accommodation of such attendants as their safety, if not their love of pomp, rendered necessary. The genius of the great Alfred impelled him to an improvement of the national architecture in all its branches; and his dangerous struggles with the Danes caused him to bestow particular attention on the increase in number and strength of fortified buildings. It is not, however, known that the keep of any castle raised during his reign, is now remaining. The noble augmentation of magnitude, and improved mode of military architecture, which he introduced, are mentioned by several early writers; and King Edward the Elder, the warlike son and successor of Alfred, is stated to have formed numerous fortresses, in attention to the advice of his illustrious father.* Relics of these are probably still to be seen in many places; but the alterations effected in subsequent ages have so far obliterated the traces of original character, that no instance remains as a satisfactory specimen of the style pursued in castellated structures erected under his direction, or that of his memorable sister, Ethelfleda, Queen of Mercia. In * The principal of these, and the policy which induced their erection, are thus noticed in Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons: "As the Danes possessed the north of England, from the Humber to the Tweed, and the eastern districts, from the Ouse to the sea, Edward protected his own frontiers by a line of fortresses.-The position of these fortresses demonstrates their utility. Wigmore, in Herefordshire; Bridgnorth and Cherbury, in Shropshire; Edesbury, in Cheshire; and Stafford and Wedesborough, in Staffordshire; were well chosen to coerce the Welsh upon the western limits. Runcorne and Thelwall, in Cheshire, and Bakewell, in Derbyshire, answered the double purpose of awing Wales, and of protecting that part of the north frontier of Mercia from the incursions of the Northumbrian Danes. Manchester, Tamworth, in Staffordshire, Leicester, Nottingham, and Warwick, assisted to strengthen Mercia on this northern frontier; and Stamford, Towcester, Bedford, Hartford, Colchester, Witham, and Malden, presented a strong boundary of defence against the hostilities of the East Anglian Danes. The three last cities, placed in a country which Edward's power had extorted, watched three rivers, important for their affording an easy debarkation from foreign parts.”—Hist. of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. I. p. 236. In the opinion of several antiquarian writers, we may, however, look to the mutilated castle of Colchester, for an imperfect example of fortresses raised in the time of Edward the Elder; and, certainly, many parts of this building are very unlike the usual manner of the Normans, although other divisions were undoubtedly erected by that people. The castle of Colchester is built on an elevated spot, and is constructed in the form of a parallelogram, of large dimensions.* Its walls [composed of stone, flint, and Roman bricks] are of a great thickness, and exhibit considerable traces of that style of masonry, which is termed herring-bone work. The more ancient parts of this curious structure appear to have been originally lighted by loop-holes, which were constructed in a manner much less skilful than is observable in most castles of a later date. A deceased industrious and careful antiquary asserts that instances. of the groundwork of Anglo-Saxon castles, constructed by Edward the Elder, are still plainly visible at Malden and at Witham, both in Essex. From the account of these, as presented in his work, it appears that the keep was placed on a slight artificial elevation, or low flat hill. The general form of the groundwork is round. The keep was encompassed by a thick wall; and around the whole work was a deep broad ditch, and “ a strong vallum of earth, on which was built an exterior wall, turretted after the Roman fashion."+ It is contended by some writers, that from Norwich castle, a building" raised in the eleventh century, by command of King Canute,"‡ we are enabled to form the most just ideas of the castellated R 4 * For an account of the present appearance of this structure, see Beauties for Essex, p. 308, et seq.; and for many critical remarks concerning its probable Anglo-Saxon original, see Archæologia, Vol. IV. p. 406–409. An engraved view of Colchester castle is presented in the Beauties for Essex. + Strutt's Manners and Customs, Vol. I. p. 24-25. In opposition to theabove, it will be observed that, in the Beauties for Essex, the earthworks at Malden and at Witham are supposed to be remains of mere encampments. * For arguments as to the propriety of ascribing the date of this building castellated architecture of the Anglo-Saxons, in its days of mature splendour. Although this structure is said to have been raised under a sovereign of Danish extraction, it may be presumed that he employed Anglo-Saxon architects; and that he adopted Anglo-Saxon modes, if this building be indeed his, is sufficiently evident. The exterior of Norwich castle is now used, with additions, as a gaol for the county in which it stands, and has lately undergone alterations injurious to its beauty and former architectural character. The keep, or great tower, is square, and is, in extent, 110 feet 3 inches, by 92 feet 10 inches; the height to the top of the battlements being rather more than 69 feet. This spacious building is placed on a natural elevation; and, from the basement story upwards, consists of three stories. the basement division is faced with rough flint, of ornament. But from this story upwards, the outside is faced with stone, and adorned with semi-circular arches, laboriously worked, and, in the greater part, intended merely for the purpose of embellishment. On three sides were very magnificent windows, at a great height, being on the floor where the principal and state-apartments were situated ;"* which, together with the subordinate rooms, appear to have been numerous, and of large dimensions. and is destitute In regard to the outworks, and other modes of defence used in this building, it is difficult to separate the traces of such as were formed by the presumed original builder, from those added in subsequent, Norman, ages. But, if we may trust to the guidance of a writer who has attentively examined the whole of the remains, the keep, or great tower of this castle, was surrounded by three wide ditches, of a circular form, each having on the inner side a wall of defence. According to the same antiquary, the to the reigu of Canute, and for a more extended description, see Archæologia, Vol. IV. ; ibid, Vol. XII. and Beauties for Norfolk, p. 121–122. * Archæol, Vol. IV. p. 401, the area of the whole castle, including the three ditches by From the above limited remarks it is hoped that a general idea The subject of Anglo-Saxon architectural antiquities is, however, involved in much perplexity. In the absence of positive dates, and generally unassisted even by useful historical hints towards intelligence, the antiquary has a field widely open to conjectural appropriation, which often seduces his fancy at the expense of his judgment, and betrays him into the labyrinth of untenable hypothesis. The shades of distinction between the known Anglo-Norman, and the presumed Anglo-Saxon styles, are so few and indefinite, that, most frequently, no conclusion can be drawn entirely satisfactory to the dispassionate enquirer. In this state of incertitude, many modern writers, intent on adopting bert * Mr. Wilkins's Essay towards a History of Norwich castle, &c. Archosol. Vol. XII. : adopting the side of disputation most likely to be accredited, as it evidently partakes least of boldness, and is calculated to save much trouble of enquiry and consideration, apply, without scruple, an Anglo-Norman date to every building that appears to fluctuate between the received characteristics of the two styles, or which is, indeed, beyond the reach of record, although not analogous in its architectural character to any indubitable Anglo-Norman example. Such strains of decision are the fashions of antiquarianism; and should be received with due caution, whether the temper of the period or of the writer, may lead to fanciful hypothesis on the one hand, or to a rejection of all that is not clearly demonstrable on the other. MILITARY EARTHWORKS OF THE Anglo-Saxons. Although there is reason for believing that the Saxons, at no very advanced period of their ascendancy in this island, constructed castles of stone, it is unquestionable that many of those rude. vestiges in the soil, which consist of embankments, ditches, and other marks of secure encampment, must be attributed to the same people. Such works, indeed, have been formed by every nation connected with the internal wars of this country; by the Romans, as already noticed; and not only by the Saxons, Danes, and Normans, in succeeding ages of military contention, but by those engaged in the civil wars of ages less distant, involving the disastrous struggles of the seventeenth century. It will not be doubted but that each party, of whatever nation or interest, eagerly took advantage of the earth-works formed by previous armies, when circumstances favoured such an opportunity; and effected alterations suited to its own modes of warfare. Such innovations were frequently made by the Saxons; and thence arises a confusion of features, in the vestiges of many temporary camps, which much perplexes, and sometimes misleads, the examiner.-As an usual criterion, it may be observed that such earthworks of the Anglo-Saxons as relate to the defensive outlines of encampments, are generally far from strong, |