cAstles curAted

cAstles curAted the treatment of castles by the office of works and its successors

roy porter 1

THE TWENTIETH CENTURy WITNESSED A significant change in the way that many medieval castles in the United Kingdom were cared for and made available for the public to visit, enjoy and understand. For the first time, a large number of buildings and places of archaeological and historical interest were placed in the care of the state with the explicit intention of improving their care and making them available for public enjoyment. `is was a consequence of the state’s evolving interest in the preservation of buildings and places of archaeological and historical importance. Although this process began formally in 1882 with the passing of the first Ancient Monuments Act, it was the passing of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act in 1913 and the subsequent creation of the Ancient Monuments Department in the o2ce of Works which resulted in the transformation of many castles from either recently redundant military sites or objects of antiquarian interest to curated objects made available for informed public enjoyment. During the course of the next century over 130 castles in England, Wales and Scotland would transfer into the care of the o2ce of Works and its successor bodies.2

Castles were transferred into the care of the o2ce of Works either directly from other government departments and private owners or via guardianship, a process designed to enable the transfer of a castle’s management to the o2ce of Works while its owner retained the freehold. `e practical consequences of transfer were the same in either case: the maintenance of the castle and its presentation to visitors became the responsibility of the o2ce of Works.

`e philosophy governing the o2ce of Works approach to the care of monuments was set out by its First Commissioner in 1912:

… the principles upon which the Commissioners are proceeding are to avoid, as far as possible, anything which can be considered in the nature of restoration, to do nothing which could impair the archaeological interest of the Monuments and to confine themselves rigorously to such works as may be necessary to ensure their stability, to accentuate their interest, and to perpetuate their existence in the form in which they have come down to us.3

Most of the castles in the care of the o2ce of Works were ruined structures and therefore presented particular challenges and issues related to conservation, maintenance and presentation. For Charles Reed Peers, Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments from 1910 until 1933 and the head of the Ancient Monuments Department during its formative years, ruined buildings were set apart from those still in use: ‘Buildings which are in use are still adding to their history; they are alive. Buildings which are in ruin are dead; their history is ended. `ere is all the diference in the world in their treatment. When a building is a ruin, you must do your best to preserve all that is left of it by every means in your power.’3

Underlying this approach was a primary concern to stabilise and ensure the long-term preservation of historic fabric without restoring lost elements or adulterating the physical evidence presented to visitors. But there was also a desire to make a castle’s remains explicable to visitors, aided by basic on-site signage and guidebooks.5 `e outcome of this efort was masonry cleared of vegetation, sometimes incorporating (usually) well-disguised structural interventions designed to stabilise inherently problematic ruined material, all set within neatly manicured lawns which allowed the plan of a castle to be fully legible.

In undertaking this work, and notwithstanding its o2cial line on restoration, the o2ce of Works set about not only the conservation of a castle’s historic fabric but often also the alteration of its physical form and setting. A useful case study, which illustrates the treatment of castles by the Ancient Monuments Department of the o2ce of Works in its early years, is Portchester Castle. Here there was a typical approach which sought to secure the preservation of the castle through physical intervention but which also went on to restore lost elements of the castle’s form. By so doing, it revealed the practical application of the o2ce of Works philosophy.

Portchester Castle had enjoyed an unusually long history of occupation and use, and it therefore presented many phases of physical evidence. Located at the northern end of Portsmouth harbour, the castle’s origins lie at the end of the second century ad, when a Roman shore fort was established in c.290, probably by the renegade emperor Carausius. Square in plan, the fort had principal entrances in its east and west walls, and its defensive circuit featured twenty hollow D-shaped bastions regularly spaced along the curtain wall, including at its corner angles. `e fort was reoccupied as an Anglo-Saxon

Portchester Castle: keep and western curtain wall, September 1926, before conservation by the o2ce of Works began Historic England Archive: AL0862/012/02/PA

burh, though little survives above ground from this period. Following the Norman conquest, an inner bailey was constructed inside the fort’s northwest corner, the remainder of the fort providing an extensive outer bailey for the medieval fortification. While the Roman defences were periodically repaired, and their gatehouses rebuilt, the focus of building activity during the Middle Ages was the inner bailey, which by the 1120s contained a tower keep (subsequently heightened), a hall, and ranges of accommodation protected by stone defences. In the reign of Henry ii Portchester became a royal castle, and its location made it a favoured embarkation point for kings travelling to the continent. Its high-water moment was perhaps the reorganisation of the inner bailey’s south and west ranges as a diminutive palace in the 1390s, but by the turn of the seventeeth century its active use as an occasional residence by the monarch had diminished and in 1632 it was sold to Sir William Uvedale and subsequently descended through his heirs, the `istlethwaite family. `e castle served intermittently as a prisoner of war camp from the mid-seventeeth century through to the end of the Napoleonic War. At its peak, in the first decade of the nineteenth century, it accommodated some 7,000 men. During the rest of the century the castle became popular as a tourist destination, a function it still enjoyed in the early twentieth century despite its deteriorating condition.

Portchester Castle was transferred into the guardianship of the o2ce of Works on 23 June 1926 but intense consideration of the physical state of the castle and how to address its condition had first occurred a year earlier, when a visit was made by the Director of Works, who concluded that ‘Certain portions of the building are in a very serious state, and some attempt ought to be made to prevent falls before the winter.’6 `e Roman walls were covered with extensive ivy growth but it was not anticipated that extensive works would be required here; instead ivy removal, re-bedding of loose stones and

Portchester Castle: keep and western curtain wall, 2016 author’s photo

‘to some extent underpinning faulty foundations’ was all that was anticipated.7 of more concern was the east flank of the castle, the foundations of which had sufered from inundation by the sea.8 But the greatest concern was expressed about the condition of the medieval inner bailey, with, for example, the northeast tower presenting both loss of masonry at low level and severe structural movement. A technical report on the castle’s condition, prepared in July 1925, concluded that ‘It is impossible to form any accurate estimate of the total cost of the preservation work required upon this Monument. Its extent is very considerable, and at the moment many costly items of structural repair are urgently required, so that for a period of 5 to 6 years about £2,000 should be put aside annually for dealing with the accumulated dilapidations of the past hundred years or so.’9

`e situation presented by Portchester Castle was exactly that designed to be remedied by the 1913 Act. A ruined monument of national importance, which was beyond the resources of its owner to maintain, would be transferred to the care of the state and be put into good order. If this was a decision taken primarily because of what today would be called the castle’s significance, future opportunities to ofset the cost of the works through admissions income were also recognised. Lionel Earle, Permanent Secretary of the o2ce of Works, commented to the First Commissioner that ‘if proper intelligence is shown … [the castle] ought to produce a certain amount of revenue.’10

A massive clearance and consolidation operation was undertaken in order to realise the first priority of removing vegetation and stabilising the castle’s fabric. `e castle’s Roman and medieval building material was treated with the utmost respect, with, for example, special attention paid to ensuring that the work did not adulterate the evidence of phasing in structures such as the water gate or the inner bailey’s north wall.11 But, where

Portchester Castle: inner bailey’s southeast tower and across outer bailey, 19 June 1930, before restoration of the moat had occurred Historic England Archive: AL0862/017/02/PA

the structural condition of the castle justified it, a thoroughly robust level of intervention was involved. In the west wall of the keep, for example, concrete beams were introduced to stitch the building together, an intervention which remains visible in the first-floor mural passage. And not all fabric was equal: in contrast to the reverence paid to earlier material, the castle’s post-Medieval fabric was generally considered of relatively little value – at best an irrelevance and at worst a confusing imposition on the evidence presented by the earlier work. Again, the keep demonstrates this view. Before the works commenced it had been noted how the keep’s interior had been rendered ‘displeasing’ by the introduction of several post-Medieval floors, that none of the existing floors were at the correct (Medieval) level, that some of the principal window openings had been altered to accommodate the new floor levels and that the interior wall surfaces were masked with whitewash and disfigured with brick insertions. `ese ‘displeasing’ features would, for the most part, be removed during the works: all the floors (and the roof) were replaced at the appropriate medieval levels and window openings restored to their historical width and depth. But at least enough value was placed on the later changes to leave many of the post-Medieval floor joists in situ as isolated – if more than slightly incongruous – features providing evidence of the keep’s later use.

Beyond the standing ruins, the works also involved largescale changes to their landscape setting. Extensive excavation was carried out to restore the medieval ground surface level inside the inner bailey and to restore the in-filled ditches and moats around the castle. Work of this scale required a large, experienced work force and this was provided by Welsh miners and unemployed people.12 Although at first glance the attitude shown toward restoration of the landscape around the castle may appear gung-ho compared with the more cautious approach to standing fabric, the activity in both areas was in fact founded on the basis that it was desirable to remove later alteration – be it masonry or the earth filling-in of former ditches – to restore the primary form of the castle.

Portchester Castle: inner bailey’s southeast tower and across outer bailey, 2016 author’s photo

At its conclusion this efort, which had taken several years to complete, had radically altered the form of Portchester Castle: its walls, divested of ivy and newly consolidated, now stood within sharply profiled earth and water-filled defences for the first time in centuries. Quite apart from conserving the castle as found, the o2ce of Works had removed later fabric and archaeological deposits to reveal its medieval (albeit ruined) form and had recreated aspects of its defences.

`is approach to castles in State care, exemplified by the treatment of Portchester, did not occur in isolation. other types of medieval monument were receiving similar attention, most notably perhaps the great ruined abbeys of the north, such as Rievaulx and Byland. A unifying factor in the treatment of the monuments by the o2ce of Works and its successors for most of the twentieth century was the prioritisation of archaeological interest over other aspects of their character.

`e consequences of this approach can be seen at Deal Castle.13 Built in 1539 as part of Henry viii’s device for securing the coast in the face of threat from Europe following his repudiation of papal authority over the English church, Deal was one of three neighbouring fortifications built to protect the important but vulnerable anchorage known as the Downs in east Kent.14 Built to a centralised plan, with a series of radiating lunettes and circular bastions positioned around a central tower, Deal was an exercise in artillery fortification, with rounded parapets designed to deflect shot, and multiple embrasures for the deployment of ordnance large and small as well as the traditional longbow. In the eighteenth century the accommodation at the castle was upgraded, with panelling introduced to its first-floor rooms and a tall brick extension built on its seaward side to provide a fashionable residence for its captains. over the course of the next two hundred years further alterations were carried out on the Tudor fabric of the castle, such as the conversion of original openings to doorways and sash windows, and the further sub-division of the interiors.

Deal Castle: rebuilding the eastern lunettes, 5 May 1953 Historic England Archive: AL0631/037/01/PA Deal Castle: eastern lunettes, 2016 author’s photo

In october 1940 Deal Castle sustained damage from enemy bombing, resulting in substantial damage to the captain’s house built within it. A candid note in an o2ce of Works file written in the week that the bombing occurred reveals the evident glee felt by o2ce staf at the serious damage meted out on the postTudor fabric: ‘Gloria in excelsis. `e Huns have done what we desired but daren’t do.’15 `e damaged fabric was shored up but never repaired. After the war, with the o2ce of Captain suspended, the decision was taken to demolish the damaged building rather than attempt to repair it. `is allowed the restoration of the Tudor form of the castle. But the work was not restricted to the removal of war-damaged material. `e whole interior of the castle was divested of most of the features associated with its use as a residence over the previous two centuries, post-Tudor doorways were converted back into embrasures and archaeological features encountered during the works left exposed.

`e result of the work at Deal was to provide visitors with an opportunity, for the first time in two centuries, to gain an immediate sense of the Tudor form of the castle but this was achieved at the cost of important aspects of the castle’s historical character. `e loss of the later interiors left surviving post-Tudor features stranded and rather incongruous, with decontextualized sash-windows now rubbing shoulders with restored Tudor embrasures. `is approach allowed visitors to see the scars sustained by the castle’s fabric as a result of changes through time but provided little sense of why this had occurred and how the castle had been used.

Bearing in mind Charles Reed Peers’ distinction between living and dead buildings quoted above, it might be said that by the completion of its restoration Deal Castle had passed from this world to the next. `is occurred at least in part because until relatively recently, function as well as period defined how a castle should be conserved. Castles were treated primarily as examples of military architecture, their defensive character highlighted, revealed and occasionally restored, sometimes at the cost of their broader history. `is approach reflected a wider academic understanding of what castles actually were. Broadly speaking, castles were conceived as primarily defensive structures, and their designers were understood to have prioritised defensibility over domestic planning or other considerations. In addition, it was argued that castle design was fundamentally the product of the exchange between developments in siege and defensive technolon. `is meant that apparently defensive features in any particular castle could be used to place it within a broader linear narrative which set out how castles generally evolved from basic strongholds to sophisticated fortifications before ultimately succumbing to artillery technolon. 16

More recent scholarship has explored other aspects of the historical significance of castles, such as their social history, their wider landscape setting and changing cultural meaning, and these are now considered worthy of equal consideration with the details of defensive planning.17 one consequence of this altered understanding of what castles were designed to do, how they were used and how they were regarded, is that their presentation to visitors is now likely to reflect these broader themes. So, for example, in its interpretation of the Great Tower at Dover Castle, English Heritage concentrates on the use of the building as part of a palatial residence by the Angevin kings, and at Portchester Castle a forthcoming presentation scheme will concentrate on the post-medieval use of the castle to house prisoners of war.

So too does an enhanced appreciation of the sweep of history embodied in the fabric and archaeolon of castles inform how they are conserved and presented. It is unlikely that current conservation practice would allow wholesale removal of postmedieval fabric in the manner undertaken in the past. And a project such as the restoration of the Elizabethan garden at Kenilworth Castle undertaken in 2009 seems some distance away from the spare and sanitised approach adopted by the o2ce of Works a century ago. Even more so does Wigmore

Castle, which has been carefully conserved by English Heritage so as to retain the wild and overgrown character it possessed when it was taken into its care in 1996. In the words of English Heritage’s then chairman, the castle was consolidated in such a way that ‘it would remain a romantic ruin forever.’18

But many of the verities set forth in the earliest years of the o2ce of Works still hold today. Curation of castles by English Heritage still has as its primary purpose the securing of the long-term future of these monuments. Careful attention is paid to ensuring that any interventions respect character and evidential value. And if our understanding of the significance of the castles in our care is broader than a century ago, we emulate our predecessors in seeking to enable visitors to enjoy and understand these exceptional places.

1. I am very grateful to Jeremy Ashbee and Samantha Stones for reading a draft of this essay. `eir comments helped to improve it and any errors or infelicities remain wholly my responsibility. 2. `e o2ce of Works and Public Buildings could trace its origins to the reign of Richard ii. Its responsibilities descended to the following bodies: Ministry of Works and Buildings (1940), Ministry of Works (1943), Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (1962), Department of the Environment (1971). `e National Heritage Act of 1983 established the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, commonly known as English Heritage, as the successor body in England; since 2015 the English Heritage Trust, an independent charity, has been responsible for the management and conservation of the English part of the historic estate discussed in this paper. In Scotland and Wales, the properties continue to be cared for by executive agencies of the government, Historic Environment Scotland and Cadw respectively. 3. ‘Ancient monuments and historic buildings: Report of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments for the year ending 31 March 1912. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty’, London: HMSo; `e National Archives [tna] work 14/2470. Quoted in Simon `urley, Men From the Ministry (New Haven and London, 2013), p. 133. 4. W.A. Forsyth, ‘`e Repair of Ancient Buildings’, `e Architectural Journal, vol. 21, third series (1914), pp. 109–137. Peers’ comment is found on p. 135. 5. `urley, op cit, p. 68. 6. tna work 14/414, 12 June 1925. 7. tna work 14/414, Technical Report July 1925, 2. 8. tna work 14/414, Technical Report July 1925, 3. 9. tna work 14/414, Technical Report July 1925, 10. 10. tna work 14/414, 4 August 1925. 11. tna work 14/414, Technical Report July 1925, 4 and 6. 12. John Goodall, Portchester Castle (London, 2008), pp. 39–40. `at the excavation of the ditches could provide work for unemployed people had been anticipated in the technical report produced before the castle came into guardianship. Having observed the section of a grave being dug in the churchyard, the report’s author recommended general excavation of the castle’s interior to a depth of 3 feet 8 inches, which would ‘give employment to some 25 to 30 unemployed during the winter months for several years, provided an experienced Antiquarian could be found to supervise the works and that funds were available.’ tna work 14/414, Technical Report, July 1925, pp. 10–11. 13. Deal, along with the other fortifications of Henry viii’s device, has long enjoyed a liminal position in castle historiography, with its function as a garrisoned fort being quite diferent to a medieval defensible lordly residence. However, its inclusion here is justified by its identification by contemporaries as a castle: notwithstanding the conceptual and typological boundaries imposed by historians, people in 1540 thought that the fortification at Deal was a castle and called it such. 14. `e other castles were Walmer and Sandown. All three were originally connected by a ditch with earthen bulwarks. 15. tna work 14/1943, 8 october 1940. 16. See, for example, R Allen Brown, English Castles, London 1976 for a celebrated exposition of this view. 17. Examples of this approach are Matthew Johnson, Behind the Castle Gate (London, 2002), Charles Coulson, Castles in Medieval Society (oxford, 2003), Abigail Wheatley, `e Idea of the Castle (york, 2004), Robert Liddiard, Castles in Context (Macclesfield, 2005), and John Goodall, `e English Castle (London and yale, 2011). 18. Taken from a speech by Sir Jocelyn Stevens made at the opening of the castle in 1999. `e speech is reproduced in `e Castle Studies Group Journal, no. 30 (2016–17), p. 92.