RICHMOND-ROCHESTER

195

who kept the castle in his own hands for some time after the death of Conan.' 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." 2 Rochester was a Roman castrum, and portions of its Roman wall have recently been found. The fact

1 Henry spent 517. 115. 3d. in 1171 on "operationes domorum et turris," and 30%. 65. 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.

• 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 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.

of the (probably) wooden castle of William the Conqueror. Its nature, position, and size correspond to what we have already observed as characteristic of the first castles of the Conquest. It stands on land which originally belonged to the church of St Andrew, as Domesday Book tells us William's castle did.' The very name may be interpreted in favour of this theory." And that there was no Roman or Saxon fortification on the spot is proved by excavations, which have shown that both a Roman and a Saxon cemetery occupied portions of the area.

3

It is well known that between the years 1087 and 1089 the celebrated architect, Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, built a new stone castle for William Rufus, "in the best part of the city of Rochester." This castle, of course, was on the same site as the present one, though the splendid keep was not built till the next

1 See the charter of Cœnulf, King of Mercia, giving to Bishop Beornmod three ploughlands on the southern shore of the city of Rochester, from the highway on the east to the Medway on the west. Textus Roffensis, p. 96.

2 The name Boley may possibly represent the Norman-French Beaulieu, a favourite Norman name for a castle or residence. Professor Hales suggested that Boley Hill was derived from Bailey Hill (cited in Mr Gomme's paper on Boley Hill, Arch. Cantiana, vol. xvii.). The oldest form of the name is Bullie Hill, as in Edward IV.'s charter, cited below, p. 200.

3 Roman urns and lachrymatories were found in the Boley Hill when it was partially levelled in the 18th century to fill up the castle ditch. History of Rochester, p. 281. At the part now called Watt's Avenue, Mr George Payne found "the fag-end of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery." Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.

"In pulchriore parte civitatis Hrouecestre." Textus Roffensis, p. 145. Mr Freeman and others have noticed that the special mention of a stone castle makes it probable that the first castle was of wood. Mr Round remarks that the building of Rochester Castle is fixed, by the conjunction of William II. and Lanfranc in its history, to some date between September 1087 and March 1089. Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 339. Probably, therefore, it was this new castle which Bishop Odo held against Rufus in 1088. Ordericus says that " 'cum quingentis militibus intra Rofensem urbem se conclusit." P. 272.

2

reign.' But if what we have maintained above be correct the castle of Gundulf was built on a different site from that of the castle of William. Nor are we without evidence in support of this. What remains of the original Norman wall of Gundulf's castle (and enough remains to show that the circuit was complete in Norman times) does not stand on earthen banks; and this, though not a proof, is a strong suggestion that there was no earthen bank belonging to some previous castle when Gundulf began his building. But further, Mr Livett has shown in his paper on Medieval Rochester3 that in order to form a level plateau for the court of the castle the ground had to be artificially made up on the north and east sides, and in these places the wall rests on a foundation of gravel, which has been forcibly rammed to make it solid, and which goes through the artificial soil to the natural chalk below. Now what can this rammed gravel mean but an expedient to avoid the danger of building in stone on freshly heaped soil? Had the artificial platform been in existence ever since the Conquest, it would have been solid enough to build upon without this expense. It is therefore at least

It is now attributed to Archbishop William of Corbeuil, to whom Henry I. gave the custody of the castle in the twenty-seventh year of his reign, with permission to make within it a defence or keep, such as he might please. Continuator of Florence, 1126. Gervase of Canterbury also says "idem episcopus turrim egregiam ædificavit." Both passages are cited by Hartshorne, Arch. Journ., xx., 211. Gundulf's castle cost 60%. and can scarcely have been more than an enclosing wall with perhaps one mural tower. See Mr Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 340, and Mr Livett's paper, cited above.

2 Two common friends of Rufus and Gundulf advised the king that in return for the grant of the manor of Hedenham and the remission of certain moneys, "episcopus Gundulfus, quia in opere cæmentario plurimum sciens. et efficax erat, castrum sibi Hrofense lapideum de suo construeret." Textus Roffensis, p. 146. There was therefore an exchange of land in this affair also.

Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.

probable that Bishop Gundulf's castle was built on an entirely new site.

It seems also to be clear that the Boley Hill was included as an outwork in Bishop Gundulf's plan, for the castle ditch is cut through the Roman wall near the south gate of the city. Mr Livett remarks that King John appears to have used the hill as a point of vantage when he attacked the city in 1215, and he thinks this was probably the reason why Henry III.'s engineers enclosed it with a stone wall when they restored the walls of the city. Henry III.'s wall has been traced all round the city, and at the second south gate it turns at right angles, or nearly so, so as to enclose Boley Hill. It is probable, as Mr Livett suggests, that the drawbridge and bretasche, or wooden tower, ordered in 1226 for the southern side of Rochester Castle, were intended to connect the Boley Hill court with the main castle. In 1722 the owner of the castle (which had then fallen into private hands) conveyed to one Philip Brooke, "that part of the castle ditch and ground, as it then lay unenclosed, on Bully Hill, being the whole breadth of the hill and ditch without the walls of the castle, extending from thence to the river Medway."

8

The general opinion about the Boley Hill is that

1 Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi., p. 49.

2 There are several entries in the Close Rolls relating to this wall of Henry III. in the year 1225.

3 Mr Beale Poste says that this ancient wall was met with some years since in digging the foundations of the Rev. Mr Conway's house, standing parallel to the present brick walls and about 2 feet within them. "Ancient Rochester as a Roman Station," Arch. Cantiana, ii., 71. The Continuator of Gervase of Canterbury tells us (ii., 235) that at the siege of Rochester in 1265, Simon de Montfort captured the outer castle up to the keep (forinsecum castellum usque ad turrim), and Mr Livett thinks this outer castle must have been the Boley Hill.

4 Close Rolls, ii., 98b.

5 Hasted's Kent, iv., 163.