« PreviousContinue »
there were works in masonry at some subsequent period is shown by a solitary vestige of a wing wall of flints which runs up the motte. A modern tower now occupies the summit. The bailey of the castle, the outline of which can still be traced, though the area is covered with buildings and gardens, was oval in shape, and covered 2 acres.
The value of the manor of Eye had gone up since the Conquest from £15 to £21. This must have been due to the castle and to the market which Robert Malet or his son William established close to the castle; for the stock on the manor and the number of ploughs had actually decreased.1 A proof that there is no deliberate register of castles in Domesday Book is furnished by the very careful inventory of the manor of Eye, where there is no mention of a castle, though it is noticed that there are now a park and a market; and it is only in the account of the lands of the bishop of Thetford, in mentioning the injury which William Malet's market at Eye had done to the bishop's market at Hoxne, that the castle of Eye is named.
GLOUCESTER." There were sixteen houses where the castle sits, but now they are gone, and fourteen have been destroyed in the burgus of the city," says Domesday Book.2 Gloucester was undoubtedly a Roman chester, and Roman pavements have been found there. The description in the Survey would lead us to think that the castle was outside the ancient walls, though
1 D. B., ii., 319, 320.
2 D. B., i., 162. "Sedecim domus erant ubi sedet castellum, quæ modo desunt, et in burgo civitatis sunt wastatæ 14 domus."
3 Rudge, History of Gloucester, p. 7. Haverfield, Romanisation of Britain, p. 204.
4 It is, however, possible that by the burgus may be meant a later quarter which had been added to the city.
Speed's map places it on the line of the wall of his time, which may have been a mediæval extension. The castle of Gloucester is now entirely destroyed, but there is sufficient evidence to show that it was of the usual Norman type. There was a motte, which was standing
in 1819, and which was then called the Barbican Hill; it appears to have been utilised as part of the works of the barbican. This motte must originally have supported a wooden keep, and Henry I. must have been the builder of the stone keep which Leland saw "in the middle of the area;" for in 1100 Henry gave lands to Gloucester Abbey "in exchange for the site where now the keep of Gloucester stands." The bailey had previously been enlarged by William Rufus. Possibly the framea turris or framework tower spoken of in Henry II.'s reign may refer to the wooden keep which had been left standing on the motte." The walls of Gloucester Castle were frequently repaired by Henry II.," but the word murus by no means implies always a stone wall, and it is certain that the castle was at that time surrounded by a wooden stockade, as a writ of a much later period (1225) says that the stockade which is around our castle of Gloucester has been blown down
1 Fosbroke's History of Gloucester, pp. 125, 126. Stukeley, writing in 1721, says: There is a large old gatehouse standing, and near it the castle, with a very high artificial mount or keep nigh the river." Itin. Cur., i., 69. 2 "Of al partes of yt the hy tower in media area is most strongest and auncient." Leland, Itin., iii., 64.
3 In excambium pro placea ubi nunc turris stat Gloucestriæ, ubi quondam fuit ortus monachorum." Mon. Ang., i., 544. The document is not earlier than Henry II.'s reign.
4 Round, Studies in Domesday, p. 123.
5 "In operatione frame turris de Glouec, 201. Pipe Rolls, i., 27. In the single Pipe Roll of Henry I. there is an entry "In operationibus turris de Glouec," 71. 6s. 2d., which may be one of a series of sums spent on the new stone keep.
Pipe Rolls, 1177, 1180, 1181, 1184.
and broken by the wind, and must be repaired.1 Wooden bretasches on the walls are spoken of in the Pipe Rolls of 1193, and even as late as 1222.2
The value of the city of Gloucester had apparently risen at the time of the Survey, though the entry being largely in kind, T. R. E., it is not easy to calculate.
HASTINGS, Sussex (Fig. 18).—In this case we have positive contemporary evidence that the earthen mound of the castle was thrown up by the Normans at the time of the Conquest, for there is a picture in the Bayeux Tapestry which shows them doing it. A number of men with spades are at work raising a circular mound, on the top of which, with the usual all-inclusiveness of mediæval picturing, a stockade is already erected. A man with a pick seems to be working at the ditch. The inscription attached is: "He commands that a castle be dug at Hestengaceastra." There is no need to comment on the significance of this drawing and its inscription for the history of early Norman castles; what is extraordinary is that it should have been entirely overlooked for so long. In no case is our information more complete than about Hastings. Not only does Domesday Book mention the castellaria of Hastings,* but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle also tells us that William built a castle there, while the chronicle of Battle Abbey makes the evidence complete by telling us that having taken possession of a suitable site, he built a wooden castle there." 5 This of course means the
1 Close Rolls, ii., 88b.
2 "In reparatione murorum et bretaschiarum," 20l. 75. 11d. Pipe Rolls, 1193. 3 "Jussit ut foderetur castellum ad Hestengaceastra."
4 D. B., i., 18a, 2. "Rex Willelmus dedit comiti [of Eu] castellariam de Hastinges."
6 "Dux ibidem [at Pevensey] non diu moratus, haud longe situm, qui Hastinges vocatur, cum suis adiit portum, ibique opportunum nactus locum, ligneum agiliter castellum statuens, provide munivit." Chron. Monast. de