« IndietroContinua »
which the gables were east and west. The material of the chapel is coursed rubble. South-west of the chapel was, in Elizabeth's time, a fountain.
This chapel is with great probability attributed to Jocelyn de Dinan in the reign of Henry I (1100-1135), the Temple church, which it resembles, dating from 1127.
The OUTER WARD.—The gatehouse has been much altered and mutilated. In front it presents the appearance of a gateway, with a low pointed arch, in a curtain
a about 6 ft. thick and 35 ft. high, of which the merlons are pierced by plain loops. On each side the gate is a flanking wall 3 ft. thick, and projecting 8 ft., which, no doubt, covered the drawbridge. The arch looks Decorated, as is probably the curtain, though the battlements are probably modern. The ditch has been filled up, and large trees grow along its course. The only buildings in this ward are placed against the curtain, and have already been noticed.
There is no evidence, material or by record, of any castle here before the Norman conquest. The Low or Mound known to have been removed from the churchyard, and the memory of which is preserved in the name of the town, is the only ancient earthwork connected with the place, and was, no doubt, sepulchral. The original Norman castle seems to have stood on the present lines. It was composed of a keep, placed close to the entrance, and forming a part of the enceinte. Westward, the keep was connected by a short curtain with the south-west or bakehouse tower, rectangular, of moderate size, and having its inner face or gorge open.
From thence the curtain passed at right angles northwards along the edge of the rock to a second tower, also rectangular, and containing a postern. From thence, still along the edge of the rock, the curtain, probably 25 ft. high, reached the north-west angle, where it was capped' by a tower nearly rectangular, but placed diagonally, so as to cap the angle, and which was open in the rear.
Thence the curtain passed eastwards, along the north front, to the north-east angle, where was a tower, square or nearly so. No doubt the Norman domestic buildings were placed upon this curtain, and probably there was a central tower on the wall near the present guardrobe tower. From the north-east tower to the keep was the curved curtain, probably then, as now, free from buildings, and outside of this a ditch, still remaining, and extending from cliff to cliff. Of this original Castle there at present remain the keep, the bakehouse and postern towers, the base of the buttery, and much of the north-eastern tower, and more or less of the curtain.
Later in the Norman period certain changes were made. The keep was raised and enlarged, the curtain forming the inner ward was built, and probably the well was sunk, and in the middle ward the chapel was built. The outer ward may have been part of the original design, or it may have been a late Norman addition ; that it was not of later date than this is shown by the square mural tower.
All the rest, curtain, gatehouse, and Mortimer tower are later.
The next changes were in the Decorated period, when very important alterations were made in the older parts, amounting almost to a reconstruction of the fortress. Very early in the period, perhaps before it, the north door and window of the basement of the keep were inserted, the vault turned, and probably the gateway remodelled. At a later date, but still early in the Decorated period, the hall, buttery, and domestic apartments were built along the north front and the kitchen.
The works in the Perpendicular style are few, and are confined to alterations in the domestic apartments, and in the entrance passage to the keep and the kitchen,
Then came the Tudor period, in which the Castle had to be converted into a palace for the presidents of the marches. The base of the keep became a prison, the well-stair was probably inserted, the rooms fitted with Tudor windows and fireplaces, and the gatehouse
was built. Much was done in fitting up the hall and domestic apartments, though in a slight and flimsy manner, so that most of this work has disappeared, and stables were built in the outer ward. The extinction of the Council of Wales and the civil wars put a stop to any outlay upon the place, and for some time it seems to have been freely pillaged, until it became a complete ruin, without floors, or roofs, or any kind of fittings in lead, iron, or timber. Of late years it has been so far cared for as to be protected against all injuries save those of time and weather, while at the same time it is freely open to all visitors. What is wanted for antiquarian purposes is that the mural. passages should be cleared out, and a plan made of each floor.
Ludlow is apparently a purely Norman fortress. Its earthworks, such as they are, or were, have nothing in common, either in position or character, with the hill forts of British origin, so common in that district, neither do they at all resemble the later and English works attributed to Æthelflad and her countrymen in the ninth or tenth centuries, and of which Wigmore, Richard's Castle, and Shrewsbury are adjacent types. In plan, indeed, Ludlow is not unlike those works by which headlands and promontories on the sea shore were frequently defended, it is supposed, by the Scandinavian sea kings, and of which the entrenchment at Flamborough Head is the finest example on record ; but these are seldom, if ever, found far inland, nor is there anything in the two concentric segments of ditches which constitute, or did formerly constitute, the earthworks of Ludlow, inconsistent with the notion that they are Norman works.
There is no mention of Ludlow in Domesday, but that record gives three places in the district bearing
the name of Lude, of which one, belonging then to Osberne Fitz-Richard, is demonstrated by Mr. Eyton to be the later Ludlow. The termination necessary
for its distinction was derived from a large low or tumulus, probably sepulchral, and which stood until 1190 on what afterwards became the burial ground of the parish church. Lude or lud is thought by the same author to mean a “ford”, as by a common pleonasm in the adjacent “ Ludford”. The two other Ludes were distinguished by the names of their lords, and known as Lude-Muchgros and Lude-Sancy.
Mr. Eyton has further shown, almost to demonstration, that Fitz-Richard's tenant in Lude was the much more considerable Roger de Lacy, and that when he decided here to build a castle, he obtained the lordship from Fitz-Richard, and founded the castle within ten years after the survey, or about 1086-1096. Roger was a good type of a Marcher lord. In 1088 he was in rebellion against William Rufus, on behalf of Courthose, and again in 1095, when he took part in the Mowbray rising, was exiled, and so died.
Rufus allowed his estates to pass to his next brother, Hugh, who, however, died childless between 1108-1121, when the estates fell to the Crown by escheat. Henry I granted Ludlow to Pagan Fitz-John, who also held Ewias Lacy, and who was slain by the Welsh in 1136, leaving no male issue. Stephen seems to have seized his lands, and to have placed as Castellan in Ludlow a certain Sir Joyce or Gotso de Dinan, evidently a Breton knight. Shortly afterwards Joyce was in rebellion, for in April 1139, Stephen, accompanied by Prince Henry of Scotland, laid siege to the castle, and constructed against it two “ counter-forts”. It was at this siege that Stephen rescued Prince Henry, by his personal strength, from the grasp of a grappling iron, thrown over him as they walked rather too near to the walls. It would seem that the Castle was not taken.
Joyce's most dangerous foe was his neighbour, Hugh de Mortimer of Wigmore, of whom he obtained posses
sion by means of an ambush, and detained him prisoner in the Castle ; a tower of which has been supposed by its name to commemorate this event. Joyce died, also without male issue, about 1166, after which event Henry II
gave or restored Ludlow to Hugh de Lacy, a descendant, though not in the male line, from the former family; Emma, the sister of Roger and Hugh de Lacy having been the mother of a certain Gilbert, who took his mother's name, and died 1135, leaving Hugh de Lacy the new grantee of Ludlow. This Hugh, who was a very powerful lord in Ireland, held both Ludlow and Ewias, and was Custos of Dublin. Henry II feared his power, and in 1181 seized upon Ludlow. Hugh was assassinated in Ireland in 1185, and left Walter, his son and heir, to whom Henry, in 1189, restored his father's lands ; but seems to have retained the Castle and tower of Ludlow, which he transmitted to King John, to whom, in 1206, Walter de Lacy paid four hundred marks, to be reinstated at Ludlow.
John, however, again seized the Castle in 1207, and gave it in charge to William de Braose, and for a time to Philip de Albini, and then to Thomas de Erdington. Nor did the king restore it till 1214, when Ingelram de Cygoigne was directed to render it up, which he did, though unwillingly, Walter, like his father, was chiefly occupied in Ireland. In 1224 he gave up Ludlow to William de Gammages; no doubt to hold as a pledge for his own good conduct. He died in 1241, leaving Walter, his grandson, as his heir, who died under age. Walter left two sisters, of whom Matilda married, first, Peter de Geneva, one of the Provençal favourites of Henry III, and who had the custody of Ludlow. Peter died childless, but in 1234 he made over to William de Lacy the constableship of the Castle in fee. Lacy was to keep it in repair, and to maintain there a chaplain, porter, and two sentinels, and the expenses were to be allowed. In time of war, the lord was to garrison the place, and live in the inner, the tenant living in the outer ward. Walter de Lacy died in