Page images
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small]



bailey is roughly pentagonal, and covers 4 acres. The manor of Caerleon was waste T. R. E. and had risen to 40s. T. R. W.1

CAMBRIDGE.-Ordericus tells us that William built this castle on his return from his first visit to Yorkshire in 1068,2 and Domesday Book states that twenty-seven houses were destroyed to make room for the castle.3 There can hardly be a clearer statement that the castle was entirely new. We have already seen that there is some probability that Cambridge was first fortified by the Danes; for though it has been assumed to be a Roman castrum, no Roman remains have ever been found there, and the names which suggest Roman occupation, Chesterton and Grantchester, are at some distance from Cambridge. The castle, according to Mr St John Hope's plan,' was placed inside this enclosure, and the destruction of the houses to make room for it is thus explained. The motte and a portion of the bank of the bailey are all that now remain of the castle, but the valuable ancient maps republished by Mr Hope show that the motte had its own ditch, and that the bailey was rectangular. There was formerly a round tower on the motte, which, if it had the cross-loop-holes and machicolations represented in the print published in 1575, was certainly not of Norman date. The area of the bailey was 4 acres. The castle was a royal one, and like


1 D. B., i., 185b.

2 [Rex] "in reversione sua Lincolniæ, Huntendonæ et Grontebrugæ castra locavit." Ord. Vit., p. 189.

3 D. B., i., 189.

• A similar plan was made independently by the late Professor Babington. Some traces of the original earthwork of the city are still to be seen. See Mr Hope's paper on The Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle, Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., vol. xi. ; and Babington's Ancient Cambridgeshire, in the same society's Octavo Publications, No. iii., 1853.

5 W. H. St John Hope, as above, p. 342.

many royal castles, went early to ruin. Henry IV. gave the materials of the hall to the master and wardens of King's Hall for building their chapel.

The value of Cambridge T. R. W. is not given in Domesday Book.

CANTERBURY.-Domesday Book only mentions this castle incidentally in connection with an exchange of land: "The archbishop has seven houses and the abbot of St Augustine fourteen for the exchange of the castle."1 It has been too hastily assumed that it was a pre-Conquest castle which was thus exchanged for twenty-one houses; but anyone who knows the kind of relations which existed chronically between the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of St Augustine's will perceive that it was an impossibility that these two potentates should have held a castle in common. It was the land for the castle, not the castle itself, which the king got from these ecclesiastics. This is rendered clear by a passage in the Chartulary of St Augustine's, which tells us that the king, who was mesne lord of the city of Canterbury, had lost the rent of thirty-two houses through the exchange of the castle: seven having gone to the archbishop, fourteen to the abbot, and eleven having been destroyed in making the ditch of the castle.2 There can scarcely be any doubt that the hillock now known by the ridiculous name of Dane John is the motte of this original castle of the Conqueror. Its proper name, the Dungeon Hill, which it bore till the 16th and

1 "Archiepiscopus habet ex eis [burgensibus] 7 et abbas S. Augustini 14 pro excambio castelli." D. B., i. a, 2.

2 "Et undecim sunt perditi infra fossatum castelli"; cited by Larking, Domesday of Kent, App. xxiv. Domesday says, "sunt vastatæ xi. in fossa civitatis." There can be no doubt that the Chartulary gives the correct




even the 18th century,' shows what its origin was; it was the hill on which stood the dungeon or donjon of a Norman castle. The name Dane John is not so much a corruption as a deliberate perversion introduced by the antiquary Somner about 1640, under the idea that the Danes threw up the hill- an idea for which there is not the slightest historical evidence. We have seen that there is no reason to think that the Danes ever constructed fortifications of this kind, and their connection with this earthwork is due to one of those guesses, too common in English archæology, which have no scientific basis whatever.


Somner makes the important statement that this earthwork was originally outside the city walls. His words are:

"I am persuaded (and so may easily, I think, anyone be that well observes the place) that the works both within and without the present wall of the city were not counterworks one against the other, as the vulgar opinion goes, but were sometimes all one entire plot containing about 3 acres of ground, of a triangular form (the outwork) with a mount or hill entrenched round within it; and that when first made or cast up it lay wholly without the city wall; and hath been (the hill or mount, and most part also of the outwork), for the city's more security, taken in and walled since; that side of the trench encompassing the mound now lying without and under the wall fitly meeting with the rest of the city ditch, after either side of the earthwork was cut through to make way for it, at the time of the city's inditching."4

It is not often we are so fortunate as to have so clear a description of an earthwork which has almost entirely disappeared; but the description is confirmed by Stukeley and Hasted, and down to the making of the Chatham and Dover railway in 1860 the earthworks of

1 The hill is called the Dungan, Dangon, or Dungeon Hill in many old local deeds. See "Canterbury in Olden Times," Arch. Journ., 1856. Stukeley and Grose both call it the Dungeon Hill.

2 See Appendix N.

3 Somner's Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 144. Published in 1640. 4 Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 75.

« PreviousContinue »