Continuing
our series on writers about Colchester Castle:
Colchester
Castle, by F M Nichols was a paper read at the Annual General Meeting of the
Essex Archaeological Society (now the Essex Society for Archaeology and
History) on 1 August 1882. It contains
some fascinating information about the building – a building whose history has
been subject to recent reassessment. The
paper was published in the Society’s Transactions.
Part
2
18
COLCHESTER CASTLE.
I
will now turn to the history of the Castle. "We learn from Tacitus that
the Roman Colony on this site was entirely without fortifications at the time
of the insurrection of Boadicea, which took place A.D. 62, eleven years after
its foundation.** And the colonists, we are expressly informed, did not on that
alarm throw up any entrenchments. But they relied in some measure upon the
defensive capabilities of their temple of Claudius, in which the veterans with
a small body of soldiers were able to hold out for two days, while the rest of
the settlement was devastated and burnt.*** The one conclusion respecting the
history of Colchester Castle, which I draw from the narrative, is this: that
the powerful earthworks which formed, in medieval times, its outer defence, did
not exist at the time of Nero.****
The
Roman walls of the town, of which so much remains, have been not unnaturally
supposed to have been erected as an immediate consequence of this insurrection,
upon the re-establishment of the colony, but looking at the character of the
Roman work, which appears throughout to be of the same period, I should be
disposed to attribute it to a somewhat later date. We may well imagine that a
temporary …
Footnotes:
** Nec
arduum videbatur exscindere coloniam nullis munimentis septam. Tacit. Annal. xiv.
31.
***
Tutela templi freti .... neque fossam aut vallum praeduxerunt. Et cetera quidem
impetu direpta aut incensa sunt: templum in quo se miles conglobaverat biduo
obsessum expugnatumque. (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 32.) The word tutela is capable of various
interpretation. By some it has been thought to indicate an external wall of
inclosure (aliqua non magni operis munitio. Gronovius). If it be supposed that
the veterans had any faith in their divinity, it may allude to a supernatural
protection. I am inclined to think it merely refers to the possibility of
holding the temple with its surrounding enclosure against a tumultuary attack.
****
The divergence of the modern street from the straight line of the Roman way, is
further evidence that the earthworks are later than the Roman occupation.
COLCHESTER
CASTLE. 19
… vallum
erected after the insurrection, was at a later time replaced by a permanent
wall, which may possibly have inclosed a more extended boundary.*
We
have no knowledge of the details of the subjugation of this district by the
Saxons, or of its history for some time after; and it is no part of our present
design to speculate upon the question, whether the site was abandoned after the
Saxon conquest, or whether the English Colchester succeeded without interval to
the British Camulodunum. Colchester does not re-appear in history till the
beginning of the tenth century, when the town was in the possession of the
Danes, who had been during the previous century settled in East Anglia. The
incidents of its recovery by the English, as recorded by the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, have so important a bearing upon the history of the castle, that I
am bound to give them as literally as possible in the words of the chronicler.
A.D. 921. "Much folk gathered in autumn, both of Kent, and Surrey, and
Essex, and all the nearest burghs, and fared to Colneceastre, and beset the
burgh, and fought against it until they overcame it, and slew all the folk, and
took all that was in it, but the men that there fled over the wall."
This
was followed immediately after by an attack upon Malden on the part of the East
Angles and Danes, which was successfully repulsed, and then in the same year, "Before
Martinmas (Nov. 11) king Edward with a West Saxon army fared to Colneceastre,
and repaired the burgh, and renewed it where it was before broken ; and much
folk turned to him both in East Anglia and in Essex, that was before under
Danish power."
From
the point of view in which we are to-day regarding these events, the first question
we ask ourselves is this: what was the burgh (burh) which was taken by the
English and afterwards repaired by king Edward the Elder? The slaying by the
besiegers of all the folk within the burgh, except the men that escaped over
the wall, seems …
Footnote:
*
Several urns, with two coins of Domitian were found in 1738, within St. Botolph’s
Gate, (Morant, Hist. Colchester, 183.) from which, if the urns were sepulchral,
we may infer that that spot was outside the Roman town at the end of the first
century.
20
COLCHESTER CASTLE.
… to
indicate that the burgh was not the town, which would naturally, if it then
existed, be principally peopled by English, but a castle occupied by Danish
defenders. And it is not improbable that the earthworks, which have been described,
were raised during the Danish domination, of which we here witness the end.*
Whether king Edward repaired the Roman walls as well as the Danish mounds and
palisades I will not undertake to determine.** It is clear that nothing in the
Chronicle justifies the theory, to which Camden gave the sanction of his
authority, that the works of Edward the Elder included the building of a
citadel not previously existing.
After
this passing glimpse of Danish and Saxon Colchester, we are without any
assistance from record or chronicle until the compilation of Domesday Book at
the end of the reign of William the Conqueror. We do not know of any powerful
opposition offered to the conquerors in Essex. But the unusual strength of the defences
of Colchester, and the strategic importance of the position, made it important
to secure the loyalty of the town by a Norman garrison; and there can be no
doubt, that a powerful keep formed part of the castle before the first
generation of Normans had passed away.
It
is time for us now to face the question of the age of this remarkable building;
and if only out of respect for one who was not only an energetic local
antiquary, but a special benefactor of this society (I allude to the late Mr.
Jenkins of Stanway), and I will add, out of regard to the opinion of an
architect, who has done some service in illustrating the antiquities of this
county, I feel bound to say a few words upon the theory of the Roman origin of
Colchester Castle. *** Independently of the personal reasons to which I have
alluded, I do not think that this theory deserves the ridicule …
Footnote:
*
The erection of a castle within the walled town points, like the later Norman
fortress, to a time of foreign rule.
** Florence
of Worcester, relating (after the Chronicle) the repairs of the walls, adds
virosque in ea bellicosos cum stipendio posuit, an incident which was perhaps
borrowed from the castle building and garrisoning of the historian's own time.
*** See
Colchester Castie, a pamphlet by the Rev. H. Jenkins; Colchester Castle a Roman
Building, by Geo. Buckler, Parts I, II, III.
COLCHESTER CASTLE. 21
… and
contempt with which it has been treated. The form and construction of this
building are in many respects so singular, and some of its details bear so
striking a resemblance to Roman work, and I will add so little resemblance to
the Norman works with which it has been naturally compared, that I am not at
all surprised that an enthusiast like our lost friend of Stanway, or even a
careful observer like Mr. Buckler, should at times be tempted to think, that
this massive structure owed its origin to the same race of builders as the camp
of Pevensey.
In
studying the keep of Colchester it is indeed impossible not to be often struck
with the Roman character of the work. If we compare these walls with other
buildings in which Roman bricks were used by mediaeval builders, we find among
the materials of Colchester Castle a remarkably large proportion of perfect
bricks without any mark of previous use. In this respect it contrasts most
strongly with the neighbouring Priory of St. Botolph, where the material is
chiefly Roman brick, and it is difficult to find a single brick in a perfect
condition. Look again at the carefully arranged masonry, in which the
horizontal courses of brick and stone are so regularly maintained, at the solid
towers so unlike the light projections common in Norman keeps, at the entire
absence of any Norman ornament throughout the whole building, except in the portal,
which has been generally assumed to be an insertion (though as to this
assumption I shall have something more to say), and we shall find enough to
justify Messrs. Jenkins and Buckler in raising once more this question.
But
although in many particulars we recognize a Roman character, there are others
which appear to me to disprove a Roman origin. Although there is a large number
of perfect bricks, still the greater number are broken, and there is no
difficulty in finding upon many of them evidence of previous use. The septaria,
Mr. Buckler assures us, must have been specially prepared for this building,
and could not be used a second time, as they are here employed, in the surface
work; and this may perhaps be the case as a general rule, but I could point out
one example at least
22
COLCHESTER CASTLE.
… of
a stone of this very kind in the surface work, to which the red mortar used
with it in its former position is still adhering. I judge also from the difference
in the bricks used side by side, that they were made at different periods, and
collected from the ruins of various buildings. And I should account for the
great proportion of whole and clear bricks in this building, as compared with
later mediaeval structures formed of borrowed materials, by the simple fact
that its builders, being persons of high authority and among the earliest in
the field, were able to choose their materials from those ruins where they
could be found in the most perfect condition. Although out of many ancient
ruins, especially in Rome itself, it would be difficult, owing to the tenacity
of the cement, to extract an unbroken brick, it is not to be supposed that the
mortar used by the Roman masons in every locality and at every period was
equally hard and durable. The perfect bricks of Colchester castle appear to be
mostly of a late date; and we may well suppose that there existed in the Colony
some buildings erected towards the close of the Roman dominion, the materials
of which were not cemented so firmly together as those of earlier times. The
Norman church of St. Albans, built almost exclusively of Roman materials,
exhibits a proportion of whole bricks not unlike that of Colchester castle, its
founders having had a similar advantage in having the first choice among the ruins
of Verulam.
The
proof of the Norman origin of this building is to be found in its general form,
which, in spite of details in which it may differ from other examples, is the
form of a Norman keep, and not the form of any other known building. If we try
to imagine it a Roman citadel, how are we to account for that singular apse?
Mr. Jenkins maintained that the whole building was a Roman temple, but who ever
saw a Roman temple of this form? It would just be as easy to believe it was a
Roman amphitheatre. And it should be observed that the building, as we see it
in its bare and ruined state, carries upon it unmistakeable evidence of being
the work of one period, and the outcome of one design. It cannot for a moment be
taken to be a Roman building …
COLCHESTER CASTLE. 23
… be
it temple or tower, transformed by additions or alterations into a mediaeval
donjon.
In
saying that the whole building is the work of one period, I do not even except
the architecture of the portal, which has been so frequently said to be an
insertion, even by those who have assumed the Norman origin of the keep. I have
satisfied myself, by a frequent and careful examination of the work, stone by
stone, that no insertion has taken place; and I have consulted a practical
mason of considerable experience, who affirms this opinion without doubt or
hesitation.* This fact, independently of the question of Roman or Norman, which
we have decided upon other grounds, is of obvious importance with reference to
the question, which still remains, as to the more exact age and origin of the
building.
I
have already intimated, that from the time of the repair of the fortifications
at Colchester, by King Edward, in 921, we have no further record to adduce
until the end of the Conqueror's reign. The Domesday survey, begun in 1083 and
finished in 1086, contains a long account of this town, which I may add has
been lately rendered more interesting to the archaeologist, by the instructive
commentary of Mr. J. H. Round.** But this record is utterly silent as to the
Castle. It should be observed however, that we must not be hasty to draw the
conclusion that a topographical object not mentioned in Domesday, did not then
exist, until we have first enquired whether the object is one which came within
the scope of the record. Domesday book is not a gazetteer, but a survey and
assessment for fiscal purposes; and it may be stated as a general rule, that
the castles and fortifications of towns, when in the hands of the king, formed
no part of the subject matter of investigation. It is true that the existence
of castles in many towns appears incidentally by the survey, but the fact of
their existence is never set down under the circumstances mentioned as a
substantive part of the record. At …
Footnotes:
*
Mr. Cutts in his pamphlet on the Castle expresses the same opinion, for which
he obtained similar corroboration.
** Lately
published in the Magazine entitled the “Antiquary."
24 COLCHESTER CASTLE.
… Wallngford,
Gloucester, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Warwick, Leicester, Shrewsbury, and Norwich,
we owe the mention of castles wholly to the fact that houses, which had paid
custom to the king in the time of King Edward, had been destroyed to make room
for them. At Dover, Rochester and Exeter, where we know that castles existed,
they are not noticed in Domesday. In like manner, in Colchester itself, there
is no direct mention of the existence of the wall of the town; but here, as at
Oxford, the right of the burgesses to the pasture in the foss, leads to an
incidental reference to the wall.* Two conclusions respecting the Castle may
therefore be drawn from the silence of the Colchester Domesday. One is this,
that no fortress had been made or enlarged at the expense of the taxpaying houses
since the death of Edward the Confessor. This fact is consistent with the
assumed Danish or Saxon origin of the earthworks. We may also conclude from
Domesday, that up to 1086, the Castle, if it existed, continued in manu Regis.
Upon the question whether the keep had been erected or begun in the Conqueror's
days, the survey gives us no information, either directly or by legitimate
inference. Before parting with Domesday book, I will say a few words respecting
a personage, whose name was afterwards connected with this castle. Eudo, son of
Hubert of Rie, who held the post of sewer in the English court, appears in
Domesday as tenant in chief of estates in several Hundreds of Essex. He was
also a landowner in other counties. In Colchester itself he held five houses
and forty acres of land, which had formerly been burgess-land and subject to
custom. He also had a fourth part of St. Peter's Church, to which an estate was
attached, the history of which is given at the end of the Colchester survey, in
a passage which will, I have no doubt, be ably explained by Mr. Round. There is
no sign that Eudo had at that time any further interest in the place; and the
king's possessions appear to have been in the custody of the sheriff, Peter of …
Footnote:
* In
commune burgensium iiij. acre terre et circa murum viij. pertice, de quo toto per
annum habent burgenses lx. solidos ad servicium regis si opus fuerit, sin autem
in commune dividunt, (Dom. Ess. 107.) Another incidental reference to the wall
occurs in recording Ranulf Peverell's houses, quarum una extra muras est 16.
COLCHESTER CASTLE. 25
Valognes.*
The principal estates in private hands, within the more extended limits of
Colchester, were those of Earl Eustace, and John, son of Waleran, who had each
a quarter of some lands situate in Colchester and of the township of Greenstead.
The other half of this property belonged to the king, but the whole church was
in Earl Eustace's portion. This church plays so curious a part in Mr. Jenkins's
theory of the history of Colchester Castle, that it may be as well to add here,
that there can scarcely be a question that the church intended was that of
Greenstead, the later history of which is in perfect accordance with the
Domesday account of it. Eudo, succeeding subsequently to the estates of the
crown, and of Earl Eustace, that is to three-fourths of the lordship and the whole
advowson, granted to St. John's Abbey the whole of the tithes of Greenstead
(Monasticon ii. 893), while the Priory of St. Botolph acquired a fourth part of
the township, no doubt from the successor of John, son of Waleran. (Monasticon,
ii. 45) We have now to turn from Domesday to another document, the statements
of which deserve attention, though they cannot claim any like authority. I
allude to the traditional history of their founder, Eudo Dapifer, which is
preserved in a writing of St. John's Abbey, Colchester. According to this
narrative, which may be read in full in the Monasticon,** Eudo was with William
the Conqueror at Caen, when his second son was nominated by that monarch on his
death-bed to succeed him in England, and having persuaded Rufus to cross the
channel, took the most active part in obtaining the kingdom for him, by
securing the possession of several castles in the name of the deceased king,
before his death was known in this country. I may say in passing, that the
account here given of the importance of Eudo in these transactions is not
confirmed by other authorities. The inhabitants of Colchester, the story continues,
having begged of King William the younger, that Eudo might be made Warden of
their town, had no difficulty in obtaining their request. Eudo came and took possession
of his charge, and gained general favour by his government. Among other
measures he is said to have …
Footnotes:
*
See Domesday, under Lexden.
** Morant.
ii. 880.
26
COLCHESTER CASTLE.
… taken
possession of the land of outlawed persons which was lying uncultivated, and by
paying thereout their proportion of taxes, which had been previously added to
the burdens of other estates, to have relieved the general body of burgesses.
The writer relates in detail the story of the foundation of the Abbey, the
building of which was begun 29th Aug. 1096, and the first Abbot consecrated
about 1104. According to this authority one of Eudo's friends who assisted him
in providing monks for his new house, was Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, whose
name is so closely associated with the history of castle-building in England.
Eudo died at Preaux in Normandy, in 1120, and was buried at Colchester abbey on
the last day of February in that year. His wife Rohaise, daughter of Richard
son of Gislebert, and niece of Bishop William Giffard, one of the builders of
Winchester Cathedral, died within a year after his death, and was buried at
Bee.
Another
document cited in the Monasticon,* being a genealogy of Walter (son of Richard,
son of Gislebert) the founder of Tintern Abbey, contains a statement referring incidentally
to Colchester Castle, which ought not to be passed without notice. It is to the
effect, that Richard, son of Gislebert, was the first husband of Rohaise,
daughter of the first, and sister of the second Walter Giffard, and afterwards
wife of Eudo, sewer of Normandy, who built the Castle of Colchester and the
Convent of St. John, where he was buried with his wife in the time of Henry I.
It
may be observed in passing, that the facts here mentioned are not entirely
consistent with what we learn, apparently with more accuracy, from the
Colchester account, where Eudo's wife Rohaise, is described as the daughter of Richard
fitz Gislebert, by another Rohaise, sister of William Giffard, Bishop of
Winchester, and is said not to have been buried at Colchester. It may be added
as another inaccuracy, that Eudo is called sewer of Normandy whereas it appears
from his foundation charter of Colchester abbey, that he held that position in
the English court, since he styles himself Dapifer domini Regis totius regni
Anglici.**
Footnotes:
*
Monasticon. i. 724.
**
Monasticon. ii. 892.
COLCHESTER
CASTLE. 27
The
statement that Eudo was the founder of Colchester Castle is repeated in some
memoranda relating to the history of this place, which are cited by Morant from
an old record book of the town, now lost but said to be of the date of Edward
III., where the tradition appears in
the
following form : —
Anno
1076, Eudo construxit Oastrum Oolcestrie in fundo palatii Ooelis quondam
regis.*
Turning
from these assertions, the authority of which we have little means of
estimating, except by the mixture of error which they manifestly contain, I
must now call attention to a document of more importance in reference to our
subject, which has been frequently referred to by previous writers upon this
matter, but by a singular consensus in error, always with the same serious
mistake as to its author and date. I refer to the royal grant to Eudo, preserved
in the register of Colchester Abbey, now in the possession of Lord Cowper, an
instrument which has been generally attributed to William Rufus, but which
really belongs to Henry I. As it has not before, as far as I know, been
accurately printed, I give it in full:—
[Ex
Registro Monasterii S. Johannis Baptistse Colecestriae, lib. i. parte 3. p.
12.] Henricus senior de civitate Colecestrie et Turri traditis Eudoni.
Henricus
... Anglorum Mauricio Londoniensi Episcopo et Hugoni de Bochelanda et omnibus
Baronibus suis Francis et Anglis de Essexa salutem. Sciatis me dedisse berligne
et ad amorem concessisse Eudoni Dapifero meo Ciuitatem de Colecestria et turrim
et Castellum et omnes eiusdem Ciuitatis firmitates Cum omnibus que ad illam
pertinent, sicut pater meus et frater et ego earn melius habuimus unquam et cum
omnibus consuetudinibus illis quas pater meus et frater et ego in ea hucusque
babuimus Et hec concessio facta fuit apud Westmonasterium in primo natali post
concordiam Roberti Comitis fratris mei de me et de illo Testibus Eotberto
Episcopo Lincolnie et W. Gifardo Wintoniensi electo et Roberto Comite de
Mellenda et Henrico comite fratre eius Et Rogero Bigoto et Gisleberto filio
Ricbardi et Rogero fratre eius et Rotberto filio Baldwini et Richardo fratre
eius.**
The
treaty between Henry I. and his brother Robert …
Footnotes:
*
Morant’s History of Colchester, 8; Jenkins’ Colchester Castle, 32.
**
The above copy was taken from Dewe’s volume, MS. Harl. 312. f. 72; but its accuracy
has been verified by Mr. J. E. L. Pickering, who has kindly collated it with the
original cartulary, now in the library at Wrest.
28
COLCHESTER CASTLE.
… took
place in August, 1101; the present charter therefore belongs to the Christmas
of that year.
It
is very remarkable, that in this grant of the town and its fortifications to
Eudo, the principal subject of gift next the town itself is the Tower. I need
scarcely remind my hearers, that this was the word usually applied by the Normans
to the new kind of stronghold which we call a a donjon or keep, while the older
earthworks were properly described by the word castellum.* In London the keep has
always been known as the Great, or White, Tower; and has by its predominence
given its name to the whole castle. We cannot but find therefore in this
prominent mention of the Tower as the most important part of the fortifications
of Colchester, a strong argument of the existence of a keep at the date of
Henry's grant; and we can scarcely doubt that if a keep then existed, it was
the same building in which we are assembled.
Another
authentic document connecting Eudo with this Castle is preserved in the same
Kegister. It is his foundation charter of St. John's Abbey, in which he grants to
the Monks, among other endowments, all the revenues of
the Chapel in the Castle of Colchester, (omnes proventus capelle in castello
Colecestrie) and all the revenues of all the chapels in all his manors on this
side the river of Thames, specially at the great feasts, provided always that the
Monks send one of their clerks to do the service of God there on holidays.** We
have nothing to fix the date of this charter, but we know that a royal charter
confirming the grant was obtained by Eudo and Rohaise from King Henry, at Rouen,
in the year 1119.***
We
have exhausted in a few pages the documentary and historical evidence bearing
upon the date of this building, and the only authentic conclusion we can draw
from it appears to be, that the keep was in existence before Christmas, 1101.
For any further arguments we are driven back to what …
Footnotes:
*
Compare the expression fodere castellum, cited in a preyious note from the Bayeux
tapestry.
**
Monasticon, vol. iv. p. 609.
***
Ex. Regist. Colcest. lib. i. part i. p.2. Harl. MS. 312, f.72.
COLCHESTER CASTLE. 29
… may
be derived from a critical examination of the building itself, with reference
both to its general design, and to the details of its architecture and mode of construction
; and from a comparison of it with other works to which it may seem to be
especially related.
With
respect both to the general design and to the architectural style observable in
the details, there is nothing, if we except the portal, which indicates with
certainty any more distinct date than the Norman epoch. The decorations of the
portal point rather to the middle period of Norman architecture, having neither
the squareness and wideness of outline of the earliest work, nor the elaborate
ornamentation which was common in the twelfth century. It would however be rash
to fix any precise date for this design. The architecture of the Abbaye aux
Dames at Caen, which was dedicated in 1066, appears to exhibit some features not
unlike the present portal ; and on the other hand considerable resemblance may
be found in the arches of the great gateway at Bury, which can scarcely be
earlier than Henry I. The founder of Colchester keep certainly employed a
master mason or architect of a very original turn of mind, and it is probable
that, like Gundulf, he had his education on the other side of the channel. If
so, the comparative complexity of the mouldings of the arch need not indicate a
late date, while the total absence of the chevron ornament may perhaps be
regarded as confirming the evidence of documents, which point to an earlier
time than that of Henry I.
Some
arguments of more weight may perhaps be drawn from a comparison of the work
before us with other buildings to which it may seem more especially related. Unfortunately
Eudo's undoubted edifices at Colchester have altogether disappeared. The
remains of St. Botolph's Priory, which was founded in Eudo's life,* have the appearance
of being of a much later date. The tower of Trinity Church, both in materials
and construction, presents …
Footnote:
*
See the charters of Henry I. to this monastery witnessed by Eudo Dapifer. Monasticon,
ii 44. Eudo lived until 1120.
30 COLCHESTER CASTLE.
… a
nearer resemblance to the keep, but as to the age of this building we have no
evidence.
If
we go elsewhere, and compare our keep with the examples which represent the
same kind of structure in its highest grace and beauty, such as the towers of Rochester
and Hedingham, we can scarcely avoid the impression that its design belongs to
an anterior time. And this impression depends not upon architectural details,
but upon the consideration, that when once the taste for a type so perfect in its
kind has been established, an original design of an altogether different stamp,
which would have been welcome before, is no longer likely to be produced. We
must not however, in this train of ideas, lose sight of the influence which may
be exercised over a design by the material in which it is to be carried out.
But
there is another keep, which, though related to the beautiful class I have
mentioned, does not properly belong to it, and from which the keep of
Colchester cannot be dissociated. I mean the White Tower of London. No one who
compares the ground plan of these two buildings can treat them as independent
designs. The architect of London must have had Colchester in his thoughts, or
the architect of Colchester must have imitated the keep of London. But it must
be remembered, that the area of Colchester keep is about half as large again as
that of London, while the architecture of the chapel (which in both designs materially
affects the general form of the building), so impressive and beautiful in the
Tower, is at Colchester rude in the extreme. Another striking point in
comparing these two keeps is, that although closely related as to general plan,
they bear no resemblance in the details of their several parts, as in their windows,
stairs and buttresses. The walls of the White Tower appear to have been hastily
built, and exhibit no such care to produce an ornamental result, as our
Colchester walls with their picturesque bands of brick and stone; a circular
tower is introduced in one corner of the London keep for the purpose of
carrying a stair; the buttresses and pilasters diminish in size towards the
top, and there are none of those massive …
COLCHESTER
CASTLE. 31
… projections
which distinguish the keep of Colchester from the generality of rectangular
keeps. The tower of London, and not that of Colchester, is evidently the model
of which we see in Rochester and Hedingham the more refined development
I
cannot pretend to solve the question, whether the plan of Colchester keep was
borrowed from London, or the reverse. There is some ground for attributing the
White Tower to the skill of Gundulf, but I do not know of any certain
foundation for the early date (about 1078), which has been commonly ascribed to
it. On the other hand we have seen that the date of the erection of Colchester
keep is, if possible, still more uncertain. It may be that both these kindred,
though dissimilar towers, belong to the latter years of the Conqueror. The keep
of Malling, which is, I suppose, beyond question Gundulf's work, is attributed by
Mr. Clark to the period between 1090 and 1106, and yet it appears a step
further removed from Rochester than the White Tower.
We
have seen that two of our historical authorities, not the most trustworthy,
claim the foundation of this keep for Eudo Dapifer. One, the Colchester
municipal record, even gives the date (1076), when Eudo built Colchester Castle
on the site of King Coel's Palace; the other, the Tintern register, merely
asserts that Eudo built the Castle, as well as the Abbey, of Colchester.
It
may be observed at once, that the date 1076, if not improbable in reference to
the castle itself, is an unlikely date, supposing Eudo to have been the founder;
since the Domesday book gives us no reason to think, that Eudo, up to the time
of its compilation, had any predominant interest or rule in this town. The
story told in the Colchester monastic record, that Eudo's custody of the town
began early in the reign of William Rufus, is not contradicted by Henry's
charter of 1101. It is certain that Eudo obtained possession of the forfeited
estates of Earl Eustace as well as of the royal domains within the liberties of
Colchester, since he drew upon both for the benefit of his abbey. The forfeiture
of Eastace occurred at the beginning of Rufus's …
32.
COLCHESTER CASTLE.
… reign,
1087 ; and in 1096, Eudo was already occupied with his monastic foundation.* It
may well be, that the charter of Henry I. only confirmed or enlarged an
authority which had been granted by his predecessor. If Eudo had any share in
the building of the keep, his part in it may be ascribed to the period between
1087 and 1101.
The
walls of this singular building appear to me to tell one tale, that their
design and construction cannot have been a hasty or rapid work. The collection
of the materials, especially of the bricks picked and extracted with care out of
the Roman ruins,** and of a quantity of septaria which in itself is one of the
marvels of the place, must have been a work of time. The depth and solidity of
the basement, and the extreme care with which the peculiar masonry of the
walls, both external and internal, is laid, indicate, especially in a
provincial work where a great levy of operatives could not easily be made, that
a considerable interval must be allowed between the commencement and the
completion of the building. If in the absence of any more precise evidence it is
worthwhile to venture a nearer guess as to the age of the keep, I should
conjecture that it was designed some years before the death of the Conqueror,
and finished under Eudo's rule, during the reign of Rufus. The expense which we
may suppose to have been incurred by Eudo in finishing this work, may have been
part of the consideration for the grant conferred upon him by Henry I.
Upon
the death of Eudo, the castle and town of Colchester appear to have reverted to
the crown. The Pipe roll of 1180 (26 Henry II.) shows an expenditure of 10l. upon
the keep.*** There is no evidence of any alteration in the external defences of
the castle having taken place in Norman times ; and several records of the
reigns of John and Henry III. show that the palisades were maintained.
Footnotes:
* Monasticon
ii, 900.
** The
reader will recall the account given by Matthew Paris of the collection of materials
for the church of St. Alban, by several successive abbots, before its construction
by Abbot Paul, between 1077 and 1088. Matt. Par., Vit. Abbat, p.25, 26, 31.
***
Rev. C. H. Hartsborne, in Journal of Archaeological Association, vol. xxi. p.
279.
COLCHESTER
CASTLE. 33
Thus,
on the 16th of April, 1215, Hugh de Nevill, the Sheriff, was ordered to permit
the men of Colchester to take timber in his bailiwick for the enclosing of the
town and castle;* and on the 11th of March, 1219, the Bishop of London, then
warden of the town and castle, received orders to set up the paling of the
castle, which had been destroyed by the weather, by the view of two of the most
lawful and discreet men of the town.**
The
repairs of the castle are mentioned in several other records, but it is no part
of my plan to pursue its history further. I will mention however in conclusion
one interesting fact, which has been omitted by Morant, that it was for more
than forty years a part of the possessions of Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester, to
whom it was granted on the 22nd October, 1405, and in whose lordship it
continued until his death in 1447. His constable of this castle in the time of Henry
V., William Bardolf, appears to have been on bad terms with the burgesses. The
jurors in the Municipal Court made a presentment, in 1420, that William
Bardolf, with force and arms, swords and sticks, lay in ambush in the Castle Bailey,
and whereas the bailiffs and honourable men and their wives, in their joyance,
were walking as they were wont to do, he of his malice aforethought, did there
shut them up and imprison them, without the king's precept or warrant.***
In
the division of Duke Humfrey's spoils, upon his sudden and mysterious death,
this castle and the hundred of Tendring and fee-farm of the town of Colchester,
were assigned by Henry VI., with other more profitable possessions, to Queen
Margaret.
Footnotes:
*
Rot. Claus. 16 Joh. p. 195.
**
Rot. Claus. 3 Hen. III. p. 389.
***
Report in Colchester Records, p.12. I take this finding of the borough jury to be
simply evidence of the existence of a dispute between the authorities of the
castle and the burgesses, respecting a claim by the latter to a right of way,
or rather perhaps of recreation, in the castle bailey, founded upon ancient
usage. The author of the History and Antiquities of Colchester Castle, (1882)
p.50, whose note has enabled me, in the absence of my books, to make my own
citation of the record more accurate, gives a more serious complexion to the
affair. The constable, as I read the presentment, merely ordered the gates to
be shut while the burgesses were walking on the entrenchments. The same dispute
between the town and the proprietors of the Castle was determined a generation
back in favour of the town, as I am informed here in Rome by the Chev, Arthur
Strutt, whose grandfather was town clerk of Colchester.
34
COLCHESTER CASTLE.
P.S.—
In preparing the above paper for the meeting at Colchester, I had not the
advantage of reading a very able dissertation upon the History and Antiquities
of Colchester Castle (8vo., Colchester, 1882), which issued from the press only
a few days before the meeting, and which constitutes a valuable addition to our
local history. Not the least interesting part of the book is the bold
assertion, founded upon the analogy of other buildings of the kind, that not one,
but two stories, are wanting to complete the original keep, and that the
principal floor with the great hall and chapel were in the fourth tier. This is
a most tempting hypothesis. There is nothing more perplexing than the singular
poverty of what has been deemed to be the chapel in Colchester castle,
especially when we compare it, as we must do, with the kindred keep of London.
In both these towers the general design is made subservient to providing ample
room for a chapel, and with what contrast in the result! This contrast too is
the more surprising when we observe, that in other respects the Colchester keep
by no means falls short of that of London in architectural pretensions; that
its dimensions are larger, that its external walls are more carefully and
ornamentally constructed (see p. 30.); that its internal provisions for comfort
in fire-places and other conveniences were more ample, and that its portal and
grand staircase are unequalled in any building of the kind. These considerations,
as well as the general analogy of other keeps, are strongly in favour of the
theory that in the original design there was a principal floor at a higher
level. But I think it must be admitted that the slight existing traces of
higher walls are not what might be expected upon this theory. The lowness of
the ruined arch at the top of the west wall led me to doubt the existence of a
higher story (see p. 20.), inasmuch as this arch could not be part of a window
of any of the principal rooms; and' although the suggestion of an intermediate
floor below the principal one might seem in some degree to meet this
difficulty, still it does not appear likely that such a floor would have wide
windows, unless indeed this kind of opening may have been serviceable for the
defence. But the question, what can have been the use of these wide openings,
of which we find the remains of another in the north-west tower, remains to be
answered upon any theory. Such apertures, if they were in a curtain-wall, would
be presumed to have been constructed for defensive purposes, and probably
provided with a suspended shutter opening at the bottom. The whole problem
invites further investigation by some archaeologist familiar with all the means
of defence used in fortresses of the eleventh century.
No comments:
Post a Comment