[804] Benedict of Peterborough, ii., 107.
[805] “In operatione castri 28l. 13s. 9d.” Pipe Roll, 3 Richard I. Under the year 1193, after relating the tragedy of the Jews at York Castle, Hoveden says: “Deinde idem cancellarius [William de Longchamp] tradidit Osberto de Lunchamp, fratri suo, comitatum Eboracensem in custodia, et precepit firmari castellum in veteri castellario quod Rex Willelmus Rufus ibi construxerat.” III., 34, R. S. The expression vetus castellarium would lead us to think of the Old Baile, which certainly had this name from an early period; and Hoveden, being a Yorkshireman as well as a very accurate writer, was probably aware of the difference between the two castles. But if he meant the Old Baile, then both the castles were restored at about the same time. “Rufus” must be a slip, unless there was some rebuilding in Rufus’ reign of which we do not know.
[806] Messrs Benson and Platnauer are of the former opinion. “The existence of a second layer of timber seems to show that the fortification destroyed was rebuilt in wood.” Notes on Clifford’s Tower, p. 2.
[807] “Pro mairemio castri Ebor. prostrato per ventum colligendo, 2s.” Pipe Roll, 19 Henry III. It is, of course, a conjecture that this accident happened to the keep; but the keep would be the part most exposed to the wind, and the scattering of the timber, so that it had to be collected, is just what would happen if a timber structure were blown off a motte.
[808] As the writer was the first to publish this statement, it will be well to give the evidence on which it rests. The keep of York is clearly Early English in style, and of an early phase of the style. It is, however, evident to every one who has carefully compared our dated keeps, that castle architecture always lags behind church architecture in style-development, and must be judged by different standards. We should therefore be prepared to find this and most other keeps to be of later date than their architecture would suggest. Moreover, the expenditure entered to York Castle in the reigns of Henry II., Richard I., and John, is quite insufficient to cover the cost of a stone keep. The Pipe Rolls of Henry III.’s reign decide the matter, as they show the sums which he expended annually on this castle. It is true they never mention the turris, but always the castrum; we must also admit that the turris and castrum are often distinguished in the writs, even as late as Edward III.’s reign. (Close Rolls, 1334.) On the other hand extensive acquaintance with the Pipe Rolls proves that though the mediæval scribe may have an occasional fit of accuracy, he is generally very loose in his use of words, and his distinctions must never be pressed. Take, for instance, the case of Orford, where the word used in the Pipe Rolls is always castellum, but it certainly refers to the keep, as there are no other buildings at Orford. Other instances might be given in which the word castellum clearly applies to the keep. It should be mentioned that in 1204 John gave an order for stone for the castle (Close Rolls, i., 4b), but the amounts on the bill for it in the Pipe Rolls show that it was not used for any extensive building operations.
[809] “Mandatum est Galterio de Cumpton forestario de Gauteris quod ad pontem et domos castri Eboraci et breccas palicii ejusdem castri reparandos et emendandos Vicecomitem Eboraci mæremium habere faciat in foresta de Gauteris per visum, etc.” Close Rolls, ii., 61b.
[810] Order to expend up to 6 marks in repairing the wooden peel about the keep of York Castle, which peel is now fallen down. Cal. of Close Rolls, 17 Edward II., 25.
[811] Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, 262. Mota is wrongly translated moat.
[812] See Mr Cooper’s York: The Story of its Walls and Castles. During Messrs Benson and Platnauer’s excavations, a prehistoric crouching burial was found in the ground below the motte, 4 feet 6 inches under the present level. This raises the question whether William utilised an existing prehistoric barrow for the nucleus of his motte.
[813] D. B., i., 298a.