« PreviousContinue »
earth for a bank. On the line of the wall, just east of the entrance, stands a tall fragment of an early Norman tower. The workmanship of this tower, which is also of flints laid herring-bone-wise, with quoins of ashlar, so strongly resembles that of the neighbouring church that it seems obvious that both were built at about the same time.1 The church is dedicated to St Nicholas, who was worshipped in Normandy as early as 1067; it was probably the Normans who introduced his worship into England. Both church and tower are undoubtedly early Norman. The motte shows no sign of masonry.
The value of the manor of Washington had slightly risen since the Conquest.
BRISTOL.-Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the Empress Matilda's half-brother and great champion, is always credited with the building of Bristol Castle; but this is one of the many instances in which the man who first rebuilds a castle in stone receives the credit of being the original founder. For it is certain that there was a castle at Bristol long before the days of Earl Robert, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions it in 1088, when it was held by Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, and Robert Curthose against William II.; and Symeon of Durham, in the same year, speaks of it as a "castrum fortissimum." Bishop Geoffrey held Bristol at the date of
1 We often find that the architecture of the nearest church throws light on the date of the castle. A Norman seldom built or restored his castle without doing something for the church at the same time.
2 See Ordericus, ii., 178.
3 The Chronica de Fundatoribus of Tewkesbury Abbey seems to be the origin of the tradition that Earl Robert was the builder of Bristol Castle. There can be no doubt that his work was in stone, as the same authority states that he gave every tenth stone to the Chapel of Our Lady in St James' Priory. M. A., ii., 120. According to Leland, the keep was built of Caen stone. Itin., vii., 90. Robert of Gloucester calls it the flower of all the towers in England.
the Domesday Survey, and he probably built the castle by William's orders. It was completely destroyed in 1655 (only a few 13th century arches in a private house now remain), and no trustworthy plan has been preserved, but there is clear evidence that it was a motte-and-bailey castle of the usual Norman type. In Stephen's reign it was described as standing on a very great agger. An agger does not necessarily mean a motte, but it is often used for one, and there is other evidence which shows that this is its meaning here. A Perambulation of the bounds of Bristol in 1373 shows that the south-western part of the castle ditch, which enclosed the site of the keep, was called le Mot-dich; which should certainly be translated the ditch of the motte, and not, as Seyer translates it, the moat ditch.* Finally, the description of the castle in 1642 by Major Wood, says: "The castle stood upon a lofty steep mount, that was not minable, as Lieutenant Clifton informed me, for he said the mount whereon the castle stood was of an earthy substance for a certain depth, but below that a firm strong rock, and that he had searched purposely with an auger and found it so in all parts.' He goes on to describe the wall of the bailey as resting on an earthen rampart, testifying to the wooden stockade of the first castle. The great tower of Earl Robert appears to have been placed on the motte, which must have been of considerable size, as it held not only
3 Castellum plurimo aggere exaltatum. Gesta Stephani, 37. 4 Seyer, i., 391, and ii., 82.
5 Quoted by Seyer, ii., 301, from Prynne's Catal., p. 11.
1 We have no historical account of the Norman conquest of Bristol, and the city is only mentioned in the most cursory manner in D. B.
2 Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, i.) was convinced that the plan published by Barrett, and attributed to the monk Rowlie, was a forgery; his own plan, as he candidly admits, was largely drawn from imagination.
the keep, but a courtyard, a chapel, and the constable's house, besides several towers on its walls. The whole area of the castle was very nearly 4 acres.1
Bristol Castle was no doubt originally a royal castle, though Earl Robert of Gloucester held it in right of his wife, who had inherited it from her father, Robert Fitz Hamon; but the crown did not abdicate its claim upon it, and after the troubles of 1174, Henry II. caused the son of Earl Robert to surrender the keep into his hands.2
Seyer very pertinently remarks that Bristol Castle "was erected with a design hostile to the town; for it occupies the peninsula between two rivers, along which was the direct and original communication between the town and the main part of Gloucestershire." It was outside the city, and was not under its jurisdiction till James I. granted this authority by charter. The value T. R. E. is not given in Domesday Book.
BUCKINGHAM.-The only mention of this castle as existing in the 11th century is in the Gesta Herewardi,5 an undated work which is certainly in great part a romance, but as it is written by some one who evidently had local knowledge, we may probably trust him for the existence of Buckingham Castle at that date; especially as Buckingham was a county town, and one of the boroughs of the Burghal Hidage, the very place which we should expect to find occupied by a Norman castle. This writer speaks of the castle as belonging to Ivo de
1 Calculated from the measurements given by William of Worcester. Itin., p. 260. William probably alludes to the motte when he speaks of the "mayng round" of the castle.
2 Benedict of Peterborough, i., 92.
3 Hist. of Bristol, i., 373.
4 Ibid., vol. ii.
5 De Gestis Herewardi Saxonis, Wright's edition. See Freeman, N. C., iv., 804.
Taillebois; this is not inconsistent with the fact shown by Domesday Book, that the borough belonged to the king. That it was a motte-and-bailey castle is indicated by Speed's map of Buckingham in 1611; he speaks of the "high hill," though he only indicates it slightly in his plan, with a shield-shaped bailey. Brayley states that the present church is "proudly exalted on the summit of an artificial mount, anciently occupied by a castle."1
The castle hill occupies a strong position on the neck of land made by a bend of the river; it extends nearly half-way across it, and commands both town and river. The original earthworks of the castle were destroyed and levelled for the erection of a church in 1777, but the large oval hill remains, having a flat summit about 2 acres in extent, and about 30 feet above the town below. Its sides descend in steep scarps behind the houses on all sides but the north-east. There can be no doubt that the motte has been lowered, and thus enlarged, in order to build the church. The foundations of a stone castle were found in digging a cellar on the slope of the motte.2
The value of Buckingham had considerably risen at the date of Domesday.
CAERLEON, Monmouthshire (Fig. 11). Domesday Book speaks of the castellaria of Caerleon. A castellaria appears to have meant a district in which the land
1 Beauties of England and Wales, Buckingham, p. 282.
? Camden's Britannia, i., 315.
3 D. B., i., 143.
4 "Willielmus de Scohies tenet 8 carucatas terræ in castellaria de
Carliun, et Turstinus tenet de eo. Ibi habet in dominio unam carucam, et tres Walenses lege Walensi viventes, cum 3 carucis, et 2 bordarios cum dimidio carucæ, et reddunt 4 sextares mellis. Ibi 2 servi et una ancilla. Hæc terra wasta erat T. R. E., et quando Willelmus recepit. Modo valet 40 solidos." D. B., i., 185b, 1.
was held by the service of castle-guard in a neighbouring castle. The Survey goes on to say that this land was waste in the time of King Edward, and when William de Scohies, the Domesday tenant, received it; now it is worth 40s. Wasta, Mr Round has remarked, is one of the pitfalls of the Survey. Perhaps we shall not be far wrong if we say that in a general way it means that there was nobody there to pay geld. When this occurs in a town it may point to the devastations committed at the Conquest; but when it occurs in the country, and when it is accompanied by so clear a statement that the land which was wasta in King Edward's time and at the Conquest is now producing revenue, the inference would seem to be clear that the castle of Caerleon was built on uninhabited land. Caerleon, however, had been a great city in Roman times, and had kept up its importance at least till the days of Edgar, when it is twice mentioned in Welsh history.1 It must therefore have gone downhill very rapidly. Giraldus mentions among the ruins of Roman greatness which were to be seen in his day, a gigantic tower, and this is commonly supposed to have belonged to the castle.2 It certainly did not, for Giraldus is clearly speaking of a Roman tower, and the motte of the Norman castle not only has no signs of masonry, but has been thrown up over the ruins of a Roman villa which had been burnt. The motte and other remains of the castle are outside the Roman castrum, between it and the river. The
1 The Gwentian Chronicle, Cambrian Archæological Association, A.D. 962, 967. It is not absolutely impossible that these passages refer to Chester. Caerleon appears to have been seized by the Welsh very soon after the death of William I.
2 Itin. Camb., p. 55.
3 Loftus Brock, in Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xlix. J. E. Lee, in Arch. Camb., iv., 73.