CITY OF DURHAM 



addition to its natural defences at an early 

 date, and by the beginning of the nth century 

 was strong enough to stand a siege by Malcolm 

 of Scotland.* It is unlikely that the protective 

 walls of Durham at this time were more than 

 earthen banks crowned with palisades, nor is it 

 probable that any part of the keep mound had 

 been thrown up before the Conquest. The 

 castle is recorded to have been built by Earl 

 Waltheof about 1072, though some masonry in 

 the Norman chapel is possibly of an earlier 

 date. Waltheof's work was continued after 

 his death in 1075^ by Bishop Walcher, his suc- 

 cessor in the Earldom of Northumbria. The 

 keep mound, then covering a much smaller area 

 than at present, was probably raised at this 

 period, but would not for some years be 

 sufficiently stable to be crowned with a masonry 

 tower. Bishop William de St. Calais, who planned 

 the present church, probably strengthened the 

 castle, which, after a brief siege, he was com- 

 pelled to surrender to William Rufus in 1088.^ 

 But his successor, Ranulph Flambard, was, there 

 can be little doubt, the designer of the Norman 

 fortifications, as they can be traced to-day and 

 as Laurence described them in the 12th century, 

 although they have been usually credited to his 

 successor Hugh Pudsey. Flambard cleared away 

 the houses from the ground, now the Palace or 

 ' Place ' Green, between the castle and the 

 church,* and built a wall from the east end of 

 the church to the keep.* The whole of the 

 plateau of the peninsula was thus appropriated 

 by the castle, the church and monastery. What- 

 ever were the individual shares of the early 

 bishops in fortifying their stronghold, it is pretty 

 clear that by the middle of the 12th century the 

 fortifications had developed upon the lines then 

 laid down. 



Laurence, the monk of Durham, who wrote 

 about 1 144-9, gives a vivid description of 

 the castle with its great natural strength, 

 fortified by a wall broad and high with lofty 

 battlements and threatening towers rising from 

 the rock.* He describes the gate at the south- 

 east, crovraed with a tower, commanding a 

 steep, narrow path down to the ford over the 

 river, and the similar gate at the south-west 

 with an easier ascent but protected by the river. 

 The third gate at the north-east, being the chief 

 entrance into the city, was more strongly built 

 and possessed outworks and a barbican. From 

 this gate the wall ran westwards up the mound 

 to the keep and thence westwards again to the 



Simeon of Durham, Op. Hist. (Rolls Ser.), i, 215. 

 Ibid, ii, 199. 



Anglo-Sax. Chron. (Rolls Ser.), i, 358 ; ii, 193. 

 Simeon of Durham, op. cit. (Rolls Ser.), i, 140. 

 Ibid, i, 140 ; ii, 260. 



Laurence of Durham, Dialogi (Suit. Sec), p. 11, 

 U. 369-450. 



edge of the cliff, the contours of which it followed 

 towards the south and then turned eastwards 

 to the keep again. Within this triangular area 

 were 'two great adjoining palaces with porticos,' 

 portions of which we may still see incorporated 

 in the existing ranges ; here also was the chapel, 

 ' supported on six columns, not too spacious 

 but sufficiently handsome,' and in the central 

 court was a deep well, which was rediscovered 

 in 1904. On the south of the castle area was 

 the strong and lofty gate, from which a draw- 

 bridge led across the broad moat to a field, on 

 the east side of which a wall ran down from the 

 keep to the cathedral. Unfortunately it is very 

 difficult to make out much about the keep itself 

 from Laurence's description. He seems to 

 describe a circular shell of masonry, of which the 

 stonework was carried down the face of the 

 mound some 5 ft. or 6 ft., so that the surface 

 inside was ' three cubits ' higher than the base 

 of the wall outside.' Inside this was apparently 

 a tower probably of wood, possibly the original 

 keep, rising above the shell, with the battle- 

 mented parapet of which it was connected by 

 a bridge. 



Bishop Pudsey (1153-95) completed Elvet 

 Bridge* and is stated to have rebuilt the wall 

 running southwards from the north gate.^ To 

 him are also ascribed the * Constable's Hall ' or 

 ' Norman Gallery,' forming the northern range 

 of buildings, and what is now the kitchen on 

 the south-west of the castle. During the 

 vacancy of the see in John's reign, from 1209 

 to 1216, some repairs were undertaken which 

 probably included the building of the irregular 

 tower at the north-west angle of Pudsey's 

 gallery. During the remainder of the 13th 

 century little seems to have been done, until the 

 accession of Bishop Anthony Bek in 1284. Bek 

 built the Great Hall on the site which it now 

 occupies, though httle of his work remains visible 

 except the entrance doorway and three small 

 windows formerly lighting the undercroft. Two 

 years after Bek's death, in 1312, Brus raided 

 and burnt the suburbs of Durham,*" then un- 

 protected. In 1315, in consequence of this 

 raid, the inhabitants of Durham obtained, by 

 petition, the right to levy murage,** and the 

 walls round the present market place and the 

 Elvet Bridge gateway were built at this time, 

 and the gate on Framwellgate probably streng- 



' Ibid. There appears to be nothing to support 

 Boyle's rendering of ' tribus cubitis ' as ' with three 

 terraces ' and a great deal to make it an improbable 

 reading. At first no doubt the wooden keep was 

 defended by a palisade which was replaced by the 

 stone wall here referred to. 



8 Hilt. Dunelm. Script. Jres (Surt. Soc), 12. 



» Ibid. 



*" See above, p. 20. 

 ** Reg. Palat. Duiulm. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 1071. 



65 



