[485] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 70. The Justiciar, Richard de Lucy, threw up a siege castle against it.
[486] “Pro uncis ad prosternandum palicium de Hunted, 7s. 8d. In operatione novi castelli de Hunted, et pro locandis carpentariis et pro croccis et securibus et aliis minutis rebus, 21l.” Pipe Rolls, 20 Henry II., pp. 50, 63. It is clear that the operatio was in this case one of pulling down. Giraldus (Vita Galfredi, iv., 368, R. S.) and Diceto (i., 404, R. S.), both say the castle was destroyed.
[487] Mon. Ang., vi., 80.
[488] Leland tells us that Launceston was anciently called Dunheved. Itin., vii., 122.
[489] “Ibi est castrum comitis.” D. B., i., 121b. “Hæc duo maneria [Hawstone et Botintone] dedit episcopo comes Moriton pro excambio castelli de Cornualia.” D. B., i., 101b, 2.
[490] There are no entries for Launceston except repairs in the reigns of Henry II. and his sons.
[491] Murray’s Guide to Cornwall, p. 203.
[492] “Olim 20l.; modo valet 4l.” D. B., i., 121b.
[493] D. B., ii., 157, 163, 172. The first entry relating to this transaction says: “Hoc totum est pro escangio de 2 maneriis Delaquis.” The second says: “Pertinent ad castellum Delaquis.” It is clear that Lewes is meant, as one paragraph is headed “De escangio Lewes.” I have been unable to find any explanation of this exchange in any of the Norfolk topographers, or in any of the writers on Domesday Book.
[494] Lincoln is the only other instance known to the writer. Deganwy has two natural mottes. It is possible that two mottes indicate a double ownership of a castle, a thing of which there are instances, as at Rhuddlan.
[495] Exeter and Tickhill are instances of early Norman gateways, and at Ongar and Pleshy there are fragments of early gateways, though there are no walls on the banks. We have already seen that Arundel had a gateway which cannot be later than Henry I.’s time.
[496] D. B., i., 26a, 1.
[497] “De predictis wastis mansionibus propter castellum destructi fuerunt 166.” D. B., i., 336b, 2.
[498] “In reversione sua Lincoliæ, Huntendonæ, et Grontebrugæ castra locavit.” Ordericus, 185 (Prévost).
[499] At present the bank is wanting on a portion of the south side, between the two mottes.
[500] Mr Clark gravely argues that the houses were inside what he believes to have been the Saxon castle. There is not a vestige of historical evidence for the existence of any castle in Lincoln in the Saxon period.
[501] Stephen gave Ralph the castle and city of Lincoln, and gave him leave to fortify one of the towers in Lincoln Castle, and have command of it until the king should deliver to him the castle of Tickhill; then the king was to have the city and castle of Lincoln again, excepting the earl’s own tower, which his mother had fortified. His mother was Lucy, daughter of Ivo Taillebois; and as the principal tower was known as the Luce Tower, the masonry may have been her work. In that case the Norman work on the smaller motte may be due to Ralph Gernon, and may possibly be the nova turris which was repaired in John’s reign. Pipe Roll, 2 John. Stephen’s charter is in Farrer’s Lancashire Pipe Rolls.
[502] “In custamento firmandi ballium castelli Lincoll.” Pipe Roll, 5 Richard I. In an excavation made for repairs in modern times it was found that this wall rested on a timber frame-work, a device to avoid settling, the wall being of great height and thickness. Wilson, Lincoln Castle, Proc. Arch. Inst., 1848.
[503] D. B., i. 336b, 2: “Tochi filius Outi habuit in civitate 30 mansiones præter suam hallam, et duas ecclesias et dimidiam, et suam hallam habuit quietam ab omni consuetudine.... Hanc aulam tenuit Goisfredus Alselin et suus nepos Radulfus. Remigius episcopus tenet supradictas 30 mansiones ita quod Goisfredus nihil inde habet.”
[504] “In castello Monemouth habet Rex in dominio 4 carucas. Willelmus filius Baderon custodit eas. Quod rex habet in hoc castello valet c solidos.” D. B., 180b.
[505] Liber Landavensis, Evans’ edition, pp. 277-278. See also Round’s Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, p. 406.
[506] Theatre of Britain, p. 107.
[507] Speed’s map shows the curtain wall surrounding the top of the hill and also a large round tower towards the N.E. part, but not standing on any “other mount.” The square keep is not indicated separately. It must be remembered that Speed’s details are not always accurate or complete.
[508] “Ipse comes tenet in dominio Bishopstowe, et ibi est castellum ejus quod vocatur Montagud. Hoc manerium geldabat T. R. E. pro 9 hidas, et erat de abbatia de Adelingi, et pro eo dedit comes eidem ecclesiæ manerium quod Candel vocatur.” D. B., i., 93a, 1.
[509] Itin., ii., 92.
[510] From a description communicated by Mr Basil Stallybrass. The motte is shown in a drawing in Stukeley’s Itinerarium Curiosum. The “immense Romano-British camp” of which Mr Clark speaks (M. M. A., i., 73) is nearly a mile west.
[511] Mountjoy, Monthalt (Mold), Beaumont, Beaudesert, Egremont, are instances in point.
[512] Gaimar, 214, Wright’s edition. Gaimar wrote in the first half of the 12th century; Wright states that his work is mainly copied from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but its chief value lies in the old historical traditions of the north and east of England which he has preserved.
[513] Hodgson’s History of Northumberland, Part II., ii., 384, 389.
[514] This account is taken from a description kindly furnished by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[515] Bates’ Border Holds, p. 11.
[516] Simeon of Durham, 1080. “Castellum Novum super flumen Tyne condidit.”
[517] See the map in an important paper on Newcastle by Longstaffe, Arch. Æliana, iv., 45.
[518] Guide to the Castle of Newcastle, published by Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle, 1901.
[519] Longstaffe, as above.
[520] “Condidit castellum in excelso preruptæ rupis super Twedam flumen, ut inde latronum incursus inhiberet, et Scottorum irruptiones. Ibi enim utpote in confinia regni Anglorum et Scottorum creber prædantibus ante patebat excursus, nullo enim quo hujusmodi impetus repelleretur præsidio locato.” Symeon of Durham, R. S., i., 140.
[521] “Castellum di Northam, quod munitionibus infirmum reperit, turre validissima forte reddidit.” Geoffrey of Coldingham, 12 (Surtees Society). Symeon says it was built “precepto regis.” The keep was extensively altered in the Decorated period.
[522] M. M. A., ii., 331.
[523] Richard of Hexham, 319 (Twysden).
[524] “In illa terra de quâ Herold habebat socam sunt 15 burgenses et 17 mansuræ vastæ, quæ sunt in occupatione castelli; et in burgo 190 mansuræ vacuæ in hoc quod erat in soca regis et comitis, et 81 in occupatione castelli.” D. B., ii., 116. This shows that the castle and its ditches occupied ground partly within and partly without the ancient burh.
[525] Harrod’s Gleanings among Castles, p. 142.
[526] The authorities from which this map is compiled are not given.
[527] The “new borough” at Norwich was the quarter inhabited by the Normans. D. B., ii., 118. “Franci de Norwich: in novo burgo 36 burgenses et 6 Anglici.” Mr Hudson says that Mancroft Leet corresponds to the new burgh added to Norwich at the Conquest. See his map in Arch. Journ., xlvi.
[528] Norwich was not a Roman town; see Haverfield, Vict. Hist. of Norfolk, i., 320. But the Roman road from Caistor passed exactly underneath the castle motte. Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ., xlvi., Rev. H. Dukinfield Astley.
[529] Harrod’s Gleanings among Castles, p. 137.
[530] Mon. Ang., iv., 13. In 37 Henry III. the monks of Norwich Priory received “licentiam includendi eandem villam cum fossis,” and by doing this they enclosed the lands of other fees.
[531] Arch. Journ., xlvi., 445.
[532] Kirkpatrick’s Notes of Norwich Castle, written about 1725. He states that the angles of the motte had been spoilt, and much of it fallen away.
[533] Archæologia, vol. xii.
[534] Mr Hartshorne thought it was built between 1120 and 1125. Arch. Journ., xlvi., 260. It is certainly not as late as Henry II.’s reign, or the accounts for it would appear in the Pipe Rolls.
[535] Pipe Rolls, 19 Henry II., p. 117. In reparatione pontis lapidei et palicii et 3 bretascharum in eodem castello, 20l. 4s. 8d.
[536] Close Rolls, ii., 22. Order that the palicium of Norwich Castle, which has fallen down and is threatened with ruin, be repaired.
[537] Kirkpatrick, Notes on Norwich Castle.
[538] Except Kirkpatrick, who shows a judicious scepticism on the subject. Ibid., p. 248.
[539] Mon. Ang., i., 482.
[540] D. B., ii., 117.
[541] Ordericus, ii., 184.
[542] Published in a paper on Nottingham Castle by Mr Emanuel Green, in Arch. Journ. for December 1901.
[543] See Mr Green’s paper, as above, p. 388.
[544] “Apud Rokingham liberavimus Philippo Marco ad faciendam turrim quam dominus Rex precepit fieri in Mota de Notingham 100 marcas quas burgenses de Notingham et Willelmus Fil. Baldwini dederunt domino Regi pro benevolencia sua habenda.” In Cole’s Documents Illustrative of English History, 235. There is some reason to think that John instead of building the cylindrical keeps which were then coming into fashion, reverted to the square form generally followed by his father.
[545] Pipe Rolls, 1170-1186. The Pipe Roll of 6 Richard I. mentions the making of “1 posterne in mota,” which may be the secret passage in the rock.
[546] This is rendered probable by a writ of Henry III.’s reign, ordering that half a mark is to be paid annually to Isolde de Gray for the land which she had lost in King John’s time “per incrementum forinseci ballii Castri de Notinge.” Close Rolls, i., 508.
[547] Close Rolls, i., 548b. “Videat quid et quantum mæremii opus fuerit ad barbecanas et palitia ipsius castri reparanda” (1223). Close Rolls, i., 531b. Timber ordered for the repair of the bridges, bretasches, and palicium gardini (1223). Cal. of Close Rolls, 1286, p. 390: Constable is to have timber to repair the weir of the mill, and the palings of the court of the castle. Nottingham was one of eight castles in which John had baths put up. Rot. Misæ., 7 John.
[548] The murage of the town of Nottingham was assigned “to the repair of the outer bailey of the castle there” in 1288. Patent Rolls, Edward I., i., 308.
[549] Chapter xlii.
[550] D. B., i., 280.
[551] “Ipse Baldwinus vicecomes tenet de Rege Ochementone, et ibi sedet castellum.” D. B., i., 105b, 2.
[552] The late Mr Worth thought the lower part of the keep was early Norman. He was perhaps misled by the round arched loops in the basement. But round arches are by no means conclusive evidence in themselves of Norman date, and the size of these windows, as well as the absence of buttresses, and the presence of pointed arches, are quite incompatible with the early Norman period. The whole architecture of the castle agrees with a 14th century date, to which the chapel undoubtedly belongs.
[553] Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vol. vii.
[554] “Ibi fecit Rainaldus Castellum Luure.” D. B., i., 253b. Rainald was an under-tenant of Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury.
[555] This sketch is reproduced in Mr Parry-Jones’ Story of Oswestry Castle. Leland says, “Extat turris in castro nomine Madoci.” Itin., v., 38.
[556] “In operatione palicii de Blancmuster 2l. 6s. 8d.” XII., 124. Oswestry was known as Blancmoustier or Album Monasterium in Norman times.
[557] Abingdon Chronicle and Osney Chronicle, which, though both of the 13th century, were no doubt compiled from earlier sources.
[558] Osney Chronicle, 1071.
[559] See Ingram’s Memorials of Oxford for an account of the very interesting crypt of this church, p. 8. The battlement storey of the tower is comparatively late.
[560] Mackenzie, Castles of England, i., 160.
[561] D. B., p. 154.
[562] Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. i.
[563] “Terram castelli Pechefers tenuerunt Gerneburn et Hunding.” D. B., i., 276a, 2.
[564] There are similar nook-shafts to Henry II.’s keep at Scarborough, and to Castle Rising. Mr Hartshorne (Arch. Journ., v., 207) thought that there had been an earlier stone keep at Peak Castle, because some moulded stones are used in the walls, and because there is some herring-bone work in the basement. But this herring-bone work only occurs in a revetment wall to the rock in the cellar; and the moulded stones may be quite modern insertions for repairs, and may have come from the oratory in the N.E. angle, or from some of the ruined windows and doorways. The sums entered to this castle between the years 1172 and 1176 are less than half the cost of Scarborough keep, and do not appear adequate, though the keep was a small one. But there is some reason to think that the cost of castles was occasionally defrayed in part from sources not entered in the Pipe Rolls.
[565] Rex E. tenuit Peneverdant. Ibi 2 carucatæ terræ et reddebant 10 denarios. Modo est ibi castellum.... Valent 3 libras. D. B., i., 270.
[566] We need not resort to any fanciful British origins of the name Peneverdant, as it is clearly the effort of a Norman scribe to write down the unpronounceable English name Penwortham.
[568] Mr Halton’s book (Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham) throws no light on this point.
[569] Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, vol. ix., 1856-1857, paper on “The Castle Hill of Penwortham,” by the Rev. W. Thornber; Hardwick’s History of Preston, pp. 103-11.
[570] In a paper published in the Trans. Soc. Ant. Scot, for 1900, on “Anglo-Saxon Burhs and Early Norman Castles,” the present writer was misled into the statement that this hut was the remains of the cellar of the Norman bretasche. A subsequent study of Mr Hardwick’s more lucid account of the excavations showed that this was an error. There were two pavements of boulders, one on the natural surface of the hill, on which the hut had been built, the other 5 feet above it, and 12 feet below the present surface. The hut appeared to have been circular, with wattled walls and a thatched roof. Several objects were found in its remains, and were pronounced to be Roman or Romano-British. The upper pavement would probably be the flooring of a Norman keep.
[571] Mr Roach Smith pronounced this spur to be Norman. As its evidence is so important, it is to be regretted that its position was not more accurately observed. It was found in the lowest stratum of the remains, but Mr Hardwick says: “As it was not observed until thrown to the surface, a possibility remained that it might have fallen from the level of the upper boulder pavement, 5 feet higher.” We may regard this possibility as a certainty, if the lower hut was really British.
[572] Mr Willoughby Gardner says the castle commands a ford, to which the ancient sunk road leads. Victoria Hist. of Lancashire, vol. ii.
[573] Hugh Candidus, Cœnob. Burg. Historia, in Sparke’s Scriptores, p. 63. This passage was kindly pointed out to me by Mr Round. Hugh lived in Henry III.’s reign, but he must have had the more ancient records of the monastery at his disposal.
[574] Domesday Book mentions that the value of the burgus had greatly risen. It was one of the burhs mentioned in the Burghal Hidage.
[575] Pipe Roll, 1187-1188. William of Jumièges says, “Statim firmissimo vallo castrum condidit, probisque militibus commisit.” VII., 34. Wace professes to give the account of an eye-witness, who saw the timber for the castle landed from the ships, and the ditch dug. But Wace was not a contemporary, and as he has made the mistake of making William land at Pevensey instead of Hastings, his evidence is questionable. Roman de Rou, p. 293 (Andresen’s edition).
[576] The ruins of this keep, until 1908, were buried under so large a mound of earth and rubbish that Mr G. T. Clark mistook it for a motte, and the present writer was equally misled. It ought to be stated, before the date of this keep is finally settled, that the Gesta Stephani speaks of this castle as “editissimo aggere sublatum.” P. 106.
[577] Ibid.
[578] Close Rolls, i., 631a.
[579] D. B., i., 20b.
[580] D. B., i., 373b.
[581] Cited in Holmes’ History of Pontefract, p. 62.
[582] Another charter, which is a confirmation by the second Ilbert de Lacy of the ecclesiastical gifts of Ilbert I. and Robert his son, states that the Chapel of St Clement in the castle of Pontefract was founded by Ilbert I. in the reign of William II. Mon. Ang., v., 128.
[583] It is not necessary to discuss the meaning of the name Pontefract, since for whatever reason it was given, it was clearly bestowed by the Norman settlers.
[584] “Castrum de Pontefracto est quasi clavis in comitatu Ebor.” Letter of Ralph Neville to Henry III., Fœdera, i., 429, cited by Holmes, Pontefract, 194.
[585] The Conqueror had given him more than 200 manors in Yorkshire. Yorks. Arch. Journ., xiv., 17.
[586] Four roundels are shown in the plate given in Fox’s History of Pontefract, “from a drawing in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries.” But the drawing is so incorrect in some points that it can hardly be relied upon for others. There were only three roundels in Leland’s time.
[587] Drake’s account of the siege says that there was a hollow place between Piper’s Tower and the Round Tower all the way down to the well; the gentlemen and soldiers all fell to carrying earth and rubbish, and so filled up the place in a little space. Quoted in Holmes’ Manual of Pontefract Castle.
[588] In the English Historical Review for July 1904, where this paper first appeared, the writer spoke of two mottes at Pontefract, having been led to this view by the great height of the east end of the bailey, where the ruins of John of Gaunt’s work are found. This view is now withdrawn, in deference to the conclusions of Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A., who has carefully examined the spot.
[589] Mon. Ang., iv., 178.
[590] From a description by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[591] D. B., i., 224.
[592] See Chapter IV.
[593] Domesday Book says: “Ipse comes (Roger) tenet Ardinton. Sancta Milburga tenuit T. R. E. Ibi molinum et nova domus et burgus Quatford dictus, nil reddentes.” I., 254.
[594] G. T. Clark, in Arch. Cambrensis, 1874, p. 264.
[595] Ord. Vit., iv., 32.
[596] “In hoc manerio fecit Suenus suum castellum.” D. B., ii., 33b.
[597] Freeman, N. C., ii., 329, and iv., Appendix H.
[598] Mr Round has suggested that this castle was at Canfield in Essex, where there is a motte and bailey.
[599] “Isdem Osbernus habet 23 homines in castello Avreton et reddit 10 solidos. Valet ei castellum hoc 20 solidos.” D. B., i., 186b.
[600] Mr Clark’s plan is strangely incorrect, as he altogether omits the bailey. Compare the plan in Mr Round’s Castles of the Conquest, Archæologia, vol. lviii., and Mr Montgomerie’s plan here, Fig. 27.
[601] “Comes Alanus habet in sua castellata 199 maneria.... Præter castellariam habet 43 maneria.” D. B., i., 381a, 2.
[602] This is stated in a charter of Henry II., which carefully recapitulates the gifts of the different benefactors to St Mary’s. Mon. Ang., iii., 548. It is curious that the charter of William II., the first part of which is an inspeximus of a charter of William I., does not mention this chapel in the castle.
[603] Mr Skaife, the editor of the Yorkshire Domesday, thinks that it was at Hinderlag, but gives no reasons. Hinderlag, at the time of the Survey, was in the hands of an under-tenant. Yorks. Arch. Journ., lii., 527, 530.
[604] “Hic Alanus primo incepit facere castrum et munitionem juxta manerium suum capitale de Gilling, pro tuitione suorum contra infestationes Anglorum tunc ubique exhæredatorum, similiter et Danorum, et nominavit dictum castrum Richmond suo ydiomate Gallico, quod sonat Latine divitem montem, in editiori et fortiori loco sui territorii situatum.” Mon. Ang., v., 574.
[605] There are no remains of fortification at Gilling, but about a mile and a half away there used to be an oval earthwork, now levelled, called Castle Hill, of which a plan is given in M‘Laughlan’s paper, Arch. Journ., vol. vi. It had no motte. Mr Clark says, “The mound at Gilling has not long been levelled.” M. M. A., i., 23. It probably never existed except in his imagination.
[606] See Clarkson’s History of Richmond.
[607] Journal of Brit. Arch. Ass., lxiii., 179.
[608] These are the dates given in Morice’s Bretagne.