications for the task are beyond question. By the use of varied
-type, ingenious arrangement, and excellent tone-blocks and plans, the
-book attains a high standard of lucidity as well as of accuracy.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Building News.</i>—“This little work is characterised by its terseness,
-directness, and practical treatment. A carefully compiled and scholarly
-guide-book.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Architect.</i>—“This book will excellently and admirably fulfil its
-purpose.... A splendid itinerary, in which almost every inch of the way
-is made to speak of its historical connections.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Birmingham Daily Post.</i>—“Concise, informative, reliable, and admirably
-illustrated.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Western Morning News.</i>—“By his key plan and very clear directions as
-to where to find the numerous side chapels, historic monuments, and
-other objects of interest, Mr Bond makes it possible for a visitor to
-find his way round the building at his leisure. It refreshes one’s
-knowledge of English history, and is supplemented by thirty-two
-excellent plates, which by themselves are worth the shilling charged
-for it.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Scotsman.</i>—“A more complete and dependable guide to the National
-Pantheon could not be desired.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Architectural Review.</i>—“This is an excellent little text-book. Mr Bond
-is to be congratulated in having introduced into it an interesting
-element of history. The notes in small print should make the visit
-to the Abbey both more profitable and more interesting. The key plan
-and the numerous small plans are extremely clear and easily read. The
-information given is concise and to the point, and a word of special
-praise must be given to the plates at the end; the subjects of these
-are well chosen and are illustrated by very good photographs.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Antiquary.</i>—“This little book, strongly bound in linen boards, gives
-concisely and clearly all the information the ordinary visitor is
-likely to require. Cheap, well arranged, well printed, abundantly
-illustrated and well indexed, this handy book, which is light and
-‘pocketable,’ is the best possible companion for which a visitor to our
-noble Abbey can wish; it is an ideal guide.”</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="WESTMINSTER_ABBEY">WESTMINSTER ABBEY</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">A handsome volume, containing 348 pages, with 270 Photographs, Plans,
-Sections, Sketches, and Measured Drawings. Octavo, strongly bound in
-cloth. Price 10s. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">SOME PRESS NOTICES</p>
-
-<p><i>Oxford Magazine.</i>—“All who love the Abbey will be grateful for the
-skill and affection bestowed on this admirable work.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Birmingham Post.</i>—“With the history of the Abbey the author
-interweaves the life of the Benedictines, peopling the building with
-its occupants in the centuries when England was a Catholic country,
-and does it with such skill than one can almost imagine oneself at the
-services.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Englishman.</i>—“The writer handles his subject with consummate skill,
-and his reward will lie in the unmeasured praise of his many readers.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Guardian.</i>—“A book which brings fresh enthusiasm, and will impart a
-new impetus to the study of the Abbey and its history.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Scotsman.</i>—“At once instructive and delightful, it more than justifies
-its existence by its historical and architectural learning.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Liverpool Daily Courier.</i>—“We found the earlier parts of the book most
-fascinating, and have read them over and over again.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Architectural Association Journal.</i>—“Bright and interesting; evincing
-the author’s invariable enthusiasm and characteristic industry.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Western Morning News.</i>—“To say that the book is interesting is to say
-little; it is a monument of patient and loving industry and extreme
-thoroughness, an inexhaustible mine of delight to the reader, general
-or technical.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Outlook.</i>—“The author discusses the architecture with a minuteness
-that might terrify the inexpert if it were not for the sustained ease
-and interest of his style; great is the fascination of the expert hand
-when its touch is light.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Saturday Review.</i>—“Mr Bond leaves us more than ever proud of what is
-left to us of the stately Benedictine house of God, which is to the
-entire English-speaking world a common bond and home.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Antiquary.</i>—“It has a wealth of capital illustrations, is preceded by
-a bibliography, and is supplied with good indexes to both illustrations
-and text.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Journal des Savants.</i>—“Certains clich&eacute;s, comme ceux des vo&ucirc;tes, des
-tombeaux et de quelques d&eacute;tails de sculpture sont de v&eacute;ritables tours
-de force. Le choix des illustrations est tr&egrave;s heureux, comme d’ailleurs
-dans les autres ouvrages de M. Bond.”</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="Wood_Carvings_in_English_Churches">Wood Carvings in English Churches</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">I. MISERICORDS</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">BY FRANCIS BOND. M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">A Handsome Volume, containing 257 pages, with 241 Illustrations Octavo,
-strongly bound in cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">SOME PRESS NOTICES</p>
-
-<p><i>Morning Post.</i>—“The subject is one of the first importance to medi&aelig;val
-popular history, and we welcome this very admirable and thorough
-monograph with special gratitude.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Athen&aelig;um.</i>—“Mr Bond has put his rare industry in all that pertains to
-ecclesiology to excellent service in his latest book on Misericords.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Antiquary.</i>—“An authoritative and, at the same time, delightful and
-instructive volume. Really the first attempt to deal comprehensively
-with the great variety of carvings on misericords.”</p>
-
-<p><i>New York Herald.</i>—“One of the quaintest, most fascinating, and at the
-same time most learned volumes that a reader would happen upon in a
-lifetime.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Church Times.</i>—“An indispensable guide to the subject. The
-illustrations are worthy of all praise.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Architectural Association Journal.</i>—“The blocks, taken from
-photographs, are of an excellence really amazing, when the difficulties
-such subjects present to the camera are considered. A most delightful
-book.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Yorkshire Post.</i>—“Another of the valuable series of monographs on
-Church Art in England, and the most entertaining of all.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Architects’ and Builders’ Journal.</i>—“An exceedingly interesting
-volume both in illustrations and subject-matter, and full of curious
-information.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Glasgow Herald.</i>—“Mr Bond’s scholarly and most interesting book brings
-us very near to popular life in the Middle Ages.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Liverpool Courier.</i>—“Another of the admirably written and illustrated
-art handbooks for which the author is famous.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Birmingham Post.</i>—“This well illustrated volume is not only a valuable
-technical monograph, but also an important contribution to the history
-of social life and thought in the Middle Ages. Mr Bond’s treatment
-of the subject is exceptionally charming and successful. The general
-excellence of the book is great.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Outlook.</i>—“Many there must be to whom Mr Bond’s new book will be
-welcome. Into all the details of this varied and most puzzling subject
-he goes with thoroughness and a pleasant humour. The bibliography and
-indexes, as usual in Mr Bond’s work, are admirable.”</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="STALLS_AND_TABERNACLE_WORK_IN_ENGLISH_CHURCHES">STALLS AND TABERNACLE WORK IN ENGLISH CHURCHES</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">BY FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">Illustrated by 123 Photographs and Drawings. Price 6s. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON; HENRY FROWDE, Oxford University Press</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">SOME PRESS NOTICES</p>
-
-<p><i>Birmingham Post.</i>—“Valuable for lucid description and enlightened
-criticism of architectural and technical details combined with
-suggestive treatment of historical facts. A certain charm of manner
-contributes to the interest.”</p>
-
-<p><i>La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit&eacute;.</i>—“Une illustration copieuse
-&eacute;tablie avec des soins tout documentaires; des index; une table par
-ordre chronologique, une autre par noms de lieux, viennent faciliter
-les recherches et permettre au lecteur de tirer b&eacute;n&eacute;fice des vastes
-resources d’une &eacute;rudition inform&eacute;e et sure.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Revue de l’Art Chr&eacute;tien.</i>—“M. Bond est le premier qui ait trait&eacute; ce
-sujet; il l’a fait avec une grande comp&eacute;tence, et son int&eacute;ressant
-ouvrage nous fait regretter que chez nous pareil travail ne tente un de
-nos &eacute;rudits.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Builder.</i>—“The illustrations are admirable, and we cordially
-recommend our readers to undertake their examination with the help of
-so accomplished and genial a cicerone as Mr Bond.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Antiquary.</i>—“The volume abounds with fine illustrations, which
-even more than the text make us realise the extraordinary beauty and
-variety of the craftsmanship.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Architect.</i>—“A most delightful and valuable account of the
-marvellous fertility of design, the exquisite craftsmanship, and the
-pious generosity of medi&aelig;val England.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Cambridge Review.</i>—“The fourth of a series of handbooks of which it is
-difficult to speak too highly.”</p>
-
-<p><i>Building News.</i>—“A monument of industry and erudition.”</p>
-
-<p><i>The Cabinet Maker.</i>—“Every lover of woodwork should possess this
-series, which contains beautiful illustrations and most interesting
-descriptions of the noble heritage of magnificent work handed down to
-us by the medi&aelig;val Church.”</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="chapter">
-
-<p class="center u">IN THE PRESS.</p>
-
-<h2 id="ENGLISH_MILITARY_ARCHITECTURE_IN_THE_MIDDLE_AGES">ENGLISH MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN THE MIDDLE AGES</h2></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">By A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent smaller">Author of “<span class="smcap">The Ground Plan of the English Parish Church</span>”;
-“<span class="smcap">The Historical Growth of the English Parish Church</span>”; &amp;c.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">Copiously illustrated with Plans, Drawings, and Photographs. Octavo,
-strongly bound in cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="section">
-<h3 id="CHURCH_BELLS_IN_ENGLAND">CHURCH BELLS IN ENGLAND</h3></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">By H. B. WALTERS, Esq., M.A., F.S.A.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent smaller">Joint-Author of “<span class="smcap">Bells of Essex</span>” and “<span class="smcap">Bells of
-Warwickshire</span>.”</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">Copiously illustrated with Photographs of Bells, Bell Stamps, Founders’
-Marks, &amp;c.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">Octavo, strongly bound in cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="section">
-<h3 id="CATHEDRALS_OF_ENGLAND_AND_WALES">CATHEDRALS OF ENGLAND AND WALES</h3></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">By FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">A Short History of their Architecture; being a remodelled,
-re-illustrated, and enlarged edition of “English Cathedrals
-Illustrated.” Containing over 270 Illustrations from photographs and a
-complete set of plans specially drawn to a uniform scale. Octavo, cloth
-gilt. Price 7s. 6d. net</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: B. T. BATSFORD</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="section">
-<h3 id="INTRODUCTION_TO_ENGLISH_CHURCH_ARCHITECTURE_FOR_GENERAL_READERS">INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH CHURCH ARCHITECTURE FOR GENERAL READERS</h3></div>
-
-<p class="center noindent">By FRANCIS BOND, M.A., F.G.S.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent">This book has been specially prepared for those who have not had an
-architectural training and desire an account of English Ecclesiastical
-Architecture not overlaid with arch&aelig;ological and technical detail. It
-will be a quarto volume of large size and handsome type, illustrated
-with many hundred Plans, Drawings, and large size Photographs, and will
-probably be published at a Guinea.</p>
-
-<p class="center noindent sans">LONDON: HENRY FROWDE</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="transnote chapter"><p>Transcriber&#8217;s Notes:—</p>
-
-<p class="noindent padt1 padb1">The spelling, hyphenation, punctuation and accentuation are as the
-original, except for apparent typographical errors which have been
-corrected.</p>
-
-<p class="noindent">In the Bibliography:—<br />
-Viollet-de-Duc corrected to read Viollet-le-Duc</p>
-
-<p class="noindent">In the Index:—<br />
-Aigues-Mortes (Gard), 7, A. Thompson;<br />
-Corrected thus:—<br />
-Aigues-Mortes (Gard), 77, A. Thompson;</p>
-
-<p class="noindent">Tattershall (Lincoln), castle, 296, A. Thompson;<br />
-Corrected thus:—<br />
-Tattershall (Lincoln), castle, 356, A. Thompson;</p>
-
-<p class="noindent">mount-and-bailey plan, 42-47, 48-52, 55-56, 112, 113, 160, 161;<br />
-Corrected thus:—<br />
-mount-and-bailey plan, 42-47, 48-52, 55-56, 110, 113, 160, 161;</p>
-
-<p class="noindent">Hall of castle, 54, 55, 56, 104, 107, 190-3, 196, 197, 198, 200,<br />
-Corrected thus:—<br />
-Hall of castle, 54, 55, 56, 104, 107, 190-3, 195, 197, 198, 200,</p>
-
-<p class="noindent">Keep, gradual disappearance of, 164, 214, 215<br />
-Corrected thus:—<br />
-Keep, gradual disappearance of, 164, 212, 215</p>
-
-<p class="noindent">Footnotes:—<br />
-[135] Other important shell keeps of the normal type are at Arundel,
-Cardiff (114), Carisbrooke (171), Farnham, Lewes, Pickering, Totnes,<br />
-Corrected thus:—<br />
-[135] Other important shell keeps of the normal type are at Arundel,
-Cardiff (114), Carisbrooke (111), Farnham, Lewes, Pickering, Totnes,</p></div>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-<pre>
-
-
-
-
-
-End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Military Architecture in England
-During the Middle Ages, by Alexander Hamilton Thompson
-
-*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND ***
-
-***** This file should be named 60518-h.htm or 60518-h.zip *****
-This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
-        http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/5/1/60518/
-
-Produced by MWS, Brian Wilcox 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 print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law 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 in the United States with eBooks
-not protected by U.S. copyright law. 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 unprotected by copyright law 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 in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
-  are located before using this ebook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (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 The
-Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, 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
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law 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 in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
-mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, 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
-    gbnewby@pglaf.org
-
-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 not protected by copyright 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.
-
-
-
-</pre>
-
-</body>
-</html>
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/cover.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 58ea8a8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/cover.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_002.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_002.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c99c07b..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_002.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_003.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_003.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 25b685d..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_003.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_004.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_004.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1f7765c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_004.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_006.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_006.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f0259ab..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_006.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_007.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_007.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2cc7c0c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_007.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_009.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_009.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index dc00119..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_009.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_011.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_011.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8904df5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_011.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_013.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_013.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index de81461..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_013.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_014.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_014.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index cd62b15..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_014.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_015.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_015.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e6209b6..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_015.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_016.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_016.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4e33af5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_016.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_017.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_017.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index eb3aace..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_017.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_018.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_018.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4524867..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_018.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_031.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_031.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5e82039..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_031.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_032.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_032.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5018722..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_032.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_036.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_036.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index dbc1640..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_036.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_038.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_038.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5b8f9a2..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_038.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_040.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_040.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fe72bd7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_040.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_042.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_042.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2a6f909..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_042.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_043.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_043.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index aa6a29c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_043.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_044.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_044.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9631f98..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_044.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_045.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_045.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 294bbba..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_045.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_046.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_046.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bc5a5aa..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_046.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_047.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_047.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9283dab..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_047.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_048.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_048.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 75c7e98..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_048.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_049.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_049.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a0f9f80..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_049.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_050.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_050.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index faff43b..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_050.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_050_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_050_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ed37f73..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_050_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_051.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_051.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e79c196..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_051.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_069.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_069.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 62c0d28..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_069.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_070.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_070.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e98b7a4..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_070.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_072.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_072.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index cbb3b64..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_072.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_074.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_074.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e5476dd..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_074.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_074_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_074_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0177e42..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_074_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_075.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_075.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8d9a091..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_075.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_076.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_076.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1c25f43..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_076.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_077.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_077.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3a74ec4..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_077.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_078.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_078.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a53e8a3..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_078.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_079.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_079.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 561deae..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_079.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_080.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_080.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b2b3b4b..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_080.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_081.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_081.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9187c1c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_081.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_084.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_084.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index eb2e5fe..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_084.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_086.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_086.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7051c79..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_086.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_087.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_087.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 336d250..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_087.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_091.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_091.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c2642ed..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_091.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_091_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_091_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7a24743..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_091_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_093.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_093.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0059361..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_093.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_094.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_094.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a944d31..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_094.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_095.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_095.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7f498a5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_095.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_096.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_096.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e95860f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_096.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_097.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_097.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1868e8f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_097.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_098.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_098.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 47050bf..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_098.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_099.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_099.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0b62f8c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_099.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_101.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_101.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bd5d553..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_101.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_103.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_103.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6e926ac..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_103.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_104.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_104.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d948400..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_104.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_106.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_106.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 00d3952..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_106.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_108.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_108.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 60a7652..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_108.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_111.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_111.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b753571..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_111.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_114.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_114.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 10451c7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_114.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_115.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_115.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f58eaf7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_115.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_116.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_116.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fc0967c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_116.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_117.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_117.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 63e2491..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_117.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_121.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_121.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b2eaccd..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_121.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_122.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_122.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a87a4ac..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_122.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_123.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_123.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 21c83c5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_123.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_123_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_123_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3634026..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_123_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_126.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_126.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6d60be9..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_126.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_127.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_127.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e05a0de..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_127.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_128.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_128.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3105839..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_128.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_129.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_129.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 694aef1..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_129.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_130.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_130.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e112f41..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_130.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_131.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_131.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c5f664e..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_131.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_132.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_132.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fde32b5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_132.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_135.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_135.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1ff4de6..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_135.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_139.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_139.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2258add..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_139.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_142.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_142.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7d04d82..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_142.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_143.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_143.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8d185c5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_143.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_145.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_145.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3e67e56..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_145.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_147.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_147.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 09d9e56..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_147.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_147_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_147_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index eaa7f8f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_147_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_152.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_152.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f9360c8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_152.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_157.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_157.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 589a7a8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_157.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_157_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_157_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ec7e7cf..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_157_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_163.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_163.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7eeca23..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_163.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_166.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_166.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 21564b6..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_166.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_167.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_167.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9242419..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_167.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_168.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_168.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 15752a1..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_168.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_172.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_172.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7b7a557..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_172.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_174.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_174.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ba8b39b..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_174.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_174_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_174_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b54388a..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_174_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_175.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_175.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0535f5a..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_175.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_176.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_176.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5d63301..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_176.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_177.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_177.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2d47e22..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_177.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_180.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_180.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f378029..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_180.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_181.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_181.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a621c9c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_181.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_183.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_183.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a57d524..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_183.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_184.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_184.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 74e3a3d..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_184.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_185.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_185.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 70e47ef..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_185.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_186.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_186.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bcc107b..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_186.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_191.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_191.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 74d3f15..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_191.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_195.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_195.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 72a9a21..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_195.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_199.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_199.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 905644f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_199.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_201.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_201.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 72717c7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_201.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_203.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_203.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2c8feb1..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_203.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_205.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_205.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9c52c01..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_205.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_207.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_207.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 413b404..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_207.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_208.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_208.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3193b86..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_208.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_213.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_213.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e8120dd..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_213.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_217.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_217.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d76ad28..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_217.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_217_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_217_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f4b1f95..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_217_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_221.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_221.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d5369c8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_221.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_221_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_221_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7a9a070..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_221_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_224.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_224.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b53f3a0..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_224.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_225.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_225.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 77950f9..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_225.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_226.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_226.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9a769e3..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_226.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_227.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_227.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e9c353e..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_227.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_228.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_228.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b7e9219..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_228.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_229.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_229.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a7ecd48..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_229.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_231.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_231.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 59a854f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_231.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_234.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_234.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 03ed322..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_234.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_235.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_235.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6387107..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_235.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_236.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_236.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2cb2803..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_236.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_237.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_237.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bbd2332..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_237.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_237_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_237_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a7b4f88..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_237_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_239.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_239.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9238a7d..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_239.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_240.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_240.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d7f20bb..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_240.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_241.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_241.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 094348f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_241.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_242.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_242.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 222ad54..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_242.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_243.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_243.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ba03a03..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_243.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_243_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_243_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d6967cb..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_243_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_245.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_245.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8b4bed7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_245.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_246.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_246.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c9f91c3..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_246.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_247.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_247.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 70fc33e..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_247.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_248.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_248.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8030da1..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_248.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_249.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_249.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4b79970..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_249.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_249_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_249_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d3e0940..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_249_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_250.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_250.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b626b12..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_250.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_251.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_251.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c4dcb29..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_251.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_253.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_253.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2e64386..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_253.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_254.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_254.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 294c1eb..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_254.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_256.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_256.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1d244a4..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_256.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_258.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_258.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 915b7a8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_258.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_259.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_259.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0e97bde..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_259.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_259_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_259_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 67752e3..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_259_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_261.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_261.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 72bd98d..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_261.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_262.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_262.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6a16ff8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_262.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_263.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_263.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5eb2fed..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_263.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_264.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_264.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f637534..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_264.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_267.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_267.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a15cf9c..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_267.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_268.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_268.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d5fe3be..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_268.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_270.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_270.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9b88cc2..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_270.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_271.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_271.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0329c53..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_271.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_272.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_272.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 16bcf10..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_272.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_273.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_273.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 11b380f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_273.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_274.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_274.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 46d4795..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_274.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_274_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_274_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index be17468..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_274_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_277.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_277.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 408af89..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_277.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_278.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_278.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e890bb8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_278.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_281.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_281.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6e42be9..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_281.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_283.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_283.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f4283de..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_283.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_284.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_284.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0be89ec..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_284.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_288.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_288.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 95bac95..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_288.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_289.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_289.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ef6f9b5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_289.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_290.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_290.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c5c1a35..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_290.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_291.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_291.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0c3d16b..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_291.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_293.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_293.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7bb61f8..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_293.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_293_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_293_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e547d71..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_293_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_295.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_295.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6dc4792..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_295.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_297.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_297.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a5a6425..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_297.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_300.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_300.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1539d1e..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_300.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_302.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_302.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index be35ec7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_302.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_303.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_303.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7fcacef..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_303.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_306.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_306.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d326933..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_306.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_306_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_306_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 622b921..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_306_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_307.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_307.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a446ffe..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_307.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_310.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_310.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 72b27ec..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_310.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_311.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_311.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7f1a54a..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_311.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_313.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_313.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f9db8b7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_313.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_319.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_319.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a91e5bd..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_319.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_321.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_321.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 268a3ae..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_321.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_323.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_323.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index be9390f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_323.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_323_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_323_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6d8ba5a..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_323_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_326.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_326.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3e13294..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_326.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_331.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_331.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ecf33aa..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_331.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_331_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_331_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index cdd8852..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_331_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_336.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_336.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c30d029..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_336.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_337.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_337.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 071e0fe..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_337.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_340.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_340.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2a50bf5..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_340.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_341.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_341.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b119893..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_341.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_343.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_343.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 628f48e..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_343.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_346.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_346.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8716543..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_346.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_348.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_348.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a701a96..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_348.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_349.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_349.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index aedae7f..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_349.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_353.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_353.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fcb103e..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_353.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_356.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_356.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 019b086..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_356.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_357.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_357.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1413468..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_357.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_359.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_359.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 96355f7..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_359.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_364.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_364.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7138eb9..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_364.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_364_2.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_364_2.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d29582a..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_364_2.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/60518-h/images/i_frontis.jpg b/old/60518-h/images/i_frontis.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index decbc71..0000000
--- a/old/60518-h/images/i_frontis.jpg
+++ /dev/null