« PreviousContinue »
the disinherited English and Danes.' The passage has been enlarged by Camden, who says that Alan thought himself not safe enough in Gilling"; and this has been interpreted to mean that Alan originally built his castle at Gilling, and afterwards removed it to Richmond; but the original words have no such meaning.2
Richmond Castle differs from most of the castles mentioned in Domesday in that it has no motte. The ground plan indeed was very like that of a motte-andbailey castle, in that old maps show a small roundish enclosure at the apex of the large triangular bailey.3 But a recent examination of the keep by Messrs Hope and Brakespear has confirmed the theory first enunciated by Mr Loftus Brock, that the keep is built over the original gateway of the castle, and that the lower stage of its front wall is the ancient wall of the castle. The small ward indicated in the old maps is therefore most likely a barbican, of later date than the 12th century keep, which is probably rightly attributed by the Genealogia cited above to Earl Conan, who reigned from 1148-1171.5 Some entries in the Pipe Rolls make it almost certain that it was finished by Henry II.,
"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.
2 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.
3 See Clarkson's History of Richmond.
4 Journal of Brit. Arch. Ass., lxiii., 179.
5 These are the dates given in Morice's Bretagne.
who kept the castle in his own hands for some time after the death of Conan.1 There are some indications at Richmond that the first castle was of stone and not of earth and wood. The walls do not stand on earthen banks; the Norman curtain can still be traced on two sides of the castle, and on the west side it seems of early construction, containing a great deal of herringbone work, and might possibly be the work of Earl Alan.
The whole area of the castle is 2 acres, including the annexe known as the Cockpit. This was certainly enclosed during the Norman period, as it has a Norman gateway in its wall.
As we do not know the name of the site of Richmond before the Conquest, and as the name of Richmond is not mentioned in Domesday Book, we cannot tell whether the value of the manor had risen or fallen. But no part of Yorkshire was more flourishing at the time of the Survey than this wapentake of Gilling, which belonged to Earl Alan; in no district, except in the immediate neighbourhood of York, are there so many places where the value has risen. Yet the greater part of it was let out to under-tenants.
ROCHESTER, Kent (Fig. 28).-Under the heading of Aylsford, Kent, the Survey tells us that "the bishop of Rochester holds as much of this land as is worth 17s. 4d. in exchange for the land in which the castle sits." Rochester was a Roman castrum, and portions. of its Roman wall have recently been found. The fact
1 Henry spent 517. 11s. 3d. in 1171 on "operationes domorum et turris," and 30%. 6s. in 1174 on "operationes castelli et domorum."
2 "Episcopus de Rouecestre, pro excambio terræ in qua castellum sedet, tantum de hac terra tenet quod 17 sol. et 4 den. valet." D. B., i., 2b.
3 See Mr George Payne's paper on Roman Rochester, in Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi. Mr Hope tells me that parts of all the four sides are left.
that various old charters speak of the castellum of Rochester has led some authorities to believe that there was a castle there in Saxon times, but the context of these charters shows plainly that the words castellum Roffense were equivalent to castrum Roffense or Hrofesceastre. Otherwise there is not a particle of evidence for the existence of a castle at Rochester in pre-Norman times, and the passage in Domesday quoted above shows that William's castle was a new erection, built on land obtained by exchange from the church.
Outside the line of the Roman wall, to the south of the the city, and west of the south gate, there is a district called Boley or Bullie Hill, which at one time was included in the fortifications of the present castle. It is a continuation of the ridge on which that castle stands, and has been separated from it by a ditch. This ditch once entirely surrounded it, and though it was partly filled up in the 18th century its line can still be traced. The area enclosed by this ditch was about 3 acres; the form appears to have been oblong. In the grounds of Satis House, one of the villas which have been built on this site, there stills remains a conical artificial mound, much reduced in size, as it has been converted into a pleasure-ground with winding walks, but the retaining walls of these walks are composed of old materials; and towards the riverside there are still vestiges of an ancient wall. We venture to think that this Boley Hill and its motte formed the original site
1 Thus Egbert of Kent, in 765, gives "terram intra castelli monia supranominati, id est Hrofescestri, unum viculum cum duobus jugeribus," Kemble, i., 138; and Offa speaks of the "episcopum castelli quod nominatur Hrofescester," Earle, Land Charters, p. 60.
2 See an extremely valuable paper on Mediaval Rochester by the Rev. Greville M. Livett, Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.