đH geocities.com /jw372.geo/tower.html geocities.com/jw372.geo/tower.html delayed x Ő[ŐJ ˙˙˙˙ ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Č ‰’ ä OK text/html €ŘĘś ä ˙˙˙˙ b‰.H Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:51:17 GMT m Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98) en, * Ő[ŐJ ä
Untitled
Fortress, Palace, Prison, Symbol
The Tower
of London, whose main architectural predecessor is the castle at Colchester,
is one of the most historically significant buildings in England because
of the evidence it offers of the overwhelming nature of the Norman Conquest
of England both physically and psychologically. The two authors whose
writings I will compare in this paper are P. E. Curnow and R. Allen Brown.
Both are recognized authorities on the subject of the Tower of London.
Construction began on The Tower of London directly after the Conquest,
in 1066 at the behest of William
I, in order to protect the Normans from dissatisfied Anglo-Saxons.
Its White Tower,
the donjon
of the castle which gave the castle its name, was designed by Gundulf,
the Bishop of Rochester. It was completed around 1100, though the
rest of the castle underwent construction and modification for centuries
afterward. The Tower of London is an important historical source
for understanding the Conquest and the period directly after.
The main building to which the Tower of London is generally compared
is the Norman castle built at Colchester.
P.E. Curnow, in his entry on the Tower of London for the _Grove Dictionary
of Art Online_, refers specifically to the White Tower, as resembling the
donjon at Colchester, “which also had a projecting chapel apse” (1).
R. Allen Brown, in his book _Castles, Conquest and Charters: Collected
Papers_, also mentions Colchester, saying, “In Norman England, the White
Tower (the ‘Tower of London’) and Colchester pre-eminently date from the
Conqueror’s reign” (74). While both concede the relation between
the buildings, Curnow is comparing the two architecturally, while
Brown is focusing on the timing and historical significance of the Tower.
William I’s original purpose in ordering the Tower of London to be built
was undeniably military. Brown, drawing on a primary source, William
of Poitiers, points out that “before his entry into London William sent
lieutenants ahead to raise a fortress (munitionem) in the city” (66).
He also draws an even more decisive conclusion, stating, “Castles were
the very means whereby the Norman Conquest, and more particularly the Norman
settlement, were carried out and rendered permanent” (Brown 66).
Curnow also emphasizes the castle’s strategic placement and military fortifications,
describing the castle in its early stages of construction as “a small quadrilateral
enclosure defended to the east and south by the existing Roman city walls
and to the north and west by ditches and a palisaded bank” (1). Curnow
uses the building itself to back up his assertions about the purpose of
the tower, while Brown uses both the building and historical sources.
The Tower of London had a massive impact on the English people
historically. Curnow stresses the castle’s might, saying that it
eventually became the “largest and most powerful of concentric castles”
(2). Brown, however, sees the main impact of the castle as psychological,
saying, “...One cannot get closer to the spirit of the Conqueror than in
the Chapel of St. John within the White Tower at London, and if one adds
to that great building those of Colchester and the huge Anglo-Norman churches...which
the Conquest brought about, one gets very close indeed to that dominant
spirit of Normanitas...” (74). Brown is trying to go beyond the obvious
physical impact of the Tower to encapture holistically the impression that
the Tower of London made, both contemporarily and today.
The Tower of London was used for many purposes over the course
of its long history. Curnow points out that, “Designed as a palace
as well as a stronghold, the donjon had fireplaces and latrines on both
upper floors” (1). He goes on to mention that “Throughout the Middle
Ages the Tower of London was used as fortress, palace, arsenal, mint, royal
menagerie and prison” (Curnow 2). Brown also mentions that “the castle
was the residence of the great, and for this reason and by reason of its
visible strength it was the conscious symbol of the new feudal lordship...”
(68-69). The difference in the descriptions of Curnow and Brown in
this case may be attributed to their different purposes: Curnow is giving
an overview of the architecture and history of the Tower of London, while
Brown is discussing the historical medieval impact of castles in general.
Both Curnow and Brown agree on the main points of the Tower of
London: that it is closely related to the castle at Colchester; that it
was built primarily as a military fortification; that the castle was a
powerful asset to the Conquest; that it was a residence as well as a fortress.
This degree of concurrence is unsurprising, since they wrote a book together
on the subject in 1984. The main difference is their focus, since
Brown attributes the success of the Conquest in a large part to the psychological
and military impact of the construction of such castles, while Curnow focuses
on the military strength of the Tower. Brown’s arguments, however, based
on medieval sources, make his points more compelling. The Tower served
many purposes in its time, and today it is an important source for an understanding
of the Norman Conquest, expressing power and political dominance.
Bibliography:
Curnow, P.E.: ‘Tower of London,’ The Grove Dictionary of Art Online,
ed. L. Macy (accessed 9 September 2002). <http://www.groveart.com>
Brown, R. Allen. Castles, Conquest and Charters: Collected
Papers. Suffolk: Woodbridge; 1989.