« PreviousContinue »
In the table in the Appendix, the area occupied by the original baileys of the castles in this list has been measured accurately by a planimeter, from the 25-in. Ordnance maps, in all cases in which that was possible. This table proves that the early Norman castles were very small in area, suitable only for the personal defence of a chieftain who had only a small force at his disposal, and absolutely unsuited for a people in the tribal state of development, like the ancient Britons, or for the scheme of national defence inaugurated by Alfred and Edward. We
We may remark here that in not a single case is any masonry which is certainly early Norman to be found on one of these mottes; where the date can be ascertained, the stonework is invariably later than the 11th century.
ABERGAVENNY (Fig. 8). — This castle, being in Monmouthshire, must be included in our list. The earliest notice of it is a document stating that Hamelin de Ballon gave the church and chapel of the castle of Abergavenny, and the land for making a bourg, and an oven of their own, to the Abbey of St Vincent at Le Mans.
The castle occupies a pointed spur at the S. end of the town, whose walls converge so as to include the castle as part of the defence. The motte has been much altered during recent years, and is crowned by a modern building ; but a plan in Coxe's Tour in Monmouthshire, 1800, shows it in its original round form. The bailey is roughly of a pentagonal shape, covering i acre, and is defended by a curtain wall with mural towers and a gatehouse. The ditch on the W.
1 I am indebted for these measurements to Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
? Notification in Round's Calendar of Documents preserved in France, p. 367. Mr Round dates the Notification 1087-1100.
and N. is much filled in and obscured by the encroachment of the town. On the E. the ground descends in a steep scarp, which merges into those of the headland on which the motte is placed."
ARUNDEL (Fig. 8).—“The castrum of Arundel,” says Domesday Book, “paid 40s. in King Edward's time from a certain mill, and 20s. from three boardlands (or feorm-lands), and 25. from one pasture. Now, between the town feorm and the water-gate and the ships' dues, it pays 12l.”? Castrum in Domesday nearly always means a castle ; yet the description here given is certainly that of a town and not of a castle. We must therefore regard it as an instance of the • fluctuating meaning which both castrum and castellum had in the 11th century. Arundel is one of the towns mentioned in the “Burghal Hidage."But even accepting that the description in Domesday refers to the town, we can have very little doubt that the original earthen castle was reared by Roger de Montgomeri, to whom William I. gave the Rapes of Arundel and Chichester, and whom he afterwards made Earl of Shrewsbury.
1 Description furnished by Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.
3 “Castrum Harundel T. R. E. reddebat de quodam molino 40 solidos, et de 3 conviviis 20 solidos, et de uno pasticio 20 solidos. Modo inter burgum et portum aquæ et consuetudinem navium reddit 12 libras, et tamen valet 13. De his habet S. Nicolaus 24 solidos. Ibi una piscaria de 5 solidos et unum molinum reddens 10 modia frumenti, et 10 modia grossæ annonæ. Insuper 4 modia. Hoc appreciatum est 12 libras. Robertus filius Tetbaldi habet 2 hagas de 2 solidis, et de hominibus extraniis habet suum theloneum." Several other hage and burgenses are then enumerated. (D. B., i., 23a, 1.)
3 See Mr Round's remarks on the words in his Geoffrey de Mandeville, Appendix O. The above was written before the appearance of Mr Round's paper on “The Castles of the Conquest” (Archæologia, lviii.), in which he rejects the idea that castrum Harundel means the castle.
See ante, p. 28. • Florence of Worcester mentions the castle of Arundel as belonging to Roger de Montgomeri in 1088.
Roger had contributed sixty ships to William's fleet, and both he and his sons were highly favoured and trusted by William, until the sons forfeited that confidence. We shall see afterwards that their names are connected with several important castles of the early Norman settlement. We shall see also that the Rapes into which Sussex was divided--Chichester, Arundel, Bramber, Lewes, Pevensey, and Hastingswere all furnished with Norman castles, each with the characteristic motte, except Pevensey, which had a stone keep. Each of these castles, at the time of the Survey, defended a port by which direct access could be had to Normandy. It was to protect his base that William fortified these important estuaries, and committed them to the keeping of some of the most prominent of the Norman leaders.
The castle stands on the end of a high and narrow ridge of the South Downs, above the town of Arundel. It consists of an oblong ward, covering 43 acres, in the middle of which, but on the line of the west wall, is a large motte, about 70 feet high, surrounded by its own ditch. The lower and perhaps original bailey is only 2 acres in extent. Round the top of the motte is a slightly oval wall, of the kind called by Mr Clark shell keep. We have elsewhere expressed our doubts of the correctness of this term. In all the more important castles we find that the keep on top of the motte has a small ward attached to it, and Arundel is no exception to this rule ; it has the remains of a tower, as well as the wall round the motte. The tower is a small one, but it is large enough for the king's chamber in times which were not extravagant in domestic architecture. It is probable that this tower, and the stone wall round
1 See Appendix R.