To the student of military architecture, or of the art of the defence of strong places before the introduction of gunpowder, the ground-plans of defensive works and the details of castellated architecture of every period are interesting; sometimes they are to be admired for the grandeur of their earthworks or the enormous strength of their walls; sometimes for their happily-selected site and the skilful disposition of their arrangements for a flanking defence; or, as at Arques, Dover, Sarum, and Windsor, for their subterranean outlets and countermines. Some, as Clitheroe and Peak, were structures purely military, intended to contain only a captain and a small garrison, and provided with scanty accommodation, and quite destitute of ornament; in others, as Ludlow, Caerphilly, and Beaumaris, the interior arrangements were on a scale and of a character to accommodate a Royal Court. Even where the walls are destroyed, there often remain, in the earthworks, traces of a much earlier people than the Normans, a people who, as at Old Sarum, Castle-acre, Marlborough, Clare, Tonbridge, and the Devizes, occupied the ground with bank, ditch, and palisade, long before native skill had attained to the construction of wall or tower. Finally, although the stern necessities of war did not admit of the banded shafts, lofty vault, or woven window-tracery of Tintern, or Fountains, or many a less distinguished church, the ornamentation of the richer castles, as Dover, Rochester, Hedingham, Newcastle, Knaresborough, Castle Rising, and Coningsborough, is marked by a chastened fitness peculiar to such works; and of the ruder and less ornate castles, the ruins of very many present a savage grandeur which few who have visited Caerphilly, Harlech, or Scarborough, can fail to appreciate; any more than that union of strength with beauty so conspicuous in Chepstow, Raglan, and Ludlow, which, enhanced by an illustrious history, attains its highest perfection in Warwick.
The history of such castles as are connected with public events is seldom difficult to trace. They are mentioned by the ancient chroniclers, and their repairs and various particulars concerning them are often entered on the Pipe rolls, and in other of the records of the realm. About a score, such as Arundel, Bamborough, Taunton, Wigmore, and Hereford, are named in the Saxon annals, and in charters of the eighth and following centuries; and others, though unnamed in these authorities, may from their general similarity safely be attributed to the same people and period. The castles on the Welsh Marches, as Ludlow, Montgomery, Chester, Rhuddlan, Cardiff, Chepstow, and Pembroke, had their special jurisdictions; their courts of law and of record; their chancellor, chancery, and official seal; the lord’s “Vicecomes” exercised powers of pit and gallows, and his court passed fines and recoveries, and other early instruments for the conveyance of land. In the northern Marches such castles as Norham, Prudhoe, Cockermouth, Alnwick, Naworth, Caerlaverock, and Home, constructed for the defence of an exposed frontier or a debatable district, the home of those who lived by “snaffle, spur, and spear,” are commemorated in the records of either country. Others were originally royal castles, as Dover, Canterbury, Winchester, London, Nottingham, and York; or, as Kenilworth, Bridgenorth, and Rochester, fell by escheat or forfeiture into the hands of the crown, and so were maintained at the public expense, and the cost of their repairs charged in the sheriffs’ accounts of each county.
However complete, and it is usually much the reverse, may be the history of a castle, any knowledge we may desire as to its particulars greatly depends upon what may remain of the structure, either in masonry or earthworks, and to understand these the first thing necessary is a plan, and this is just what is wanting in most guides or handbooks of castles. With a good plan not only the age and much of the details of any castle can be ascertained, but sometimes the work recorded in the Pipe or Fabric rolls may be recognised. Original plans indeed there are none; no doubt the military architects, like their ecclesiastical brethren, drew and worked from designs and plans, but these have not been preserved. No such thing is known to exist as an original design or a working drawing of a Norman or even an Edwardian castle. In ecclesiastical researches, from the known uniformity of the arrangements, this want is scarcely felt, but the plan and details of a castle vary with the disposition of the ground or the caprice of the builder, and although a hall, a kitchen, a chapel, a well, and a barrack are indispensable features in a castle, these parts have nothing of the regularity of position of a nave or choir, a cloister, a chapter-house, or a refectory. Nevertheless, great as is the variety in both the plans and details of castles even of the same age, their architects and engineers worked by certain rules, so that if these be studied a clue will be obtained to the age of the work executed. The dimensions, plan, and profile of the earthworks, the presence, absence, or figure of the keep, the thickness of the walls, the plan, figure, proportion and position of the mural towers, the character of the entrance, the material employed, and the particulars of the masonry, all, if carefully observed, afford a clue to the date of the building or of some of its parts, so that as a general proposition, a Norman castle may be known from one of the early English period, or from those of the first or second Edward, and still more readily from those built in the reign of Richard the Second. What these rules are, in what these differences consist, will appear further on.
Mediæval architecture has only been scientifically studied during the last forty or fifty years, and military architecture for a still shorter period. Rickman, who first taught us to read the date of a building in its details, was induced to turn his attention to architecture by the advice of Mr. Blore, who died but the other day.
But Rickman, a member of the Society of Friends, scarcely notices castles, and they have by no means shared in the flood of light directed by Willis upon our cathedrals. Rickman’s rules, however, apply as much to one class of buildings as to the other. What has been done, and what has to be done, towards a history of the architecture of castles, though aided by contemporary records and especially by sheriffs’ accounts and Fabric rolls, has been mainly attained by attention to the internal evidence afforded by the buildings themselves and their earthworks. Even where the castle is a ruin, where the ashlar casing has been stripped off, and little left but the rubble and concrete of the interior of the walls, as at Bramber, Saffron-Walden, and Thurnham, and the disintegrating effect of the weather has had full play, it is not impossible, nor very often difficult, to detect the general age of the several parts of the building by the thickness of the walls and the character of the materials and workmanship, as well as by the outline of the works. The absence of ornament and the general removal of window-dressings and door-cases often, it is true, render the absolute date difficult to discover, but even then, the general figure of the openings, the rough contour of the arches, the position and proportion of the buttresses may be detected, and a tolerably safe conclusion formed. Perhaps, on the whole, the greatest difficulties the military antiquary has to contend with are those where, as at Norwich, Lancaster, York, Oxford, Caermarthen, or Haverfordwest, the building is converted into a gaol, or where, as at Appleby and Chilham, it is part of or attached to a modern residence. Warwick, so remarkable on many accounts, is especially so for the skilful manner in which it has been made suitable for modern habitation without materially obscuring its ancient parts, and this merit may be claimed for Tamworth, and perhaps for Raby.
Our county historians are often diffuse upon the descent of a castelry, and the particulars of its area and tenures, but their descriptions of the buildings are seldom intelligible. Even Surtees, so distinguished for the wealth and lucidity of his style, whose history of Durham contains, entombed in folio, chapters that in a more accessible form would have met with far more than antiquarian attention, never attempts scientific description. Hunter, whose histories of Hallamshire and of the Deanery of Doncaster are perfect as records of the descent of families and property, is not at home in architectural detail; and even Whitaker, who, with Hunter, was quite aware of the interest which attaches to earthworks, gives plans of but few of them, and says very little about the details of the castles. To come down to the latest period, even Raine, Hodgson, and Eyton, in their histories of Durham, Northumberland, and Salop, so copious and so accurate in all matters of record, pass by with but short notice the various earthworks and castles in which those counties are so rich, and the details of which would be so valuable. We look in vain in the pages of these writers for any general conclusions as to the age, style, and points of resemblance or difference between these works, points which certainly fall within the province of the topographer.
The great work of King, the “Munimenta Antiqua,” three-quarters of a century or more older than most of the above, and full of absurd theories, misplaced learning, and fanciful and incorrect descriptions, recognises the importance of plans and details, and although those given with great show of accuracy are often very incorrect, they are worth a good deal, and with all its absurdities the book is on the whole valuable.
The “Vetusta Monumenta,” a work of the same school and period, includes a few castles, and gives plans and sections of two, the Tower and Hedingham, correctly, and in great detail. Unfortunately, these large and needlessly expensive plates are accompanied by no proper descriptions. The voluminous works of the industrious Britton include very few castles, but what there are, as Rochester, Kenilworth, and Castle Rising, are drawn and planned with extreme accuracy. The drawings of Grose and the brothers Buck serve to show the condition of many English castles a century ago, though the descriptions of Grose are poor, and his drawings are by no means clear. Buck’s perspective is very incorrect, but this allows of the bringing into view more of a building than can really be seen at once, which has its advantages.
Since the rise, during the last twenty years, of numerous county archæological societies, castles have received more attention; but no distinct work has appeared upon English castles, though many of the most remarkable are noticed by Mr. Parker in his excellent works on domestic architecture. More recently has appeared the book of the late Mr. Wykeham Martin upon his ancestral castle of Ledes, a work not only well illustrated and furnished with an excellent ground-plan, but in which the architecture and arrangements of the fortress are treated in a scientific manner, and his conclusions supported, in many instances, by original documents.
England contains many curious and some grand examples of military architecture; but that insular position and those industrious habits which have given her internal peace have not been favourable to the erection of fortresses of the larger class: for these we must pass to the Continent, and especially to France. In France not only were the works of imperial Rome of a grand and substantial character, but they were adopted and employed by the people after the fall of the empire, and both Franks and Visigoths, unlike our English Saxons, practised the arts of attack and defence upon Roman principles, and remodelled the older works to meet the later circumstances of the period. In the southern provinces, especially, are still to be found castles and fortified towns such as Tholouse, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne, where the old Roman circumvallation has been preserved, and may still be recognised amidst the additions and alterations of succeeding ages.