Page:VCH Sussex 1.djvu/421

 DOMESDAY SURVEY THE county of Sussex having in its origin been a complete and self-contained kingdom, and having even after its conquest by Wessex remained for a considerable period semi-independent ; being, moreover, cut off from Surrey on the north by the dense forest of Andredsweald and from Kent on the east by the same forest and the marshes of Rye and Romney ; it is to be expected that we should find this county presenting certain features, if not unique, at least dissimilar to those of neighbouring counties. Such a distinctive feature is to be found in the existence of the rapes, which have greatly influenced the political history of Sussex from the time of the Conquest down to the present day. At the time of the Domesday Survey Sussex was divided apparently into five portions, between which the boundaries ran, roughly, north and south. These five divisions were the rapes of Hastings, Pevensey, Lewes, Bramber (not actually so named in the Survey) and Arundel (which included what was afterwards the two rapes of Arundel and Chichester).^ Each of these rapes consisted of a strip of country of varying size and value, containing one town or borough of maritime, military and commercial importance. These towns were Hastings, Pevensey, Lewes, Steyning and Chichester. Each of these towns had a harbour and a market, and although genuine pre-Norman castles in England have been proved extremely rare, it is possible that each possessed fortifications of a kind, and it is certain that by 1086 the Norman lords had built in each a castle — except in the case of Steyning which, being in the hands of the abbey of Fecamp, had been supplanted for military purposes by the neighbouring position of Bramber. Each rape was in the hands of a single tenant-in-chief, that of Hastings being held by Robert Count of Eu, Pevensey by the Count of Mortain, Lewes by William de Warenne, Bramber by William de Braose, and Arundel by Earl Roger Montgomery ; and the rapes were so far identified with their lords that the scribe more often wrote ' the rape of the Count of Mortain ' than ' the rape of Pevensey ' ; in fact ' the rape of William de Braose ' appears only under that name and not • The Rape of Arundel is mentioned twice eo nomine, but there is frequent mention of ' the rape of Earl Roger,' and, as he held the present rape of Chichester as well as that of Arundel, it would seem that, at least in his hands, they were treated as a single rape (J.H.R.) 2 Rye and Winchelsea in this rape were probably already ports of some importance, and the latter appears to have had a mint for a short period as earlv as Edgar's reign (Hawkins, Silver Coins of England [ed. 3], 148).