Page images

motte, occasionally natural, usually artificial, generally varying from 15 to 60 feet in height, and from 40 to 150 feet in diameter at the summit. On one side of this motte there usually lies a fortified enclosure, courtyard, or bailey. The motte which, when perfect, has a banquette, rampart, or breastwork of earth running round its upper edge, almost invariably forms part of the general line of outer defence. It is usually defended by its own ditch, separating it from the bailey, which ditch, at two points, joins the main ditch running round both the bailey and the exterior sides of the usually three-quarters detached motte. There is the same marked divergence in the area of the baileys as in the area of the summit of the mottes. They vary from, say, half an acre in extent, as at Middleham, to 84 acres, as at Skipsea ; but generally speaking, we may say that the average earthwork has a bailey of about 1} acres. These baileys vary in shape as well as in size ; the great majority of them are semi-lunar or oval. There are, however, examples of triangular, oblong, and even of almost square baileys. Generally speaking, perhaps, we may liken the typical earthwork of this class to the figure 8 with the lower part enlarged and elongated to represent the bailey. This general plan is not, of course, an absolutely rigid one; the shape of the earthwork was, to a large extent, governed by the contours of the site selected. Several promontory earthworks which can be proved to represent Norman castles, of which Mountferrant (East Riding), the well-known fortress of the Fossards, is an example, have more than one bailey, set end to end, a somewhat inconvenient arrangement, but one which added greatly to the defensive properties of the stronghold. There are a number of earthworks which have never possessed a bailey, consisting of motte only, of which the North Riding possesses, in Castle Leavington, the finest example known to the writer.

1 The writer is, of course, aware that Souvent elle occupait environ ş hectare, one or two leading authorities object quelquefois 1 hectare de terrain et même to the use of the word “ motte," and davantage. Si j'en juge par le grand prefer the word mound." This, how- nombre d'emplacements de châteaux ever, must be a matter of individual que j'ai observés, beaucoup étaient preference, and it seems to him more entourés d'un rempart en terre sans appropriate, considering the purely maçonnerie qui devait être surmonté French origin of this type of castle, to de palissades en bois, et dont l'approche use the French word for a thing which était défendue par un fossé plus ou was essentially foreign to the English. moins profond

A l'une des Moreover, it is surely a distinct advan- extrémitiés de la cour, quelquefois au tage to have a specific name for a specific centre (this arrangement may be more thing.

common in France than in England ; 2 M. de Caumont, in his Abécédaire in this country the motte is usually ou rudiment d'Archéologie, published in placed upon the main enceinte) s'élevait 1869, gives a description of a motte une éminence arrondie, souvent artifiand bailey castle which might have cielle, quelquefois naturelle, sur laquelle almost been written at the present day. était assise la citadelle ou le donjon. “ Au Xe et XIe siecle, les châteaux Lorsque cette butte était artificielle, étaient en général composés de deux elle offrait habituellement l'image assez parties principales ; d'une cour basse régulière d'un cône tronqué. C'est et d'une seconde enceinte renfermant ce que l'on appelait une motte, etc." une tour ou donjon. L'étendue de la He gives (p. 393) a picture of a typical cour basse, ou première enceinte, était motte and bailey castle, with its palisades proportionnée à s'importance de la place. and timber keep

The late Mr. G. T. Clark differentiated these earthworks from others, but propounded the theory that they mark the site of English castles of pre-Conquest date. To Dr. Round must be given the honour of first demolishing (Quarterly Review, 1894) the then universally held opinion that Mr. Clark's theory was correct, and of establishing the highly important fact that these earthworks mark the site of early Norman castles.) Mr. W. H. St. John Hope, who would appear to have arrived independently at the same conclusion at a later date (“ English fortresses and castles of the tenth and eleventh centuries,” Arch. Journal, lx, 72-90), says:

“Of the three classes of fortresses distinguished in the A.S. Chronicle, namely: (i) the Geworcs or fastnesses thrown up by the Danish invaders or 'Heathenmen' during the second half of the ninth century; (ii) Burhs, cr burgs, builded or wrought by the English in the first half of the tenth as offensive and defensive works against the invaders ; and (iii) a new form of fortress introduced by the Normans (tempus Edward Confessor) called castels, only the last comprised the moated mounds in question.” Mrs. Armitage, in her very painstaking and valuable work, “Early Norman Castles of the British Isles," has proved that these motte and bailey castles are invariably found where the early Norman lord fixed the caput of his fief. Mr. Orpen, in his “ Ireland under the Normans,” proves that the motte and bailey castles of that country owe their origin to Norman invaders, and Mr. George Neilson, in his “Mottes of Norman Scotland ” (Scottish Review, vol. xxxii, 1898), proves that the Scottish examples of these earthworks are confined to those parts of that country influenced by the Anglo-Norman settlement under David I, Malcolm IV, and William the Lion. During the last four or five years an examination by the present writer of over 250 such earthworks -in England (157), Ireland (27), Wales (32), France (35), and Scotland (12), and the expenditure of a considerable amount of time on a study of the original authorities of the Late

1 There can be no possible doubt in the scientific study of English mediæthat Dr. Round's discovery is the most val military architecture. important event which has occurred

[ocr errors]


Saxon and Early Norman periods, leads him to agree with the above-mentioned authorities. After personally examining all the earthworks of this type in the county of York, and after devoting a considerable amount of time to ascertaining, as far as it is possible to do so, the history of each individual example, the writer is in a position to prove that all those earthworks the history of which can be ascertained either from contemporary records or, as is more frequently the case, from historical inferences, were erected by the Norman conquerors, the great majority of them between 1071 and 1145.

The “mottes” “mounds," the citadels of the great majority of these earth-and-timber fortresses, are alone sufficient to differentiate them from other fortified enclosures, and to put them in a class by themselves. The greater proportion of them are also considerably less in area than are their predecessors, and everything, more especially the self-evident fact that the motte was capable of being defended not only against outside enemies, but also against its own courtyard, points to this particular class of earthwork having been erected by a foreign invader to defend himself, his family, and immediate retainers. These small private castles or individual fortresses are exactly what we should expect would be thrown up by the Norman settlers when they established the feudal tenure of land in a conquered but still hostile country. Such fortresses could be both rapidly and economically erected. It is recorded, for instance, that the erection by the Conqueror, of the castle known as Baile Hill, at York, occupied only eight days, and the cost of the great timber keep at York, erected 3 Richard I, was only £28 138. 9d., as compared with £1,927 8s. 7d. expended by Henry III on its stone successor, the existing Clifford's Tower. A fortress or private castle was an absolute necessity to a Norman tenant-in-capite or great feudatory; without such a protection neither his life nor his newly-acquired property would have been worth a week's purchase. It was required not only to protect him from attack by the dispossessed natives, but from the aggression of adventurers similar to himself. These castles were essentially the fortresses of individuals and not fortresses erected, as were their predecessors, to shelter In operatione castri, £28 135. 9d." another on the motte at York.

We Pipe Roll, 3 Richard I.

may multiply these figures by 20 to 2 Mrs. Armitage's Early Norman get at their equivalent in modern money. Castles of the British Isles, p. 246, which Thus we see that a timber keep cost gives a very instructive history of the about £560, as compared with about various towers which succeeded one £39,550 expended on a stone keep.

[ocr errors]


all the folk, “eallum thæm folc to gebeorge.”! The defences constructed by the English and Danes were undoubtedly intended to shelter the whole country-side with their flocks and herds; they were essentially—their size and arrangements prove this clearly enough-communal as opposed to individual fortresses or “castels.' No contemporary Saxon chronicler ever mentions a castle erected by an Englishman, for the simple reason that the English never built castles as we understand the meaning of the word. Had they done so the conquest of England by the Normans would possibly never have taken place. Ordericus, a contemporary writer, explicitly states that “the fortresses, which the Gauls call Castella, had been very few in the provinces of England, and on this account the English, although warlike and daring, had nevertheless shown themselves too feeble to withstand their enemies.”'3 The individual fortress or castle was a Norman importation; "it was feudalism that built these castles which once covered our soil, and whose remains are now scattered upon it. They are the declaration of its triumph."'4

Motte and bailey castles had been in existence in France for some considerable time previous to their introduction into England, but it hardly comes within the scope of this article to enter into the question of their origin. The writer has been long under the impression, and has yet to be convinced of his error, that their originator was Fulk Nerra, the famous Count of Anjou, and certainly the first authentic mention of a motte and bailey castle, undoubtedly the earliest form of individual fortress, occurs in the Chronicles of St. Florent, which state that, in 1010, Fulk and his son Geoffrey, "in occidentali parte montis castellum determinaverunt

aggerem quoque in prospectu monasterii turre lignea erexerunt.' But



1 Birch's Cartularium Saxonicon, ii, 222.

2 Eddisbury, in Cheshire—which owes its origin to Ethelfleda-may be cited as a typical Anglo-Saxon burh or fortified communal enclosure. It measures some 1,250 feet in length by about 500 feet in width, and is approximately oval in shape, defended by a ditch and a high outer bank. Shoebury, Essex, is a good example of a Danish geweorc, and although about half the enclosure has been washed away by the sea,

it measures some 1,600 feet in length by about 700 feet in width.

3 Ord. Vit., Hist. Eccl., iv, 4.

* Guizot, Histoire de la Civilization en France, iii, 311.

5 Chron. St. Florentii, in Lobineau's Bretagne, ii, 87. Amongst the castles said to have been erected by Fulk were Baugé, Chateaufort, Chéramont, Montboyau, Montrichard, and Montbazon. The earthworks marking the site of the last-mentioned castle, erected c. 991994, still exist–from personal observation-but this is the only one of Fulk's castles the writer has had the opportunity of visiting. M. de Salies, writing in 1874 (Histoire de Foulques Nerra, p. 170), states that Fulk's castle of Montboyau then in existence. The writer has been unable to ascertain whether this is still the case.


there would seem to exist evidence that Tribault le Tricheur, Count of Blois (932-962), erected such castles.1

However this may be, there is no doubt as to the date of their introduction into England. It is a well-known historical fact that Norman influence began to make itself felt in this country at least a couple of decades previous to the Conquest, and the earliest castles or individual fortresses erected on this side of the Channel undoubtedly owe their origin to Norman favourites of the Confessor. The English nobles lived in twostoried timber houses such as that depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, in which Harold and his comrades are feasting in the great hall on the first floor, whilst the basement apparently forms a large cellar or store room. That such houses may have been protected from the wolves by an encircling stockade or hedge is probable enough, but they were never intended for defence against man.

The first castle to be erected in England would appear to have been that of Hereford, which was built in or about 1048 by Ralph, Count of Hereford, the Confessor's Norman nephew. This is the first castel ” or individual fortress mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and we read that in 1052 Godwin demanded that “the Frenchmen of the castle” should be given up by the Confessor, and later that "the Frenchmen of the castle” aided the English to repel a Welsh invasion. The mere fact that Ralph's fortress was known as the castle " is sufficient to show that to the English it was an innovation, and apparently by no means a popular one. Richard Fitz-Scrob, one of the Confessor's Norman favourites, founded Richard's Castle, 3 c. 1050; Osbern, surnamed " Pentecost," founded Ewias Castle in the following year.

The castle, although entirely unknown to the English, was the great and outstanding symbol of feudalism, the natural

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 See Mrs. Armitage's Early Norman given at 20 shillings. The motte still Castles of the British Isles, pp. 74-5. remains in good condition, with a half

? Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1048 (Peter- moon-shaped bailey two-thirds of an borough) and 1052 (Worcester). The acre in extent. motte of this castle has disappeared, * Ewias Castle is a well-preserved but the bailey remains. The motte, and interesting earthwork, and is the however, is mentioned in the Pipe only castle mentioned in the Survey as Rolls, 11 Hen. I, p. 100, and 15 Hen. II, having been rebuilt by the Normans p. 140.

It is described in a Survey of (D.B., i, 186a). Dr. Round (Feudal 1652, and was then crowned by works England, p. 324) is of opinion that it in masonry (Grose, Antiquities, ii, 18; Pentecost castle," referred to in and Duncombe's History of Hereford, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1052, i, 229).

and after visiting the earthwork in 1907 3 This castle is referred to in Domes- the present writer came to the same day (i, 1866) under the name of Avreton, conclusion. A half-moon-shaped bailey and the valet ei castellum,” T.R.E., is lies to the south of the motte.


« PreviousContinue »