« PreviousContinue »
after the submission of London to William the Conqueror he stayed for a few days in Barking while certain fortifications in the city were being finished, to curb the excitability of the huge and fierce population.' What these fortifications were we shall never know, but we may imagine they were earthworks of the usual Norman kind. Certainly the great keep familiarly known as the White Tower was not built in a few days; it does not appear to have been even begun till some eleven years later, when Gundulf, a monk celebrated for his architectural skill, was appointed to the see of Rochester. Gundulf was the architect of the Tower, and it must therefore have been built during his episcopate, which lasted from 1077-1108.* In 1097 we read that "many shires which owe works to London were greatly oppressed in making the wall (weall) round the Tower." " This does not necessarily mean a stone wall, but probably it does, as Gundulf's tower can hardly have been without a bank and palisade to its bailey.
As the Tower in its general plan represents the type of keep which was the model for all succeeding
1 66 Egressus Lundoniæ rex dies aliquot in propinquo loco Bercingio morabatur, dum firmamenta quædam in urbe contra mobilitatem ingentis et feri populi perficerentur." P. 165. Ordericus is quoting from William of Poitiers. There was formerly a Roman camp at Barking, and the motte which William hastily threw up on its rampart to defend his sojourn still remains. See Victoria History of Essex.
* Mr Harold Sands suggests to me that the first fortification may simply have been a bank and palisade across the angle of the Roman wall, with perhaps a wooden keep, and that the great fire in London in 1077 determined William to build a stone keep.
3 Hearne's Textus Roffensis, 212. "Idem Gundulfus, ex precepto Regis Willielmi Magni, præesset operi magnæ turris Londoniæ."
The building of stone keeps was generally spread over several years, as we learn from the Pipe Rolls. Richard I. built his celebrated keep of Chateau Gaillard in one year, but he himself regarded this as an architectural feat. "Estne bella, filia mea de uno anno," he said in delight.
5 A.-S. C. in anno.
TOWER OF LONDON
stone keeps up to the end of the 12th century, it seems appropriate here to give some description of its main features. Its resemblance to the keep of Colchester, which also was a work of William I.'s reign, is very striking.1 Colchester is the larger of the two, but the Tower exceeds in size all other English keeps, measuring 118 x 98 feet at its base.2 As it has been altered or added to in every century, its details are peculiarly difficult to trace, especially as the ordinary visitor is not allowed to make a thorough examination. Thus much, however, is certain: neither of the two present entrances on the ground floor is original; the first entrance was on the first floor, some 25 feet above the ground, at the S.W. angle of the south side, and has been transformed into a window. There was no entrance to the basement, but it was only reached by the grand staircase, which is enclosed in a round turret at the N.E. angle. There were two other stairs at the N.W. and S.W. angles, but these only began on the first floor. The basement is divided by a cross wall, which is carried up to the third storey. There are at present three storeys above the basement. The basement, which is now vaulted in brick, was not originally vaulted at all,
1 Round's History of Colchester, ch. iv.
2 The keep of Norwich Castle measures 100 × 95 feet; Middleham, 100 × 80; Dover, 95 × 90. These are the largest existing keeps in England, next to the Tower and Colchester. The destroyed keep of Duffield measured 99 × 93 feet; that of Bristol is believed to have been 110 x 95.
3 The reader will find little help for the structural history of the Tower in most of the works which call themselves Histories of the Tower of London. The plan of these works generally is to skim over the structural history as quickly as possible, perhaps with the help of a few passages from Clark, and to get on to the history of the prisoners in the Tower. For the description in the text, the writer is greatly indebted to Mr Harold Sands, F.S.A., who has made a careful study of the Tower, and whose monograph upon it, it is hoped, will shortly appear.
except the south-eastern chamber, under the crypt of the chapel.
The first floor, like the basement, is divided into three rooms, as, in addition to the usual cross wall, the Tower has a branch cross wall to its eastern section, which is carried up to the top. This floor was formerly only lit by loopholes; Clark states that there were two fireplaces in the east wall, but there is some doubt about this. The S.E. room contained the crypt of the chapel, which was vaulted. It is commonly supposed that the rooms. on the first floor were occupied by the guards of the keep. In the account which we have quoted from Lambert of Ardres, the first floor is said to be the lord's habitation, and the upper storey that of the guards; so that there seems to have been no invariable rule.1 No No special room was allotted to the kitchen, as in time of peace at any rate, the lord of the castle and all his retainers took their meals in a great hall in the bailey of the castle. The ceilings of the two larger rooms of this floor are now supported by posts, an arrangement which is probably modern, as the present posts certainly are.3
The second floor contains the chapel, which in many keeps is merely an oratory, but is here of unusual size. Its eastern end is carried out in a round apse, a feature which is also found at Colchester, but is not usual in
1 Ante, p. 89.
2 Many of the larger keeps contain rooms quite spacious enough to have served as banqueting halls, and it is a point of some difficulty whether they were built to be used as such. But as late as the 14th century, Piers Ploughman rebukes the new custom which was growing up of the noble and his family taking their meals in private, and leaving the hall to their retainers. Every castle seems to have had a hall in the bailey.
3 Mr Sands says the main floors are not of too great a span to carry any ordinary weight.
TOWER OF LONDON
Norman keeps.1 It is a singularly fine specimen of an early Norman chapel. This floor probably contained the royal apartments; it was lighted by windows, not loops. Both the eastern and western rooms had fireplaces; the eastern room goes by the name of the Banqueting Chamber.
The third storey is on a level with the triforium of the chapel. This triforium is continued all round the keep as a mural passage, and it has windows only slightly smaller than those of the floor below. These mural galleries are found in most important keeps. As their windows were of larger size than the loops which lit the lower floors, it is possible that they may have been used for defence, either for throwing down missiles or for shooting with bows and arrows. But no near aim could be taken without a downward splay to the window, and the bows of the 11th and 12th centuries were incapable of a long aim. A plausible theory is that they were intended for the march of sentinels."
The masonry of the Tower is of Kentish rag, with ashlar quoins. In medieval times it had a forebuilding, with a round stair turret, which is shown in some old views; but it may reasonably be doubted whether this was an original feature.
As regards the ground plan of the castle as a whole,
1 The keep of Pevensey Castle, the basement of which has been recently uncovered, has no less than four apsidal projections, one of which rests on the solid base of a Roman mural tower. But this keep is quite an exceptional building. See Excavations at Pevensey, Second Report, by H. Sands.
2 Mr Sands has conjectured that the third floor may be an addition, and that the second storey was originally open up to the roof and not communicating with the mural passage except by stairs. This was actually the case at Bamborough keep, and at Newcastle and Rochester the mural gallery opens into the upper part of the second storey by inner windows.
3 Until the end of the 12th century the roofs of keeps were gabled and not flat, but probably there was usually a parapet walk for sentinels or archers.
it is now concentric, but was not so originally. Tower was certainly placed in the S. E. angle of the Roman walls of London, and very near the east wall, portions of which have been discovered.1 The conversion of the castle into one of the concentric type was the work of later centuries, and the history of its development has still to be traced.2
TREMATON, Cornwall (Fig. 34).-" The Count [of Mortain] has a castle there and a market, rendering 101 shillings.' Two Cornish castles are mentioned in Domesday, and both of them are only on the borders of that wild Keltic country; but while Launceston is inland, Trematon guards an inlet on the south coast. The position of this castle is extremely strong by nature, at the end of a high headland; on the extreme point of this promontory the motte is placed. It carries a wellpreserved shell wall, which may be of Norman date, from the plain round arch of the entrance. It has been separated by a ditch from the bailey, but the steepness of the hill rendered it unnecessary to carry this ditch all round. The bailey, I acre in extent, in which a modern house is situated, still has an entrance gate of the 13th century, and part of a medieval wall. of a medieval wall. A second bailey, now a rose-garden, has been added at a later period. In spite of the establishment of a castle and a market
1 Parts of these walls, running N. and S. have been found very near the E. side of the Tower. No trace of the Roman wall has been found S. of the Tower, but in Lower Thames Street lines have been found which, if produced, would lead straight to the S. wall of the inner bailey. Communicated by Mr Harold Sands.
2 I have to thank Mr Harold Sands for kindly revising this account of the Tower.
3 "Ibi habet comes unum castrum et mercatum, reddentes 101s." D. B., i., 122.
4 It must be remembered that round arches, in castle architecture, are by no means a certain sign of date. Of course the first castle on this motte must have been of wood.