« PreviousContinue »
him.' When Godwin returned from his exile, and the Normans took to flight, the chronicler tells us that some fled west to Pentecost's castle, some north to Robert's castle. Thus we learn that there were several castles in England belonging to the Norman favourites.
It is in connection with these Norman favourites that the word castel appears for the first time in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This is a fact of considerable importance in itself; and when we weigh it in connection with the expressions of dislike recorded above which become much more explicit and vehement after the Norman Conquest, we cannot but feel that Mr Freeman's conclusion, that the thing as well as the word was new, is highly probable. For the hall of the AngloSaxon ealdorman or thane, even when enclosed in an earthwork or stockade, was a very different thing from the castle of a Norman noble. A castle is built by a man who lives among enemies, who distrusts his nearest neighbours as much as any foe from a distance. The Anglo-Saxon noble had no reason to distrust his neighbours, or to fortify himself against them. Later
1 A.-S. C., 1052 (Worcester). This castle is generally supposed to be Richard's Castle, Herefordshire, built by Richard Scrob; but I see no reason why it should not be Hereford, as the Norman Ralph, King Edward's nephew, was Earl of Hereford. We shall return to these castles later.
Mr Freeman says: "In the eleventh century, the word castel was introduced into our language to mark something which was evidently quite distinct from the familiar burh of ancient times. . . . Ordericus speaks of the thing and its name as something distinctly French: "munitiones quas Galli castella nuncupant." The castles which were now introduced into England seem to have been new inventions in Normandy itself. William of Jumièges distinctly makes the building of castles to have been one of the main signs and causes of the general disorder of the days of William's minority, and he seems to speak of the practice as something new." N. C., ii., 606. It is surprising that after so clear a statement as this, Mr Freeman should have fallen under the influence of Mr Clark's burh theory, and should completely have confused castles and boroughs.
CASTELLUM AND BURGUS
historians, who were familiar with the state of things in Norman times, tell us frequently of castles in the Saxon period; but it can generally be proved that they misunderstood their authorities. The genuine contemporary chroniclers of Saxon times never make the slightest allusion to a Saxon castle.
The word castellum, it is true, appears occasionally in Anglo-Saxon charters, but when it is used it clearly means a town. Thus Egbert of Kent says in 765: "Trado terram intra castelli monia supranominati, id est Hrofescestri, unum viculum cum duobus jugeribus, etc.," where castellum is evidently the city of Rochester.1 Offa calls Wermund "episcopus castelli quod nominatur Hroffeceastre." These instances can easily be multiplied. Mr W. H. Stevenson remarks that "in Old-English glosses, from the 8th century Corpus Glossary downwards, castellum is glossed by wic, that is town.": In this sense no doubt we must interpret Asser's "castellum quod dicitur Werham." Henry of Huntingdon probably meant a town when he says that Edward the Elder built at Hertford "castrum non immensum sed pulcherrimum." He generally translates the burh of the Chronicle by burgus, and he shows that he had a correct idea of Edward's work when he says that at Buckingham Edward "fecit vallum ex utraque parte aquæ "-where vallum is a translation of burh. The difference between a burh and a castle is very clearly expressed by the Chronicle in 1092, when it says concerning the restoration of Carlisle on its conquest by William Rufus, "He repaired the borough (burh) and ordered the castle to be built."
1 Codex Diplomaticus, i., 138.
2 History of Rochester, 1772, p. 21.
See Appendix D.
The following is a table of the thirty boroughs built by Ethelfleda and Edward, arranged chronologically, which will show that we never find a motte, that is a moated mound, on the site of one of these boroughs unless a Norman castle-builder has been at work there subsequently. The weak point in Mr Clark's argument was that when he found a motte on a site which had once been Saxon, he did not stop to inquire what any subsequent builders might have done there, but at once assumed that the motte was Saxon. Of course, if we invariably found a motte at every place where Edward or Ethelfleda are said to have built a burh, it would raise a strong presumption that mottes and burhs were the same thing. But out of the twenty-five burhs which can be identified, in only ten is there a motte on the same site; and in every case where a motte is found, except at Bakewell and Towcester, there is recorded proof of the existence of a Norman castle. In this list, the burhs on both sides of the river at Hertford, Buckingham, and Nottingham are counted as two, because the very precise indications given in the AngloSaxon Chronicle show that each burh was a separate construction.
Out of this list of the burhs of Ethelfleda and
Edward, thirteen are mentioned as boroughs in Domesday Book; and as we ought to subtract five from the list as unidentified, and also to reckon as one the boroughs built on two sides of the river, the whole number should be reduced to twenty-two. So that more than half the boroughs built by the children of Alfred continued to maintain their existence during the succeeding centuries, and in fact until the present day. But the others, for some reason or other, did not take root. Professor Maitland remarked that many of the boroughs of Edward's day became rotten boroughs before they were ripe; and it is a proof of the difficulty of the task which the royal brethren undertook that, with the exception of Chester, none of the boroughs which they built in the north-western districts survived
1 Worcester, Chester, Tamworth, Stafford, Warwick, Hertford, Buckingham, Bedford, Maldon, Huntingdon, Colchester, Stamford, and Nottingham.
2 Domesday Book and Beyond, 216.
till Domesday. In all their boroughs, except Bakewell, the purpose of defending the great Roman roads and the main waterways is very apparent.
Our list is very far from being a complete list of all the Anglo-Saxon boroughs existing in Edward's day. In the document known as the "Burghal Hidage" we have another quite different list of thirty-two boroughs,' which, according to Professor Maitland, "sets forth certain arrangements made early in the 10th century for the defence of Wessex against the Danish inroads." Five at least on the list are Roman chesters; twenty are mentioned as boroughs in Domesday Book. There are two among them which are of special interest, because there is reason to believe that the earthen ramparts which still surround them are of Saxon origin: Wallingford and Wareham. Both these fortifications are after the Roman pattern, the earthen banks forming a square with rounded corners. See Fig. 3.
To complete our knowledge of Anglo-Saxon fortification, we ought to examine the places mentioned in Anglo-Saxon charters as royal seats, where possibly defensive works of some kind may have existed. Unfortunately we are unable to learn that there are any such works, except at one place, Bensington in Oxfordshire, where about a hundred years ago "a bank and trench, which seem to have been of a square form," were to be seen.1
In the following chapter we shall deal in detail with such archæological remains as still exist of the boroughs 1 Buckingham is the only place which is included in both lists. See Appendix E.
2 Domesday Book and Beyond, 188. See Appendix E. Southwark, one of the names, which is not called a borough in Domesday, retains its name of The Borough to the present day.
3 No Roman remains have been found in either place.
Beauties of England and Wales, Oxfordshire.