Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 5.djvu/317

 9*s. V.APRIL 2i, 1900.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

309

Here also lyes interred the Body of Ann Cowper her daughter, and late wife of John Cowper, D.D. Rector of this Parish who dyed November the XTII. MD.CC. xxxvu. As also the bodys of Spencer, John, Ann, Theodora, Judith, and Thomas, the children of the said John and Ann Cowper who all dyed Infants."

The first note in the number for May 9th, 1891, is on * The Resting - place of Charles and Mary Lamb,' by MR. JOHN T. PAGE, and gives the inscriptions placed on the memorial tablet to William Cowper and Charles Lamb in the church at Edmonton. The monument was erected by Joshua W. Butterworth to commemorate the visit of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society on the 26th of July, 1888. On the 12th of December, 1891, MR. THOMAS WRIGHT states that he is engaged in collecting the corre- spondence of the poet with a view to publica- tion. "The work is fast approaching com- pletion and stands before me at the present moment in ten bulky volumes." MR. WRIGHT states that he has altogether about four hun- dred letters that are either not in Sou they, or of which Southey gives only scraps. In his collection MR. WRIGHT had the advantage of making use of the material collected by the late Mr. Bruce.

In the Eighth Series only the following references occur: 153

portrait of his mother, v. 207 ; and Newton, vi. 488. JOHN C. FRANCIS.

rences occur: 'The Castaway,' iii. 107,
 * first publication of ' John Gilpin,' 363 ;

MOATED MOUNDS.

IN the Archceological Journal of September, 1889, the late G, T. Clark printed ' Contribu- tion towards a Complete List of Moated Mounds or Burhs.' This was confessedly- tentative, and I am not aware that Mr. Clark ever put forth a supplement. To the list he prefixed some observations, summarizing the conclusions expressed more at large in his
 * Mediaeval Military Architecture.'

His descriptions have never been impugned, I believe. His theory of origins, on the con- trary, has been questioned, and Mr. J. H. Round and a writer in the Quarterly for July, 1894, have shown reasons for doubting the Saxon attribution. I think it very likely that we may ultimately find the type of the "burhs" mentioned in the 'Saxon Chronicle' in the outer ramparts of Wareham, Walling- ford, Cardiff, &c., rather than in the moated mounds. If so, this class may claim some rectangular enclosures which have hitherto passed as Bom an.

Of course, to such works moated mounds may have been added subsequently as citadels

or keeps ; and such cases may be much more numerous than we at present suspect. Mounds have actually been added to all the banked enclosures above enumerated, and no one can look at a plan such as that of Picker- ing Castle (' Med. Mil. Arch.,' ii. 373) with- out a surmise that the mound is there also an addition. It may be that what was a novelty to the Saxons about the time of the Conquest was no more the banked enclosure than it was the tower of masonry, but was the lofty isolated mound erected for the protec- tion of one household only, and symbolizing the feudal idea as forcibly as the keep of Hedingham itself in a later age. We shall probably never attain certainty as to such additions even such a dissection as General Pitt -Rivers performed on Bokeiiey Dyke would hardly enable us to trace whether a mound was coeval with its base-court or not, both being works in earth only.

This idea of the possible independence of the mound and the subsidiary enclosure is remarkably supported by the explorations of Mr. Christison in Scotland. Mr. Christison be- lieves that it is quite an exception there to find any banked enclosure attached to a mound (' Early Fortifications in Scotland,' p. 28), and the complete circle of counterscarp bank shown in several of his plans round the ditch of the mound certainly supports the belief that the absence of a court is not due merely to its destruction. In England, on the other hand, as I can testify from personal observa- tion, the cases in which no trace of a base- court exists are very rare, so much so that I always felt justified in assuming the original existence of one until I made acquaintance with Mr. Christison's book.

I have now to offer a few additions to Mr. Clark's list from my own observation. Among the moated mounds, strictly so called, are a few works of a peculiar class, which has never to my knowledge received special attention. These are cases where the place of a mound is taken by an inner ward enclosed by a bank, generally higher and stronger than those of the outer enclosures. Mr. Clark admitted to his list several of these, such as Old Basing and Castle Rising, and he de- scribed ('Med. Mil. Arch.,' i. 364) the im- portant example at Castle Rising in full. I believe the castle of Exeter (which had once large outer courts on the side towards the city, probably fortified) to have belonged to this class, though in consequence of only the keep ward remaining it has been claimed as British, to the confusion of the history of the city. There are traceable links between this class and the mounds proper ; one such