Bodiam
Bodiam Castle is situated on the East Sussex side of the East Sussex/ Kent border. It is placed on the
South slope of a ridge running down to the northern bank of the river Rother and its flood plain
(Barker et al. 2010: 7). The castle is placed on a spur extending from a ridge of higher land running
between the river Rother and the Kent ditch (Barker et al. 2010: 7). The castle and associated
features we built by cutting into this spur of raised land, damming the valley. Water fills the moat
both from internal springs and from springs found in a valley to the north and west (C. Johnson et al.
2001).
Site and background of Building
The property extends as far as the river to the South; to the West it is limited by the houses in the
village of Bodiam and the Bodiam/ Sandhurst Road, the East the border lies on the valley floor lands
of Court Lodge Farm and Justyns to the North. The castle was built by Sir Edward Dalyngrigge having
gained much wealth and power from fighting in the war in France, returned to England to marry
Elizabeth Wardedieu. Through this marriage came the lands at Bodiam and a moated manor house
to the north of the castle. The current standing remains are dated to 1385 by a license to crenellate
issued in that year though this follows a grant to hold a market and fair. The following year he was
also given permission to divert the course of the river to power a watermill though there is no
evidence for the position of this building. Bodiam remained in the family until 1470 and was still
used until 1543. After this time the building fell into ruin until purchased by Curzon in the late 19th
century.
Description of Building
From the exterior Bodiam appears the picture perfect medieval castle. However, it was constructed
late in the period of castle building and fills a stage between a strictly military fortress and
comfortable residences of the Tudor period. Outwardly the building gives the impression of perfect
symmetry and military strength (Thackray, 1991: 1). It is of similar design to early 13th century wholly
planned castles found in France and Southern Italy. The design first appeared in Britain at Harlech
Castle in 1285 (Nairn & Pevsner, 1965: 419).
The building is rectangular in shape with round towers at each corner and square towers in the
middle of each wall. The northern and southern square towers are used as the gatehouse and
postern. The walls are high enough to provide two floors above basement level cellars (Emery, 2006:
317). The building rises directly out of the moat (without a Berm) (Coulson, 1992: 88)and sits almost
in its centre. The gatehouse would have been protected by a barbican independent of the main
castle building (Emery, 2006: 317).
Each side of the large external walls is lined with domestic ranges. It is here we see the need for
defence begin to give way to the provision for comfortable accommodation (Emery, 2006: 317). The
interior is a regular four-range house unlike Harlech where the internal buildings are separate from
the wall these are the building (Nairn & Pevsner, 1965: 421). This is also touched on my Faulkner
who suggests that in early castle building defensive strongpoint and residence were considered
separately (Faulkner, 1975: 85).
The idea that the building is the work of unaided county contractors has been dismissed and the
name Henry Yevele associated with organising the build (if not working onsite every day) (Coulson
1992: 73)(Harvey 1978: 107)(Goodall 2011: 317).
License to Crenellate
Bodiam has been described as the most written about castle in the whole of England and Wales. This
is not only to do with its beauty and its attraction to visitors. For years it has been at the centre of a
vigorous academic debate as to its purpose and function (Emery, 2006: 317). The origins to this
debate are based on close examination of how realistically defensible the building is (Coulson 1992).
As the earliest example of a Perpendicular castle Bodiam falls into a temporal space between the
comfortable manor houses of the Tudor period and the martial garrisons of the 100 years’ war with
France (Curzon, 1925: 10-11).
Apart from the appearance of the castle the main explanation for the defensive use of the castle lies
in the license to crenellate. It states:
“
The king to all men to whom etc. greeting. Know that of our special grace we have granted
and given license on behalf of ourselves and our heirs, so far as in us lies, to our beloved and
faithful Edward Dalyngrigge Knight, that he may strengthen with a wall of stone and lime
and crenellate and may construct and make into a Castle his manor house of Bodyham, near
the sea, in the County of Sussex, for the defence of the adjacent country, and the resistance
to our enemies, and may hold his aforesaid house so strengthened and crenelated and made
into a Castle for himself and his heirs for ever, without let or hindrance of ourselves or our
heirs, or of any of our agents whatsoever. In witness of which etc. The King at Westminster
20 October. (Blaauw 1861)”
From this piece of evidence the majority of writers suggest that the purpose of Bodiam was to
protect the country against French invasion after a number of raids to the south coast in 1380
(Braun 2008: 106)(Williams 1974: 10)(Lower 1860: 227)(O'Neil 1960: 49)(Simpson 1931: 84)(Platt
2007: 87). Timbs (Timbs & Gunn 1872: 364) must have thought this argument a strong one as he
leads with a direct quote from Savery that the threat from the French “was no idle one” in discussion
on the origins of the license (Savery 1868: 354). Faulkner suggests based on this license that it is
indeed a ‘house fortified’ and had a definite military role to play (Faulker 1963: 230). This idea of
combining a building to complete both domestic demands and defensive structure has also been
touched by a number of authors. There are many references which refer to the duel nature of the
building that suggest it should be considered as more of a military building than a house (O'Neil 1960:
16)(Mackenzie 1896: 64-6)(Simpson 1931: 85) and some suggestions that there is barely any sign of
luxury or comfort (Clark 1884: 246). Some highlight that again fitting into this idea of being built at a
time of change the building cannot be considered a great fortress (Brown 1970: 144) and neither is it
considered the most comfortable of buildings (Tipping 1921). It has also been suggested that
Dallingridge learnt from the French in making a castle both defensible (Tipping 1921: 239)(Platt 1982:
114) and comfortable. There are also claims that the building was ‘at least as much a palace as a
fortress’ (Platt 1982: 119).
Another suggestion is that a number of the licenses to crenellate were more a result of civil unrest in
the country(Platt 2007: 88). The building itself would have been suitable to either put off the threat
of raids through appearance or through the presence of a moat (Williams 1974: 10-3). Another
explanation for the gaining of a license to crenellate agrees with the later use of them to build
houses not for protection but for displays of ostentation and display (Williams 1974: 8)(O'Neil 1960:
29)and over displays of power and grandeur that could be backed up with heraldic display (Coulson
1992: 8)(Simpson 1946).
A military building?
It has also been suggested that Bodiam was not designed to be of military strength to those invading
but the structure of the building was designed to protect from the enemy within: mercenary troops.
Bodiam was built during a period where lords needed to provide quarters for professional soldiers to
protect them from the results of private quarrels. This housing of a garrison not only required the
provision of quarters for the troops it also meant that the lords quarters would need to be more
secure to protect from swaying loyalties (Simpson 1946: 152). In the case of Bodiam the housing for
the garrison is completely isolated from the rest of the buildings (Simpson 1946: 159).
This idea has been discussed elsewhere but in some cases it has been suggested that this isolation
was more to do with the general trend towards more privacy among the gentry (Platt 1982: 118).
Using Access Analysis it has been suggested that the more private or ‘deeper’ a room is situated into
the building plan the more status it holds (Richardson 2003). To some extent this has been explored
by Faulkner who examines the building through looking at how the domestic demands help to form
the structure of the castle (Faulker, 1963: 215). Through examining access links, as with access
analysis, the more private rooms with fewer access links tend to be those of higher status. He
concludes that Bodiam is (with Bolton) a fantastic example of how both military and domestic
demands combine in the planning of this building in the same way that the owner inhabited duel
posts as inhabitant and knight (Faulker 1963: 235).
However, there is no evidence for the building having ever housed a garrison (Coulson 1992: 64).
Leading on from this argument there are many structural reasons to assume that the building was
not designed to withstand an attack. The building appears to have been built with the design of
making it appear larger than it really is (Coulson 1992: 76). The way the building rises straight out of
the water of the moat without a berm making the reflection and castle appear joined (Johnson 2002:
21).
Siting and moat
The next questions are about whether the castle should really be defined as such and would it hold
off from a serious attack, or provide suitable defence to the land around. Dallingridge’s decision to
move from the position of the old castle has been suggested as a strategic move in terms of defence
(Tipping 1921: 242)(Sands 1903: 115). The position of the castle is defended on two sides by
marshland and out of range of attack from the higher ground (Sands 1903: 115).
However, this move has also been suggested as having nothing to do with defence as the position of
the old manor situated at a higher level to the castle would have been in a much more suitable
position (Coulson 1992) and the higher ground would indeed according to Sands diagrams been in
range of the building (Sands 1903)(Coulson 1992).
This move has been instead attributed to the wishes of the builders, the move allowed them to build
without topographical issues (Simpson 1931: 86). It would also make the build more economical by
bringing the building close to the river allowing resources and builders easier access (Coulson 1992:
86). By moving the building to this new location it gives easy access to the river and from this to the
sea at Rye (Sands 1903: 115) . Equally it also allowed the building of the new castle to be in an area
which could be totally transformed as the centre to a much larger project. It also would allow to
make a unique marker on the region (Saul 1995: 20). This position had a prominence to it that the
previous manor house lacked, a fitting display of Dallingridges status possibly (Coulson 1992: 86)?
Although the siting of the building has been suggested to have varying strategic capabilities its lack
of natural advantage also provided the builder with an empty canvas (Clark 1884: 241). The platform
appears to have been the position of a natural pooling of water on the surface (Coulson 1992: 87).
This allowed for the easy creation of the moat by excavating this area and retaining the water by
building an earthwork to the east and raising the level of the land to the south (Clark 1884: 241). The
moat is fed by a stream running down a series of earthworks in the East and by a number of springs
in the moat itself, making it particularly challenging to drain (Curzon 1925: 52). The castle rises
straight up from the moat, which is almost a lake in dimension (Curzon 1925; 51), without a berm,
this makes the castle appear larger than it is as the reflection joins to the castle without interruption
(M. H. Johnson 2002).
The bank holding the water has been at the heart of the debate as to whether the building is
realistically defendable. Most writers state the moat as the major part of the castles defence. Its
width being wide enough to prevent attack from contemporary weapons (Sands 1903: 132)(Turner
1986: 269)(Platt 1982: 113-4). The moat also prevented attack from mining (Platt 1982: 113-4) the
most efficient method of attacking a building (Brown 1970: 180).
However, many of the arguments have been quickly put down. Coulson highlights that diagrams
drawn by Sands to show the range of the crossbow at Bodiam (Sands 1903: 132) clearly show that
the moat does not provide a wide enough defence from this type of attack (Coulson 1992: 60).
Also it has been proved in the excavation of the bank to the East of the moat that it would only take
a small number of men to cut through it in a single night which would drain the moat (Coulson 1992:
85)(Clark 1884: 241)(Curzon 1925: 53)(Saul 1995: 18). Emery also agrees and suggests that the moat
was purely for aesthetic and landscaping reasons (Emery 2005: 151). Despite this limitation of the
moat it has Clark suggests that even when drained the moat would have provided sufficient
deterrent as the base was covered in a thick layer of mud (Clark 1884: 241)(Simpson 1931)(Curzon
1925: 53). This idea does not take into account the fact that mud can be crossed through use of
planking, straw etc. to lay over the top (Morris 2003: 146)(Coulson 1992: 85). This aspect of the bank
has been attributed to the need to frequently flush the waster (from discharging gardrobes) away
from the castle and would therefore necessary to cut through easily (Coulson 1992: 85).
Earthworks
In the area immediately surrounding the castle are a series of earthworks. To the north of the castle
further up the hill are a series of earthworks traditionally called the Gun Garden. It is here that a
number of sources suggest that an assault on the castle was based for the removal of its owner:
Thomas Lewknor (Lower 1857: 302) (Timbs & Gunn 1872: 367) and that these earthworks were used
as gun embrasures (O'Neil 1960: 107)(Sands 1903: 132)(Simpson 1931: 96). Excavation on this
terrace suggests that these earthworks were actually the remains of a medieval building. It has been
suggested that instead the whole feature is instead used as a viewing platform to look over the
castle either during construction (Thackray 1991: 11-2) or after as it shows the castle in its full glory
(Johnson 2002: 26)(Taylor et al. 1990: 157)(Everson 1996a: 70).
It also suggests the possibility that this region was used as a pleasance or a garden (Taylor et al. 1990:
157). These spaces were provided for the women of the household to ‘take their leisure’ in which
the presence of water is frequent (Gilchrist 1999: 128). This links into further ideas about castles
being gendered as feminine by Gilchrist. This is particularly interesting at Bodiam. The way the body
was perceived in medieval society was through four basic elements: fire, water, earth and air, the
balance of which influenced the nature of each individual. Women were considered to be primarily
of a changeable nature linked to water (Gilchrist 1999: 115). This proves interesting at Bodiam which
is a very “watery landscape” (M. H. Johnson 2002), the castle itself forms part of the landscape
(Gilchrist 1999: 119) and has been defined as fundamentally masculine (Gilchrist 1999: 120)(Platt
2007: 88). Especially considering the amount of time Dallingridge would have been away leaving his
wife in charge of the household and estate (Gilchrist 1999: 120). What is apparent about the gardens
is that they were not meant to be insight of any chambers of buildings other than those occupied by
women. As at Winchester the garden provided views of castle from an elevated position (Gilchrist
1999: 137). However, against this view is that the tradition of placing women’s apartments in the
deepest most contained spaces (Gilchrist 1999: 124) does not stand in this instance.
Leading on from the earthworks situated above the castle the results of the survey show that
without question, all of the earthworks are the remains of elaborate gardens and water features
designed to set the castle in a carefully composed landscape. This designed landscape appears to
have been produced to enhance the appearance of the castle as well as carefully control access to
the advantage of displaying the castle at its best. The features have been dated as contemporary to
the medieval castle due to a lack of post medieval development to the building and lack of
occupation (Everson 1996b).
A series of ponds runs down to the moat from the northwest and out to the east. The ponds to the
west are now seen as a marshy valley with the remnants of walkways on either side. While to the
east the pond is used as drainage. There may have also been a number of other pools of water found
to the south of this eastern pond, but this area has been used as a deposit for the dredging’s of the
moat and the topography may have been much altered. The last water feature is directly south of
the castle and is now known as the tiltyard which could be the remains of the mill pond and to the
west of this over a flat topped bank another low lying area has been interpreted as the location of
the medieval harbour (Taylor et al. 1990; 155).
This series of earthworks and sheets of water were designed with the intention of manipulating the
route of the visitor towards the castle, providing an elaborate setting and enhance the visual
appearance of the castle (Everson 1996a).
The approach
The approach to the castle is strictly controlled by the series of ponds described above. Curzon
suggested that the route taken would start in the North-west corner where one would skirt around
the series of ponds leading into the moat (Curzon 1925: 114). Other sources suggest that this is not
true and the nature of the designed landscape intended visitors to approach from the west to the
south of the Tiltyard. If approaching from the north to this point the castle would not have yet been
visible. On reaching the tiltyard the castle would be seen across a body of water but the actual moat
would not yet be visible. The visitor would then progress along the edge of the tiltyard then towards
the castle along a flat topped bank separating the tiltyard from the suggested ‘harbour’. As they
ascend the moat would suddenly come into view enlarging the castle dramatically. The gatehouse
visible from the tiltyard would then be acknowledged as the postern and the important visitor would
then set off to the right around the edge of the moat, surrounded on both sides by water and
overlooked by the principle apartments and chapel. On reaching the northern edge of the moat the
distinguished guest would then realise that the final approach to the gate is on the north-western
corner situated again between the moat and the series of ponds (Everson 1996a: 69)(Johnson 2002:
26).
At this point one makes the final approach across a series of bridges. Drawbridges have been
suggested as the means for entry to the building providing another line of defence (Sands 1903:
117)(Toy 1953: 213-4)(Thackray 1991: 16). Three bridges cross the moat to allow entrance to the
building: the postern, then the main approach is broken up by a barbican in front of the main gate.
Approaching gusts entering the building must approach from the north-western corner of the moat
parallel to the northern elevation before turning through ninety degrees at the barbican to enter the
castle. The presence of drawbridges has been contested by Curzon and then by Coulson as although
there is the correct impression in the stonework there is no evidence for chains to allow the bridges
to be raised and lowered (Curzon 1925: 118)(Coulson 1992). There has also been much out-dated
suggestion that the postern was approached by the use of a boat (Lower 1857: 301)but more recent
evidence has found traces of a bridge.
Heraldry
Above the gate on the curtain wall are carved a series of armorial shields. These coats of arms have
been given a number of owners, everyone has agreed that the central shield represents the arms of
Dallingridge and at least one of the others represents the arms of his wife but sources disagree
whether this is the left shield (Thackray 1991: 31)(Morris 2003: 152) or the right (Clark 1884:
246)(Curzon 1925: 59)(Sands 1903: 123). The other shield is pronounced to belong to either the
shield of the De Bodehams to link the building with the lands previous owners (Curzon 1925:
59)(Clark 1884: 246)(Sands 1903: 123)(Tipping 1921: 244) or the arms of Radynden from whome
Edward inherited some lands through his older brother(Thackray 1991: 31)(Morris 2003:
152)(Curzon 1925: 59). This display of ostentation has been designed emphasis the status of the
builder and highlight the age of the family and its importance (Thackray 1991: 31).
Directly above Dallingridge’s shield is his helmet and crest (Clark 1884: 246) or his tournament
helmet which depicts a unicorns head (Thackray 1991: 31). The inclusion of this device shows the
world that Sir Edward is of the necessary status to compete in tounaments. His choice of the unicorn,
a symbol of purity and virtue and linked with Christ, was rarely used before this period and possibly
a suggestion of his strength being linked through christ against his foes (Thackray 1991: 31).
The main entrance is not the only depiction of heraldry in the castle, on the Postern Tower three
more shields and another tournment helmet are featured. The tournment helmet and the only
shield with engravings bare the arms of Sir Robert Knollys. He was Sir Edwards patron, his captain in
the wars against France (Thackray 1991: 31)(Curzon 1925: 61). Their presence here show his
continuing loyalty and alliengence with his old leader under whome he excelled in France (Thackray
1991: 31)(Curzon 1925: 61).
The Gatehouse
Only a small area of the impressive gatehouse now remains (Nairn & Pevsner 1965: 420) previously
it would have been a larger structure projecting outwards from the curtain wall between the two
square towers and backwards into the gateway (Clark 1884: 242).
The gatehouse is guarded by a series of gun ports (Kenyon 1981: 207)(the only ones of their type in
the castle) apparently placed to guard the most important points of the building; the entrance
(O'Neil 1960: 16)(Kenyon 1981: 209). Due to this it has also been suggested that they could not
realistically be used for defence (Coulson 1992: 80-1) instead it is suggested that the ones on the
ground floor were actually used as squints for the porters lodge and were used to prepare for the
arrival of guests (Coulson 1992: 81). So many were put in for aesthetic reasons to give the tower a
“modern” feel (Coulson 1992: 75).
The approach is also protected by the twin machicolated towers shadowing the entrance (Curzon
1925: 123) through which objects can be dropped down to the entrance below (Thackray 1991: 14).
Behind this a portcullis and a pair of doors lead in to the remaining gatehouse (Curzon 1925: 123).
This consist of a double vaulted passage divided into two rooms by a second portcullis (Curzon 1925:
123)(Clark 1884: 242). At the bosses of each of these vaults murder holes can be found. They are
very small and question whether they could feasibly be used for the standard arsenal of such holes,
however a spear might suit (Clark 1884: 242)(Sands 1903: 117) and most are agreed that the stories
of boiling oil, lead of pitch would not be possible due to expense of such materials (Curzon 1925:
123)(Coulson 1992: 81)(Clark 1884: 242)(Sands 1903: 117). This has been disputed and suggested
that the idea of a spear is equally as badly informed(Simpson 1931: 91). Though what other
explanation for them is unclear.
The gatehouse is described by all as being the centre of all the defences of the castle. But Coulson
debates the overall defensive nature of the castle by questioning the choice in placing the main gate
on the shorter side of the building and why the towers did not bristle with more defensive qualities.
Instead he suggests that the construction of the gatehouse and adjoining towers were instead
designed to give the building a more symmetrical aesthetic quality when viewed from the viewing
platform above (Coulson 1992: 62).
The other question about the gatehouse links to the postern. Why make the entrance so strong and
elaborate when the back door is so weak (Coulson 1992: 83)(Morris 2003: 148).
Postern
The postern situated opposite the main gate across the courtyard. It is described as a scaled down
version of the main gate (Coulson 1992: 69) there is just one tower, projecting a short distance out
into the moat (Clark 1884: 243). This entrance seems to have been a service entrance, lacking in
much of the trappings of the main gate and situated so conveniently close to the kitchens (Coulson
1992: 69-70). Or equally it has been suggested that instead this was a private access route for the
great visitors or owners (Tipping 1921: 244).
There is just one portcullis and no gunloops and instead of the extended gatehouse the entrance
opens straight into the great halls service passage. There is no apparent method for barring the
doors (Coulson 1992: 69-70). As at the main gate murder holes are present but with the same
restrictions as mentioned for the main gate and again the tower boasts machicolations (Clark 1884:
243). This may have been with the idea of symmetry in mind that the building as a whole suggests.
A further suggestion to the ability to defend this entrance is the idea that this entrance was guarded
by external defences built up on the edge of the moat (Sands 1903: 117).
The Courtyard Plan
It is only when one finally enters the building through the main gate that the castles plan begins to
make sense. It is characteristic of a late medieval courtyard building of high status. The layout is
typical of Kitchen, Pantry and Buttery leading through a screen passage into the Great Hall at the
lower end, whilst the high end of the Great Hall has an entrance into a private suite of chambers
(Johnson 2002: 20).
Service Rooms
The postern leads into the screens passage which links the Great Hall to the right and the service
rooms to the left. Only the west side remains of the screens passage and the assumption is that the
eastern side consisted of a wooden screen with a gallery above. From here one can enter the Pantry
and Buttery through the left and right doors or head through the middle one into the kitchen. From
the kitchen there is an entrance into the base of the south-west tower, where the well and therefore
the water supply for the whole castle was situated. The presence of the well here presumably
dictated the layout of the rest of the buildings as the obvious position for the kitchens would be next
to the water supply (Curzon 1925: 140). Simpson also suggests that the positioning of the water
supply here is also to cut off supply to the garrison’s accommodation along the western elevation to
secure against treachery from within the castle (Simpson 1946: 159-60).
The arrangement is typical of great medieval houses and halls from around the country. The Kitchen
itself has been reconstructed by an undergraduate student at the University of Southampton. This
layout is suggested to allow food and drink to be supplied to the Great Hall easily (to ensure food is
served hot). The presence of the screens passage is to divide areas of preparation and service to
allow food to be served with the appropriate ceremony in the hall (Woolgar 1999: 145).
Great Hall
The Great Hall can be entered from four directions. At the “low” end of the hall one can enter
through the screens passage: from the service rooms or as a route through to the service rooms
from the Postern Tower (and therefore the postern gate). The main entrance was situated directly
opposite the Postern and allowed guests to enter at the low end and process up to their correct
position dictated by rank (Woolgar 1999: 146). The final entrance was from the high end and would
have been for the Lord and Lady (and any guests) to enter and leave the hall at appropriate
moments (Woolgar 1999: 163)(Curzon 1925: 136).
The screens passage was separated from the hall by way of a wooden screen, above this it has been
suggested that a “minstrel’s gallery” was present for musicians to play during the course of meals
and after. The entrance to which appears to have been from either a wooden stairway outside of the
building (Curzon 1925: 135), a stairway found in the buttery or pantry (Thackray 1991: 48), or a now
blocked up entrance from the postern tower evidence for which is found in uneven brickwork on the
tower front (Watterson 2010: 6). However, the use of such a gallery has been disputed and the use
of such a platform has been called into question as the acoustics would not have been appropriate
for providing entertainment, and why would the musicians be positioned so far away from the
highest rank of person present (Everist, 2011: P.Comm).
The hall at Bodiam has been flattened over time to make it easier for visitors to navigate. It is
assumed that the upper end of the hall would have been raised onto a dais for the Lords table
(Curzon 1925: 136) as is the standard at other halls of the period (Johnson 2010, P.Comm). There is
some evidence for this in the presence of a window seat at this end of the hall. The current level of
the hall is too high to comfortably step into the window (Thackray 1991: 45). But as Watterson
points out the distance of the step would have still been too great and there would have been a
need for at least one if not two more steps to make the climb up comfortable (Watterson 2010: 5).
The north wall no longer survives beyond the doorway at the lower end of the hall. However, it has
been suggested that at the extreme high end is where the entrance to the private suite of chambers
once stood by way of a spiral staircase leading up to the first floor and down to the lowest entrance
to the south-east tower (Curzon 1925: 133). It is on this wall that some suggest a fireplace once
stood (Curzon 1925: 136), however, it is possible that the Hall maintained the traditional central
fireplace and instead this gap instead would have been filled with another window (Thackray 1991:
45)(Curzon 1925: 136).
Private Apartments
The private apartments run along the eastern elevation. They consist of two suites of chambers
running along the first and second floor, and access to one of the drum towers and one of the
square towers before reaching the chapel.
At basement level one can, via the spiral staircase off the hall, enter the south-east tower, the
basement here is hexagonal and independent and possesses what has been a very fine vaulted,
groined ceiling. Clark describes this room as some kind of private storage room as there is no
fireplace or garderobe. However, he also mentions that the room would have probably been very
damp being situated partially below water level (Clark 1884: 245). This room poses some interesting
questions about its possible uses, as a vaulted room in this position in relation to the Great Hall
seems to be a common occurrence than has previously been noted for example similar rooms are
found at Penshurst Place and Ightham Mote.
Above the basements on a level just above that of the great hall is the first of two suites of
apartments. Some suggest that this level is in fact a parlour which has a private entrance into the
chapel (Goodall 2011: 316). As Pevsner questioned “If this was the owners private suite… what was
the purpose of the suite below?” (Nairn & Pevsner 1965: 421)
However, the nature of the suite being so similar in form to that of the upper one suggests
otherwise. Instead it has been suggested that these are complimentary Lord and Lady’s apartments
with the ladies space positioned above, deeper into the castle. The depth of a ladies rooms is linked
to ideas of high status women’s segregation and seclusion and as a rule women’s apartments are the
deepest rooms in a building (Gilchrist 1999: 124). She also suggests that Ladies apartments would
need an adjoining room for maidservants and a nursery (Gilchrist 1999: 124)which could be suitably
accommodated with the adjoining tower rooms. There is also the presence of two windows
overlooking the chapel from these apartments. This type of squint, private pew or gallery seems to
have been provided or in most private chapels (Gilchrist 1999: 123) and allows women to undertake
her devotions without being overlooked (Gilchrist 1999: 136-7).
In return this particular suite has also been suggested as specifically the Lords apartments with
ladies apartments situated below (Thackray 1991: 42). Or due to the lack of more than one staircase
(the one leading out of the Great Hall) the lower hall being the chambers of the constable of the
castle or for when guests of rank visited the Lord could abandon his chambers for equally as
comfortable ones below (Faulker 1963: 234). Arguing against the lower apartments being the lord’s
rooms is the presence of a grand fireplace in the upper set of rooms not being imitated in the lower
rooms. As the largest in the building, and the only one with a decorated opening the assumption is
that this would indicate the Lords chambers (Thackray 1991: 43).
Chapel
The chapel building is also accommodated along the eastern elevation. It is situated on the northern
side of the east tower in an area of building which projects into the moat as far as this eastern tower.
It is divided into two areas, the first area found adjacent to the tower behind the suites of
apartments, this is described as a sanctuary or chancel (Thackray 1991: 42), a small vestry (Nairn &
Pevsner 1965: 420) or sacristy (Curzon 1925: 129) below. This room is at a higher level to the other
rooms on this floor. The room above is suggested to be an oratory (Nairn & Pevsner 1965: 420), this
seems unlikely as to enter it one would have to travel through all of the private apartments of the
lord or lady of the building. As discussed above these could represent a private viewing gallery for
either the lady alone of the whole family to undertake their devotions (Gilchrist 1999: 123).
The chapel main can be entered from this smaller room, from the apartments to the south and a
probable other entrance from either the courtyard or north-western tower block (Curzon 1925: 129):
where stands a series of apartments for residential use by visiting guests (Emery 2006: 155-6).
The chapel is orientated East-West as one would expect with a large window cutting the curtain wall
to the eastern end, designed with the purpose of providing as much natural light to the room as
possible (Curzon 1925: 129). However, in doing so provides a major breach in the defence of the
castle as will be discussed shortly.
West side of courtyard
The western side of the courtyard presents somewhat of a mystery. It has generally been attested to
the housing for retainers and/ or servants and storage rooms. These rooms appear to consist of a
kitchen (judged by the large fireplace), possibly two halls and a number of residential rooms or
suites in the north-western tower. There are much fewer fireplaces and windows cut into the curtain
wall on this side and no apparent garderobes a lot less comfortable than the apartments in the other
areas of the building (Curzon 1925: 141).
One accounting for this explanation is that this is the area standing troops were housed. These
rooms are completely isolated from parts of the building such as gatehouse, lords apartments and
water supply to prevent an uprising from within (Simpson 1946: 159). Coulson disagrees with this
suggestion on two fronts:
-
Firstly the idea of them being isolated could be disputed as the arrangement of doorways
and entrance has been altered since the castles occupation.
Secondly, there is little evidence to suggest that a garrison ever occupied this building
(Coulson 1992: 64-5).
The rooms on this side seem to consistently have been attributed to servant’s quarters with an ongoing debate over the positioning of stables adjacent to the gatehouse which appears inconsistently
in National Trust guides over the years (Coulson 1992: 64)(Thackray 1991)(Goodall 2001).
Windows
The windows of the building I feel need comment on as they seem to be central to the debate over
the use of the building as a suitably defendable structure.
There are two directions of attack concerning these statements the first is concerning the nature of
their use at deterring attack. There are many windows set into the outer curtain wall of varying size.
All of them could be shuttered and barred to prevent entry via boat from the moat (Coulson 1992:
71.). However, this did not make them appropriate method for defence against siege weapons
(particularly cross bows and archers). Of these the small opening and thin shutters could not have
protected the interior for long (Coulson 1992: 72). On top of these smaller opening there a series of
much larger ones namely the chapel, private suites and hall windows which would not have
provided any defensive cover and instead have been placed in mind of providing better lighting to
the interior and beautiful views to the south-east from the rooms (Coulson 1992: 73).
The second is the ability to return attack from the castle. Despite the large variety of slit and window
provided by the builder few of them could be used by cross or long bowman (Coulson 1992: 74, 79).
Summary
Bodiam has been the subject of many debates and has been studied closely. These debates have
emerged from the changing interpretations of the nature of life in the later medieval period. The
debates have focussed on the defensive capabilities of the building as well as the internal use of
space.
Visualization
In terms of modelling the building and reconstructing it Bodiam offers a range of issues. Fortunately
it has not been much developed in later years. However, Curzon undertook a number of works on
the building in attempt to rebuild it and understand it more. He drained the moat, removed the ivy
and replaced a number of crenulations found in the moat.
This means that the structure itself although largely in its original setting has been played around
with a little. It is hard to see in certain areas where the original floor level was and in some areas
stairways have been removed or disguised.
The other issue with Bodiam is because of the ruinous nature of the building, the lack of material
evidence and also the lack of historical documents it will be hard to furnish exactly. In this instance
furnishing will largely come from conjecture from other buildings from the period of a similar status.
The final issue with Bodiam is that it is a complicated building. Although it appears as discussed
above as a whole series of things it does not meet any exact thoughts. It has been hypothesised as a
range of different buildings.
Bibliography
Barker, D. et al., 2010. Report on the Geophysical Survey at Bodiam Castle, East Sussex,
Blaauw, W.H., 1861. Royal Licenses to Fortify Towns and Houses in Sussex. Sussex Archaeological
Collection, 13, p.114. Available at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/sussexarchaeolo01socigoog#page/n144/mode/1up.
Braun, H., 2008. The English Castle, Woods Press.
Brown, R.A., 1970. English Castles, London: Chancellor Press.
Clark, G.T., 1884. Medieval Military Architecture: Vol. 1, London: Wyman and Sons.
Coulson, C., 1992. Some analysis of the Castle of Bodiam, East Sussex. In The Ideals and Practise of
Medieval Knighthood: Proceedings of the Strawberry Hill Conference 4. pp. 51-107.
Curzon, 1925. Bodiam Castle, Sussex: A Historical and Descriptive Survey, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Emery, A., 2006. Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales 1300-1500: Volume 3 Southern
England, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Emery, A., 2005. Late-medieval houses as an expression of social status *. Historical Research,
78(200), pp.1996 -2000.
Everson, P., 1996a. “Bodiam Castle, East Sussex: a Fourteenth-Century Designed Landscape.” In D.
Morgan Evan, P. Salway, & D. Thackray, eds. The Remains of Distant Times: Archaeology and
the National Trust. Woodbridge: Boydell Press for the Society of Antiquaries of London and the
National Trust, pp. 66-72.
Everson, P., 1996b. Bodiam Castle, East Sussex: castle and its designed landscape. Chateau Gaillard.
Etudes de castellologie medievale, 17, pp.79-84. Available at:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eMoQiL7BCVgC&q=Bodiam#v=onepage&q&f=true.
Faulker, P.A., 1963. Castle Planning in the fourteenth century. The Archaeological Journal, 120,
pp.215-35.
Faulkner, P.A., 1975. Domestic planning from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. In J. T. Smith, P.
A. Faulkner, & A. Emery, eds. Medieval Domestic Architecture. Leeds: The Royal Archaeological
Institute, pp. 84-117.
Gilchrist, R., 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past, Florence: Routledge.
Goodall, J., 2001. Bodiam Castle, The National Trust.
Goodall, J., 2011. The English Castle, London: Yale University Press.
Harvey, J., 1978. The Perpendicular Style, 1330-1485, Batsford.
Johnson, C., Martin, D. & Whittick, C., 2001. Archaeological and Historic Landscape Survey: Bodiam
Castle, East Sussex,
Johnson, M.H., 2002. Behind the Castle Gate: From Medieval to Renaissance, London: Routledge.
Kenyon, J.R., 1981. Early Artillery Fortifications in England and Wales: a primliminary survey and
reappraisal. The Archaeological Journal1, 138, pp.205-40.
Lower, M.A., 1857. Bodiam and its Lords. The Sussex Archaeological Collections, 9, pp.275-302.
Lower, M.A., 1860. Notices of Sir Edward Dalyngruge, The Builder of Bodiam Castle. Sussex
Archaeological Collections, 12, pp.221-231.
Mackenzie, J.D., 1896. Castles of England, New York: Macmillan. Available at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/castlesofengland01mack#page/64/mode/1up.
Morris, M., 2003. Castle, London: Pan Macmillan.
Nairn, I. & Pevsner, N., 1965. The Buildings of England: Sussex, London: Penguin Books.
O’Neil, B.H.S.J., 1960. Castles and Cannon: : A Study of Early Artillery Fortifications in England, Oxford:
Claredon Press.
Platt, C., 2007. Revisionism in Castle Studies: A Caution. Medieval Archaeology, 51(1), pp.83-102.
Available at: http://openurl.ingenta.com/content/xref?genre=article&issn=00766097&volume=51&issue=1&spage=83 [Accessed June 11, 2011].
Platt, C., 1982. The castle in medieval England & Wales, London: Secker & Warburg.
Richardson, A., 2003. Corridors of power : a case study in access analysis from medieval England.
Museum, (October 2001), pp.373-384.
Sands, H., 1903. Bodiam Castle. Sussex Archaeological Collection, 46, pp.112-133.
Saul, N., 1995. Bodiam Castle. History TOday, 45(1), pp.16-21.
Savery, J.C., 1868. On Bodiam Manor and Castle. Journal of British Archaeological Association, 24,
pp.352-61. Available at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/journalofbritish24brit#page/352/mode/1up.
Simpson, W.D., 1946. “Bastard Feudalism” and the later castles. The Antiquaries Journal, 26, pp.14571.
Simpson, W.D., 1931. The Moated Homestead, Church and Castle of Bodiam. The Sussex
Archaeological Collections, 72, pp.69-99.
Taylor, C.C., Everson, P. & Wilson-North, R., 1990. Bodiam Castle, Sussex. Medieval Archaeology, 34,
pp.155-7.
Thackray, David, 1991. Bodiam Castle, London: The National Trust.
Timbs, J. & Gunn, A., 1872. Abbeys, Castles and Ancient Halls of England and Wales Vol.1, London:
Frederick Warne and Co. Available at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/abbeyscastlesa01timb#page/364/mode/1up.
Tipping, H.A., 1921. English Homes: Period 1 Volume 1, London: Country Life.
Toy, S., 1953. The Castles of Great Britain, Heinemann.
Turner, D.J., 1986. Bodiam Castle: True Castle or Old Soldier’s Dream House? In W. M. Ormrod, ed.
England in the fourteenth century: Proceedings of the 1985 Harlaxton Symposium. Woodbridge:
Boydell Press, pp. 267-277.
Watterson, A., 2010. Virtual Pasts Assignment 3 : Reconstructing the Great Hall at Bodiam Castle.
October.
Williams, D., 1974. Fortified Manor Houses. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and
Historical Society, 50, pp.1-16.
Woolgar, C.M., 1999. The Great Household in Late Medieval England, London: Yale University Press.