« PreviousContinue »
thinks that the stone is Roman. With the view therefore of putting it upon record and inviting its inspection by other antiquaries, I give the inscription :
The stone is 2 feet i} inches in diameter and 6 inches in thickness, with a round hole in the centre. The late Rev. Dr. Hoopell published a somewhat different version of the inscription. He did not think it Roman.
There is but little doubt that many interesting relics still lie buried beneath the turf, and an effort should be made to raise subscriptions to cover the expense of a systematic exploration of the station. Many altars and inscriptions testify to the occupation of this quarter of Yorkshire by the Romans. One, found on the banks of the Greta in 1702, a votive offering of two females, appears to have been dedicated to a nymph, Elaune, perhaps the Lune river, distant only a few miles :
NE INEBRICA ET
IANVARIA : FIL
A milestone found by the side of the Roman road at Greta Bridge, very near the rampart of the castrum (concangium), is inscribed :-“To the emperors our Lords Gallus and Volusianus (his son)," probably A.D. 253 (Gough's Camden).
8 Aug., 1913
Proceedings in 1913.
The first summer meeting of the Society in 1913 took place on the 26th of June, -Barnard Castle, Bowes, and Eggleston Abbey being visited.
BARNARD CASTLE. At BARNARD CASTLE Mr. W. M. l'Anson conducted party of about fifty members over the ruins. The foundation of this is usually assigned to Bernard de Balliol; but this, Mr. l'Anson said, would merely appear to be one of several instances where the credit of actually founding a certain castle is given to the man who first substituted masonry for timbering, the actual founder probably being Guy Balliol, and the date of the foundation about 1093. The castle is a good example of the gradual evolution of an earth-and-timber motte and bailey castle of the usual Norman type into a great stone stronghold. The motte or citadel is defended on the west and north-west by steep precipices ; on the other sides by a deep and broad ditch, which still exists. The bailey lies to the east of the motte, and was defended on the north, east, and south by a very deep and broad ditch, which has been entirely filled up and largely built upon. These two enclosures, together with the small middle ward, constituted the castle proper. To the south of the castle was the “burgus,” or communal fortified enclosure, defended on the east and south by a continuation of the bailey ditch. Within the timber defences of this burgus would grow up the original Early Norman town of Barnard Castle, a collection of timber huts, and into this enclosure, which is larger than the whole of the rest of the castle put together, the inhabitants of the surrounding district would probably drive their cattle in case of an anticipated Scottish invasion. Within this burgus was the castle chapel referred to by Leland, and in which, in 1478, Richard of Gloucester, afterwards Richard III, founded and endowed a college, the establishment to consist of a dean, twelve chaplains, ten clerks, and six choristers.
About 1170 Bernard de Balliol II commenced the work of substituting masonry for timbering, and between that date and 1190 the whole enclosure, motte, bailey, middleward, and burgus was walled in, the castle developing on the lines of a shell-keep fortress, the natural and logical evolution of a motte and bailey stronghold. Various alterations were made about the middle of the thirteenth century ; but it was not until the reign of Edward II that the entire remodelling of the shell-keep gave to the fortress the principal features we see to-day.
Each of the four wards was capable of being separately defended, providing a system of successive lines of defence which would offer an infinity of trouble to an enemy, but which could never offer a combined and concentrated resistance. From a defensive point of view the burgus was of little use in the event of an organised siege, unless the castle were held by a very large garrison, the feeding of which would have been a serious problem in the event of a determined siege. The middle ward and the bailey could be separately assailed and captured, the citadel on the motte hardly coming into action at all until after the fall of these two enclosures. It was this inability to bring to bear, at one and the same time, all the defensive properties of a castle which eventually led to the introduction of the concentric type of fortress, the highest development of mediæval military architecture, of which we get a magnificent example at Beaumaris.
The citadel, or shell-keep, was entered from the middle ward by means of a gatehouse, fragments of which still remain. Here was the dwelling-house of which, with the exception of the juliet, only the north façade now remains. It is only remarkable for the fact that the additional private accommodation, rendered necessary by the growing luxury of the fourteenth century, instead of being contained, as usual, in a suite of rooms opening out of the solar, is contained in an early fourteenth century cylindrical tower, or juliet. Otherwise the arrangements are quite normal, the kitchen opening out of the hall at its lower end, the solar opening out of the hall at its dais end.
After pointing out the arrangements of the kitchen, hall, and solar, Mr. l'Anson remarked that the so-called keep, a juliet, was really not a keep at all, but merely an unusually large mural tower on the enceinte of a shell-keep. After referring to the Chateau-sur-Epte and Houdan, two of the earliest French towers of this type, and pointing out that this type was much better developed in France than in England, he compared the juliet at Barnard with the better-known English examples of Orford, Conisborough, and Pembroke. An unusual feature at Barnard is the spur which, however, is not introduced for defensive purposes but merely as a matter of convenience in order to contain a mural chamber. The interior of the tower was then examined.
BOWES CASTLE was next visited. Like the neighbouring keep of Richmond it was commenced by Conan le Petit, Duke of Brittany and Earl of Richmond, and was completed by Henry II between 1171 and 1187. It is practically contemporary with Newcastle, Richmond, Scarborough, Bridgenorth, and The Peak. Mr. l'Anson, who has personally examined every rectangular keep castle in England, and a number of those in France, remarked that Bowes Castle appeared to be unique, either in England or in France, in that it consisted, from the date of its foundation to the date of its abandonment, merely of a large rectangular tower unconnected with any other works in masonry.
In the very heart of the wildest part of Wales, however, is the rectangular keep of Dolwyddelan, which would also appear to have been unconnected with any other works in masonry. Both Bowes and Dolwyddelan were probably surrounded by palisaded enclosures or barmkins. Like the fortress of Whitecastle in Monmouthshire, Bowes Castle was a purely military structure; it was, indeed, merely a garrison castle, and was not intended either as d residence for the earls of Richmond or as a residence for an important royally-appointed constable, as were the neighbouring castles of Scarborough and Newcastle.
Although faced with ashlar, and although the workmanship is excellent, the exterior of the tower is unusually plain. There is no plinth or set-off, even the usual battering base is absent, and this base could be made very ornamental, as at Bamborough. The only ornamentation is the string-course marking the level of the upper floor, and this, as at Richmond, is carried round both walls and pilasters, a somewhat unusual arrangement. Each angle is capped by the usual broad flat pilaster buttress, and there is also a similar buttress in the centre of each façade. Everything is very plain, there is nothing, for instance, to con.pare with the simple, yet pleasing, effect produced by the shafts in the hollow angles at Castle Rising and Scarborough, or by the elegant cylindrical pilasters at Loches. Mr. l'Anson particularly called attention to the unusually large windows on the first floor level. At Loches, on every floor except the base
ment, is one window much larger than the others, but the windows at Loches are much smaller than are these windows at Bowes. Such windows would never have been inserted in the residential citadel of a great seigneural castle. Bowes was merely a garrison castle ; the only people likely to attack it were the Scots, and they invariably travelled light, and did not encumber themselves with heavy siege engines. The entrance to the keep was on the east on the first floor level. The entrance door was usually the subject of a considerable amount of ornamentation ; but here, as at Kenilworth, it is exceedingly plain, consisting merely of a round-headed doorway, composed of two plain rings of voussoirs, and 5 feet 6 inches wide. There was forebuilding
The arrangements of the interior of the tower were examined. The first floor, as at Castle Rising. Middleham, and Domfront, is divided into two unequal parts: the hall on the east, the solar on the west. Opening out of the hall is a small kitchen, containing a concave-backed fireplace. Mr. l'Anson remarked that rooms specially set apart as kitchens are most unusual in rectangular keeps, Castle Rising being another example. The upper floor was probably added by Henry II. The addition of an upper floor soon after the completion of a rectangular tower was quite usual, similar instances occur at Richmond, Bridgenorth, Ludlow, Kenilworth, Porchester, etc.
The Roman remains at Bowes (Lavatræ) were next examined, under the guidance of Mr. Edward Wooler, F.S.A., and this forms the subject of a separate communication to the Journal at page 400.
EGGLESTON ABBEY. After inspecting the interesting little moorland church of Bowes, which has two twelfth-century doors and contains several Roman inscribed stones, the party proceeded to EGGLESTON ABBEY. Mr. H. B. McCall here addressed the members on the different Orders of Monks and Canons, referring also to the Friars and the distinction between them and the monastic Orders. He then proceeded to point out the objects of architectural interest in the remains of the abbey, basing his remarks upon the article on Eggleston Abbey by the Rev. J. F. Hodgson (vol. xviii, p. 129), the general accuracy of which, he said, could not be called in question.