« PreviousContinue »
eight hundred years of existence that it is difficult to say whether the rudimentary plinth which it still possesses is original or not.
Wide-jointed masonry is generally recognised by architectural students as a mark of the early Norman style. Even this is a test which may sometimes deceive; certain kinds of ashlar are very liable to weather at the edges, and when the wall has been pointed at a comparatively recent period, a false appearance of wide joints is produced. Moreover, there are instances of wide-jointed masonry throughout the 12th century. The use of rubble instead of ashlar is common at all dates, and depends no doubt on local conditions, the local provision of stone, or the affluence or poverty of the castle-builder. We are probably justified in laying down as a general rule that the dimensions of the ashlar stones increase as the Middle Ages advance. There is a gradual transition from the petit appareil of Fulk Nerra's castle to the large blocks of well-set stone which were used in the 15th century.1 But this law is liable to many exceptions, and cannot be relied upon as a test of date unless other signs are present. The Tower of London is built of Kentish rag; Colchester keep of small cement stones (septaria), which whether they are re-used Roman stones or not, resemble very much in size the masonry of Langeais. It is of course unnecessary to say to anyone who is in the least acquainted with Norman architecture that all Norman walls of ashlar are of the core-andfacing kind, an internal and an external shell of ashlar, filled up with rubble; a technique which was inherited
1 It is well known that blocks of huge size are employed in Anglo-Saxon architecture, but generally only as quoins or first courses. See Baldwin Brown, The Arts in Early England, ii., 326.
THE KEEP-AND-BAILEY PLAN
from Roman times in Gaul, but which was not followed by the Anglo-Saxons.1
The presence or absence of fireplaces and chimneys is not a test of date. Colchester is certainly an early keep, but it is well provided with fireplaces which appear to be original. These fireplaces have not proper chimneys, but only holes in the wall a little above the fireplace. But this rudimentary form of chimney is found as late as Henry II.'s keep at Orford, and there is said to be documentary mention of a proper chimney as early as 816 in the monastery of St Gall.3 The entire absence of fireplaces is no proof of early date, for in Henry II.'s keep at the Peak in Derbyshire, the walls of which are almost perfect (except for their ashlar coats) there are no fireplaces at all, nor are there any in the 13th-century keep of Pembroke. It is possible that in these cases a free standing fireplace in the middle of the room, with a chimney carried up to the roof, was used. Such a fireplace is described by the poet, Chrestien of Troyes, but no example is known to exist.*
But apart from details, if we look at the general plan of these four early stone castles, we shall see that it is exactly similar. It is the keep-and-bailey plan, the plan which prevailed from the 10th to the 13th century, and was not even superseded by the introduction of the keepless castle in the latter century. The motte-and
1 Baldwin Brown, "Statistics of Saxon Churches," Builder, Sept. 1900. 2 Mr Round gives ground for thinking that this keep was built between 1080 and 1085. Colchester Castle, p. 32. 3 Piper's Burgenkunde, p. 85. + Schulz, Das Hofische Leben zur Zeit der Minnesinger, i., 59. Grose writes of Bamborough Castle: "The only fireplace in it was a grate in the middle of a large room, where some stones in the middle of the floor are burned red." He gives no authority. Antiquities of England and Wales, iv., 57.
5 "The type of castle created in the 10th century persisted till the Renascence." Enlart, Manuel d'Archæologie, ii., 516.
bailey type was of course only another version of the keep-and-bailey. In this primitive type of castle the all-important thing was the keep or donjon.1 Besides the donjon there was little else but a rampart and ditch. "Until the middle of the 12th century, and in the simpler examples of the epochs which followed, the donjon may be said to constitute in itself the whole castle."2 Piper states that up to the time of the Crusades German castles do not seem to have been furnished with mural towers. Köhler, whose work treats of French and English castles as well as German, says that mural towers did not become general till the second half of the 12th century.* Nevertheless, as it is highly probable that the baileys of castles were defended at first with only wooden ramparts on earthen banks, even when the donjon was of stone, it is not unlikely that mural towers of wood may have existed at an earlier period than these writers suppose. It is, however, in favour of the general absence of mural towers that the word turris, even in 12th-century records, invariably means the keep, as though no other towers existed.5
That the baileys of some of the most important castles in England had only these wooden and earthen defences, even as late as the 13th century, can be amply
1 See Appendix N.
2 Enlart, Manuel d'Archæologie, ii., 516. “Jusqu' au milieu du xijième siècle, et dans les exemples les plus simples des époques qui suivent, le donjon est bien près de constituer à lui seul tout le chateau."
3 Abriss der Burgenkunde, 50-60.
4 Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 352 and 428. No continental writers are entirely to be trusted about English castles; they generally get their information from Clark, and it is generally wrong.
5 This of course explains why the castle of London is always called The Tower; it was originally the only tower in the fortress.
ARRANGEMENTS IN STONE KEEPS
proved from the Close Rolls. Colchester Castle had only a timber wall on the banks of its bailey as late as 1215, and in 1219 this palicium was blown down and an
order issued for its reconstruction."
The arrangements in the stone donjons were probably the same as those we have already described when writing of the wooden ones.3 The basement was the storehouse for provisions, the first floor was generally the guardhouse, the second the habitation, of the lord and lady. Where there were three or four storeys, the arrangements varied, and the finest rooms are often found on the third floor. An oratory was probably an invariable feature, though it cannot always be detected in ruined keeps. One of Mr Clark's most pronounced mistakes was his idea that these keeps were merely towers of refuge used only in time of war.5 History abounds with evidence that they were the permanent residences of the nobles of the 11th and 12th centuries. The cooking, as a rule, was carried on in a separate building, of which there are remains in some places.
Occasionally we find a variant of the keep-and-bailey type, which we may call the gatehouse keep. The most
The Close Rolls mention palicia or stockades at the castles of Norwich, York, Devizes, Oxford, Sarum, Fotheringay, Hereford, Mountsorel, and Dover.
2 Close Rolls, i., 195a and 389.
3 See Chapter VI., p. 89, and Appendix O.
4 Piper states that the evidence of remains proves that the lower storey was a prison. But these remains probably belong to a later date, when the donjon had been abandoned as a residence, and was becoming the dungeon to which prisoners were committed. The top storey of the keep was often used in early times as a prison for important offenders, such as Conan of Rouen, William, the brother of Duke Richard II., and Ranulf Flambard. 5 See Appendix P.
At Conisburgh and Orford castles there are ovens on the roofs, showing that the cooking was carried on there; these are keeps of Henry II.'s time.
remarkable instance of this kind in England is Exeter, which appears never to have had any keep but the primitive gatehouse, undoubtedly the work of Baldwin de Moeles, the first builder of the castle. In Normandy, De Caumont gives several instances of gatehouse keeps. Plessis-Grimoult (which has been visited by the writer) has a fragment of a gatehouse tower, but has also a mural tower on the line of the walls; as the castle was ruined and abandoned in 1047, these remains must be of early date.1 The gatehouse keep is probably an economical device for combining a citadel with the defence of the weakest part of the castle.
We must pass on to the keeps of Henry I.
There is only one in England which authentic history gives to his time, that of Rochester. But the chronicler Robert de Torigny has fortunately given us a list of the keeps and castles built by Henry in Normandy, and though many of these are now destroyed, and others in ruins, a certain number are left, which, taken along with Rochester, may give us an idea of the type of keep built in Henry I.'s time. The keeps attributed by Robert to Henry I. are Arques, Gisors, Falaise,
1 De Caumont says these remains are on a motte, a strange statement, as they are only a foot or two above the surrounding level.
2 No stone castles in England are known to have been built by William Rufus; he built Carlisle Castle, but probably only in wood. As we have seen, several Welsh castles were built in his time, but all in earth and timber.
3 Built by Archbishop William of Corbeuil. Gervase of Canterbury, R. S., ii., 382.
4 Robert de Torigny, also called Robert de Monte, was Abbot of Mont St Michael during the lifetime of Henry II., and was a favoured courtier whose means of obtaining information were specially good. French writers are in the habit of discounting his statements, because they do not recognise the almost universal precedence of a wooden castle to the stone building, which when it is recognised, completely alters the perspective of castle dates. See Appendix Q.