outer walls of the castle enclose a very large area; but so many alterations have been effected by later ages, in these parts of the works, that such vestiges as are really of an early Norman date cannot be distinguished with accuracy. Although it has been deemed expedient to divide variatious. of the style introduced by the Anglo-Normans into determi❤ nate classes, it must not be imagined that either of those distinct modes had a precise and definite term of prevalence. A defective fashion might find imitators after a better manner was introduced; and, in regard to these Norman plans of military architecture, if we suppose that which was first used to have been the chosen practice of the Normans in their own country, we may readily believe that chieftains, newly settling in England, in an after-age, might bring with them a national partiality, and might raise structures in the first Anglo-Norman mode, in neglect of the improvements introduced since that fashion was rejected by the majority. Indeed, no attempt can be more futile than that of seeking to ascertain the exact age of any pile, whether religious, military, or domestic, merely from its agreement in certain particulars of architectural disposal with other buildings, concerning which the date of erection is positively ascertained. There are reasons for supposing that such a method of calculation may with more safety be applied to the early and middle ages of English history than to those more recent; but fancy, caprice, necessity, and many other inducements, must have caused deviations from the best and most frequent modes, in every era. Thus, many castles, erected at a date subsequent to the early part of the first William's reign, are found to display the manner noticed in the above pages as being introduced at that period. Among these may be mentioned the castle of Tunbridge, which appears to have been built after the completion of the record termed Domesday, and, probably, not before the time of William Rufus. Yet we here view a retrocessive adoption of the style first used by the Anglo-Normans; for the original keep, and and principal part of the fortress, consisted of a spacious and strong, oblong tower, situated on the summit of a high artificial mount. The additions made by succeeding builders,* together with the dilapidations effected by the wear of ages, and the tasteless severity of persons through whose possession the estate has passed in modern times, have caused an inextricable confusion to prevail in regard to the outworks; but it appears that the keep and dependant area were originally protected by lines of massy wall, and deep ditches, which were supplied with water by skilful and laborious contrivances. It is the laudable practice of many popular antiquarian writers of the present day, to avoid an indulgence in hypothetical calculation, and to adhere only to plain and unequivocal matter of fact. Such a mode of enquiry canuot be too highly commended, while it simply rests on the firm basis with which it commenced, and does not, in its progress, endeavour to discourage, by ridicule without argument, the efforts of the more excursive to illustrate doubtful circumstances by the rational aid of general analogy. The usual futility of attempts to ascertain precise dates of erection, by an affinity of architectural arrangement, has been already pointed out.—It would, however, appear that we may with security place reliance on the above appropriation of style, as the dates of several buildings there noticed are ascertained on sound historical testimony. And with the same confidence we proceed to an examination of the second, or improved, Anglo-Norman style; for it is known that the fortifications of the castle of Rochester were begun under the direction of Bishop Gundulph, about the year 1088; and it is probable that the greater part was completed according to his plans • The tower of entrance is the addition most worthy of notice. This is an extensive building, flanked by round towers, and containing many spacious apartments. From the character of its ornaments, it is supposed that this part of the castle was erected about the reign of John, or that of Henry the Third, and it forms an instance of the Gatehouse, which is so distinguished a feature in many castles constructed in the Middle ages. plans, and under his care. The improvements which had taken place in military architecture are here obvious, and of high interest. But it is not to be supposed that the whole were first introduced in this instance. Each had, unquestionably, been for some years in that progressive state which is incidental to works of art in their approach towards perfection; and relics of anterior and less refined efforts, similar as to intention, are probably still to be noticed in several parts of England. Intent on raising such fortresses as might effectually supply a necessity long felt in Britain, and at once assist in defending the state against foreign and factious assailants, King William the First, and his successor, carefully selected persons most renowned for architectural skill, and directed their attention towards the construction of castles of defence. The peculiar talent of Gundulph, and the general character of the improvements which are ascribed to him, are well explained in the following pas sage. "Amongst other persons whom William employed and consulted in the advancement of his favourite plan, was Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester. This extraordinary genius began to reason with more acuteness upon the subject than any architect had done before and determined to unite together all the excellencies of former structures, [both those of Alfred's castles, and those of the great round towers of his own countrymen :] and to add many new inventions; for the sake of increasing not only the security, but also the magnificence of these piles. His mode of building was immediately so greatly admired, and so soon came into fashion; that although the prejudice in favour of the old plan, long continued amongst the Normans; and many castles were still daily built according to it; yet many also, in the very same age, and even in the very same years, were erected on Gundulph's. "He determined to get rid of the aukward labour of raising high artificial mounts, by way of defending the entrance and approach to the keep; despised the inconvenience of the central well well, for the purpose of affording air, and light, in the round towers; and saw many defects even in the great castles of Alfred; especially in their want of inward defence to the loop holes in the lower apartments, and in the unguarded design of their great windows above. In short, to him appears clearly to be due, the honor of the invention of the noble high elevated portal, so compleatly defended by draw-bridges, gates, and portcullises, [all placed in the most judicious manner] in lieu of the high mount; the invention of the mode of properly defending loop holes; the invention of wells, concealed in the walls, for the purpose of drawing up timbers; the improvement of the manner in which galleries of communication were constructed in the walls; and other judicious devices, with regard to the situation of staircases, and an improved mode of constructing even the very dungeons. "The noble proportions, and disposition of the state apartments, was also another excellence in Gundulph's keeps; as well as the stately mode of approach, and ascent to them."* The castle of Rochester is the latest effort of Bishop Gundulph in castellated architecture; and it presents a fine and venerable instance of his skill, as the whole of the improvements known to have been introduced by him are here assembled in one impressive display. This castle is so amply described in the Beauties of England for Kent,+ that a notice of its leading characteristics, as a standard of comparison with the modes of other eras, must be all that is required in the present place. Rochester castle is situated near the brow of a natural eminence, which rises abruptly from the river Medway; and its principal tower, or keep, is of extensive proportions, and of a quadrangular form. Thus situated, the river formed on one side a line of defence, without labour or expense. In other directions • Sequel to Observations on Ancient Castles, Archæol. Vol. VI. p. the 295-6. the keep was secured by strong outworks and deep fossæ; and had, around it, a large area for the use of the garrison. The outward walls formed an irregular parallellogram, of about 300 feet in length; and were strengthened by several square and round towers, embrazured, and provided with loop holes and machicolations. The shape of these towers was, however, not uniformly confined to the two modes noticed above; as the remains of one that was of a semicircular form are still to be seen in the south-east angle of the outward walls; and it would, indeed, appear from many instances that the Anglo-Normans, generally, did not adhere to any particular fashion in constructing the towers of their outworks; but introduced, in the same structure, the square, the round, and the polygonal.* The methods adopted for the protection of the garrison in time of close siege, and after the outworks should be taken, displayed many ingenious refinements on the science of defence. In regard to the exterior aspect of the great tower, or keep, there were on the ground-floor, no windows, and only a few loop holes; which were not much more than six inches square. The story above was, likewise, lighted merely by loop holes. But the third story, containing the rooms of state, was accommodated with "magnificent windows," which, however, were placed high in the lofty apartments, for the purpose of security against weapons discharged from without. Various devices to mislead the assaults of an enemy, by deceptively exhibiting an appearance of exterior weakness, where, in fact, lay the greatest strength of the citadel, are conspicuous in this tower. But similar efforts at deception are visible in casfelegatles * The outworks of Rochester castle were certainly much injured, and are said by Holinshed" to have been thrown down," when the fortress was besieged in the reign of John. It is believed, however, that they were restored according to the original design. Even if they were rebuilt in a different taste, such a circumstance does not affect the propriety of the above assertion respecting the various shapes used by the Normans in minor towers of the same structure. |