« PreviousContinue »
Dudley to have been only a small and unimportant manor before the Conquest. The strong position of the hill was no doubt the reason why the Norman placed his castle there. There is no Norman masonry in the present ruins. The earliest work is that of the keep on the motte, a rectangular tower with round corner turrets, attributed by Mr W. St John Hope to about 1320. The first castle was demolished by Henry II. in 1175, and an attempt to restore it in 1218 was stringently countermanded. The case of Dudley is one of those which proves that Henry II. destroyed some lawful castles in 1175 as well as the unlawful ones. In 1264 a license to restore it was granted to Roger de Somery, in consideration of his devotion to the king's cause in the Barons' War. The whole area of the castle, including the motte, but not including the works at the base of the hill on which it stands, is it acres. The bailey is an irregular oval, following the hill top. Dudley is an instance in which the value of the manor
down instead of up since the erection of the castle ; this may perhaps be laid to the account of the devastation caused through the Staffordshire insurrection of 1069.
DUNSTER, Somerset (Fig. 15). — Called Torre in Domesday Book. “There William de Moion has his castle.”. The motte here appears to be a natural rock or tor, whose summit has been levelled and its sides
1 “Circa dies istos castellum de Huntinduna, de Waletuna, de Legercestria, et Grobi, de Stutesbers [Tutbury), de Dudeleia, de Tresc, et alia plura pariter corruerunt, in ultionem injuriarum quas domini castellorum regi patri frequenter intulerunt.” Diceto, i., 404, R. S.
2 Close Rolls, i., 380.
• Parker's History of Domestic Architecture, Licenses to Crenellate, 13th century, Part ii., p. 402. Godwin, “Notice of the Castle at Dudley,” Arch. Journ., XV., 47. 4 D. B., i., 95b.
scarped by art. About 80 feet below the top is a (roughly) half-moon bailey, itself a shelf on the side of the hill; there is another and much smaller shelf at the opposite end. Some foundations found in the S.W. corner of the upper ward appear to indicate a former stone keep. Dunster was only a small manor of half a hide before the Conquest, but afterwards its value
a tripled. There was a borough as well as a castle. The castle became the caput baronia of the De Moions, to whom the Conqueror gave fifty-six manors in different parts of the county. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the site was fortified before the Conquest. Mr Clark remarks that “it is remarkable that no mouldings or fragments of Norman ornament have been dug up in or about the site, although there is original Norman work in the parish church.”
church.” The simple explanation, probably, is that the first castle of De Moion was of wood, although on a site where it would have been possible to build in stone from the first, as it does not appear that any part of the motte is artificial. The area of the bailey is it acres. , The value of Dunster had risen at the date of Domesday.“
DURHAM (Fig. 16). — The castle here was first built by the Conqueror, on his return from his expedition against Scotland in 1072. It was intended as a strong residence for the bishop, through whom William
1 Narrow terraces of this kind are found in several mottes, such as Mere, in Wilts. They are probably natural, and may have been utilised as part of the plan. The more regular terraces winding round the motte are generally found where the motte has become part of a pleasure-ground in later times.
? This is the only case in which I have had to trust to Mr Clark for the description of a castle. M. M. A., ii., 24. 3 Mentioned in Close Rolls, i., 518a.
4 D. B., i., 95b. Symeon of Durham, 1072. “Eodem tempore, scilicet quo rex reversus de Scotia fuerat, in Dunelmo castellum condidit, ubi se cum suis episcopus tute ab incursantibus habere potuisset.”
hoped to govern this turbulent part of the country. He placed it on the neck of the lofty peninsula on which the cathedral stands. The motte of the Conqueror still remains, and so does the chapel' which he built in the bailey; probably the present court of the castle, though crowded now with buildings, represents the outline of the original bailey. The present shell keep on the motte was built by Bishop Hatfield in Edward III.'s reign, but has been extensively modernised. There can be little doubt that up to 1345 there were only wooden buildings on the motte, as the writer was informed by Canon Greenwell that no remains of older stone-work than the 14th century had been found there. It is so seldom that we get any contemporary description of a castle, of this kind, that it seems worth while to translate the bombastic verse in which Laurence, Prior of Durham, described that of Durham in Stephen's reign:*
“Not far hence [from the north road into the city] a tumulus of rising earth explains the flatness of the excavated summit, explains the narrow field on the flattened vertex, which the apex of the castle occupies with very pleasing art. On this open space the castle is seated like a queen; from its threatening height, it holds all that it sees as its own. From its gate, the stubborn wall rises with the rising mound, and rising still further, makes towards the comfort (amæna) of the keep. But the keep, compacted together, rises again
| This chapel is an instance of the honour so frequently done to the chapel, which was in many cases built of stone when the rest of the castle was only of timber, and was always the part most lavishly decorated.
2 The bailey was twice enlarged by Bishops Flambard and Pudsey. 3 Surtees, Durham, iv., 33.
4 Surtees Society, xx., 11-13. 6 Evidently the southern wing wall up the motte ; but we need not suppose murus to mean a stone wall.