Lichfield, Wells and Salisbury are post-Norman.

Summary.  Until recently many historians believed the second and third cathedrals were built during, or soon after, the Norman era. Yet there is no documentary evidence or architecture to support any Norman building. Construction for the present, third cathedral is deduced to have been in the early 13th century. This follows the same timeline as at Wells and Salisbury cathedrals and there are resemblances between the three buildings. All are post-Norman.

Twentieth century historians assumed there was a Norman second cathedral in Lichfield,[1] built in either the late 11th-century or the early 12th-century. Some gave only qualified or equivocal support for the dating.[2] If ever there was a second Norman cathedral, it would have lasted for no more than 110 years before the current cathedral was built early in the 13th-century. Since there are no clear and obvious remnants of Norman stonework from the second cathedral, it follows a monumental Norman cathedral would have been completely demolished to make way for an entirely new Gothic cathedral; something not seen with other cathedrals. Why past writers would want to invoke a Norman cathedral is an interesting zeitgeist.[3] Reasons to confute this myth are given in the posts, ‘Why the second cathedral must be Early Medieval’ and ‘Second cathedral has a short perch layout. It is Early Medieval.’ Two more reasons follow.

 

The Normans marginalised Lichfield

Four years after the Conquest in1066 at a Council held at Windsor, Leofwin,[4] the Early Medieval (Anglo-Saxon) Bishop of Lichfield, was summarily dismissed with a charge of carnal incontinence meaning he had a wife and children, but this was a ploy since other bishops were also married. It was backed by papal legates at the behest of Normans brought in to purge the English church. In actual fact, Leofwin had been too political and had maintained too close an association with the dissentient Earls of Mercia. He was never going to be compliant with the new Norman hegemony. At the next Council in 1075, headed by the new Archbishop Lanfranc, appointed by William the Conqueror, it was decided any bishops from villages were to be moved to populous cities, as cited in the disastrous Council of Serdica (now Sofia in Bulgaria) in 343 and repeated in the canons of the Council of Laodicea, Turkey, in 363/4. Citing a 4th century custom was another ploy to justify the move to oust unwanted cathedrals. The bishopric at Sherborne was moved to Old Sarum in Salisbury, Selsey was moved to Chichester, Wells went to Bath, Elmham in East Anglia was succeeded by Thetford and later Norwich, and Lichfield was transferred to Chester. In fact, Peter, consecrated bishop of Lichfield in 1070, some think earlier in 1067, had already moved to Chester by 1072 or 1073. The Council, two or three years later, was merely responding to what had already happened. A letter in late 1072 or early 1073 referred to the Bishop of Licifeldensis (Lichfield) who is now Cestrenis (Chester).[5]

William I with his Domesday Book

 

The Normans downgraded the cathedral to be The Church of St Chad, the designation of the Great Survey, 1086, and entered in the Domesday Book. William of Malmesbury[6], 1080–1143, justified this by writing “Lichfield was a tiny village (uilla exigua) far from the busy life of towns, in the midst of a woody district, on the banks of a brook. Its church was on a cramped site, revealing the mediocrity and self-repression of its men of old, a place unworthy of the dignity of a bishop.” He also added ‘the church was famous for its poverty.’ William was a Norman apologist.

 William of Malmesbury

The Domesday Survey, 1086,[7] recorded the cathedral had only five priests and was among the poorest of the English cathedrals. Furthermore, Lichfield lay at the centre of perhaps the poorest part of the entire diocese.[8] The downgraded cathedrals (Salisbury, Wells and Lichfield – Selsey and Elmham had disappeared) were now never likely to become wealthy and powerful.[9] Morris thought any Norman bishop would have been safer nearer a castle and this favoured Chester above Lichfield.[10] Wright saw the downgrading of Anglo-Saxon churches as engineered by the pope, since the papal court considered the Early Medieval church was obnoxious and the Norman Conquest was a signal victory for Catholicism.[11]

Then came another change in location of the bishopric with Bishop Robert de Limesey leaving Chester c. 1095, officially 1102, to site his see at Coventry. Why would the Bishop of Chester, now Coventry, want to build a large cathedral at Lichfield when there was much to extend and develop at Coventry and much to complete at Chester? Various reasons for the move have been given[12]  and all point to the development of a large cathedral in Coventry and consequently a further downgrading of Lichfield. Restructuring lasted until mid-12th century.

 Then for 18 years, southern England was caught in the civil war known as the Great Anarchy, 1135–1153. Most bishops loyally supported King Stephen against Matilda, though towards the end many called for a reconciliation. Some believe Bishop Roger de Clinton of Coventry and Lichfield was a strong supporter of the king, but some have conjectured whether he also thought more of Matilda’s claim to the throne. During this time cathedral building everywhere was paused.[13] The warfare might be the reason why Clinton garrisoned (walled?) the Close, c. 1135. It also explained why in The Deeds of King Stephen,[14] c. 1148, it claimed Clinton was heavily involved in the military.[15]  With documentary evidence for Clinton selling land to build monasteries,[16] possibly adding streets to Lichfield,[17] probably allowing piped water into the Close[18] and behind various other projects during his 19-year episcopate, it is odd there is no record of him founding, or repairing a cathedral.  

Bishop Roger de Clinton on the west front of the cathedral. Holding a church signifies he built churches. He founded a Savigniac monastery in 1135 that became Buildwas Abbey. He also founded Farewell Priory.

Reconstruction of Lichfield by mid-12th century as a garrison town with a castle-cathedral and gridded streets. It is an adaptation of the 1610 John Speed map. 

There is no documentary evidence for a Norman cathedral.

William of Malmesbury,[19] c. 1125, said Bishop Robert Peche (1121–1126) gave great benefit to Lichfield (magnorum apud Licetfeld edificationum) and this has been interpreted as constructed buildings. In 1691, it was written there were large buildings (magnas aedificationes) in Lichfield at the time of Bishop Robert Limesey, 1085–1117.[20] Bishop Robert Peche (1121-6), is said to have begun large-scale building (magnarum apud Licetfeld edificationum inchoator).[21]  Bishop Roger Clinton, 1129–1148, raised Lichfield both in workplace and in honour (erexit tam in fabrica quam in honore).[22] From these statements, antiquarians, mostly Victorian, have concluded it supported the idea of a Norman cathedral. A more measured Victorian County History stated, “Of the cathedral buildings little definite is known before the rebuilding in the 13th century”.[23] Greenslade used the word reportedly to suggest building began in the late 11th century instigated by Bishop Robert de Limesey.[24] The reality is there is no empirical or documentary evidence for a Norman cathedral.

In 1854, a foundation was found under the floor of the choir and presbytery and it has been claimed this was the second cathedral and it was Norman.[25] This was despite the publication by Robert Willis in 1861, who concluded, “we have no history to guide us in forming opinions save the most meagre indications”.[26]

Drawing of the foundation of the second cathedral.

Some writers were certain there never was a Norman cathedral. Clifton-Taylor stated of the 16 cathedrals existing at the time of the Reformation, only three show no Romanesque or Norman; they are Salisbury, Wells and Lichfield.[27] Pevsner and Metcalf were convinced the eastern part of the cathedral was built after c. 1195–1200 and so much after Clinton and just before the current cathedral was built.[28] Woodhouse[29] claimed the buttresses outside of the transepts appeared Norman, but these were changed in the 18th-century.

The historical narrative does not support a building of a second cathedral in Norman times and there is no record supporting such an undertaking. The reason is simple, the Normans ignored Lichfield, as they did in Salisbury and Wells. The current cathedral is like Wells and Salisbury and built in the Plantagenet era (1154-1485). Lichfield was constructed from early in 13th century to c. 1340, Wells in two stages c.1180-c.1260 and 1285-c. 1345, and Salisbury in the short time of 1220-58.[30] All are secular with no monastic attachment. All are in the Decorated Gothic style. The west fronts have the descriptive label of a ‘screen façade.’ Lichfield has paired towers and spires in line with the nave aisles, Wells has paired towers but not in line with the aisles and Salisbury has paired turrets topped with spirelets. Between the flanking towers were lancet windows. Lichfield had around 100 statues adorning the front (now 113), Wells has nearly 300 statues and Salisbury has 79 statues. All appear to have, or once had, a singing gallery with slit windows to the outside. All have a large central tower with Lichfield and Salisbury having a large spire. Lichfield had a bishop’s palace surrounded by a wall with a partial moat, whereas Wells has a palace surrounded by a wall and extensive moat. The three cathedrals have similarities in the layout of the choir and presbytery. All three are post-Norman.

                                                             Facades of Lichfield, Wells and Salisbury.

    A carbon dating of the second cathedral foundation, it is only 0.3m below the floor, called for by 4 top historians and supported by certain cathedral staff, would prove beyond doubt there is no Norman stonework at Lichfield. Hewitt (1882) wrote ‘documents are rare and tradition is vague’.[31] The history needs updating.

[1] Clinton built a cathedral about the time he was installed, as I guess. R. Plot (1686) 362, 367. Clinton repaired and much adorned the church. T. Cox (1738), 125. Clinton about the year 1140 built a new cathedral church. T. Tanner (1744), 485. Little or nothing of the old Norman work appears at this day. J. Bentham (1771), 36. Clinton added greatly both to the size and beauty of the church. S. Shaw (1798), vol.1, 233. Clinton pulled it entirely down and rebuilt it. J. Jackson (1805), 75. Clinton took down the ancient Mercian cathedral and rebuilt it. T. Harwood (1806), 9. Present fabric was begun by Bishop Clinton. J. C. Woodhouse (1811), 4. Clinton added to the extent and beauty of the cathedral. W. Pitt (1817), 90. Clinton either re-edified or greatly augmented the cathedral. J. Storer (1817) sect. e. Clinton took down the Mercian building and erected the present edifice. T. J. Lomax (1819), 11. Clinton is said to have rebuilt the cathedral. J. Britton (1820), 19. Clinton almost rebuilt the cathedral. S. Erdeswick (1820), 213. Clinton is said to have rebuilt a great part of the cathedral. W. White (1834), 65. A great part of the present cathedral was built by Clinton. W. Dugdale (1846), 1240. 1238.Clinton is reputed to have entirely rebuilt the cathedral. J. B. Stone (1870), 16. Clinton’s Norman cathedral has disappeared by degrees. C. Bodington (1899), 20. Clinton may have erected or helped to erect the Norman cathedral. A. B. Clifton (1900), 5. (Bells).

[2] The Normans rebuilt Lichfield Cathedral. All the Norman work has vanished with the exception of a few undistinguished carved stones. S. A. Jeavons (1962), 11. Nothing of the pre-Conquest church has been discovered but foundations of an apsidal building may be assigned to the 11th-century. A. R. Dufty (1963), 293. Clinton certainly rebuilt or more likely completed the rebuilding of the cathedral though nothing of his work now remains. C. C. Taylor (1969), 48. The antiquated Anglo-Saxon cathedral was pulled down and a new edifice in the very latest Romanesque style of architecture was built. R. Studd (1980), 32. A Norman cathedral was built between c. 1090 and 1150, but nothing has been found of the pre-Conquest church. P. Johnson (1980), 113. Work was probably completed by Bishop Clinton 1129–1148. M. Greenslade (1990) The Saxon church was quickly replaced after the Conquest by a new cathedral in Norman style, begun in 1085. R. Mead (2001), 132.

[3] Many Victorian writers repeated the myth of a Norman cathedral. Invoking Norman fitted with their zeal to build large churches, railway stations like cathedrals and public buildings with a great façade. It was a conservative antidote to their major advances in science and technology which challenged the existence of God. It was the zeitgeist of the Victorian Age. So, Lichfield Cathedral is mostly a Victorian restoration and harks back to the surge in cathedral building in Norman times.

[4] He was possibly related to supporters of the Early Medieval Earls of Mercia. On resignation he returned to be abbot of Coventry monastery.

[5] Lanfranc’s third letter page 42, see C. P. Lewis, ’Communities, conflict and episcopal policy in the diocese of Lichfield, 1050—1150’. In: P. Dalton, C. Insley and L. J. Wilkinson, eds. Cathedrals, communities and conflict in the Anglo-Saxon world. (Woodbridge: 2011), 61—76, for a full account of this time at Lichfield. See H. Clover and M. Gibson, The letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Oxford Medieval Texts. (Oxford: 1979), for the letters of Lanfranc.

[6] Note the reference to a cramped site for the cathedral, presumably still restricted by a surrounding enclosure. The men of old is pejorative for Anglo-Saxons. William had a Norman father, an English mother and was a monk, but living in Norman times he distained most things Anglo-Saxon. T. Wright, Biographia Britannica Literaria. Anglo-Norman Period. (London: 1846) wrote it was the fashion for at least two centuries after the Conquest to speak contemptuously of everything Saxon.

[7] Great Domesday Book 247r Lecefelle/Licefelle NA E31/2/2/1932 (Phillimore ref. Staffs. 2,16)

[8] R. Studd, ‘Pre-Conquest Lichfield’. Transactions South Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society, (1980), 22, 31. Also F. Barlow, The English Church, (London: 1979), 36, 62, 117.

[9] The Normans were preoccupied by strengthening their defences in Mercia and this was seen with the building of castles at Dudley, Shrewsbury, Tamworth, Tutbury, Warwick and later Stafford and Bridgnorth.

[10] M. Morris, The Norman Conquest. (London, 2013).

[11] See note 6 and Wright (1846), 7.

[12] See note 5 and Lewis (2011), 75. The formation of a Lichfield-Chester-Coventry diocese, with Lichfield the minor partner, by Bishops Peter and Robert was a way of augmenting their limited resources, as well as reforming the diocese along monastic lines.

[13] H. Braun, An introduction to English Medieval architecture. 2nd ed. (London: 1968). Also K. J. Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque architecture, 800–1200 (New Haven & London: 1978).

[14] Gesta Stephani an anonymous mid-12th-century history of King Stephen’s reign,

[15] T. Cox, Survey of the ancient and present state of Great Britain. (London: 1738) overstated this believing Clinton’s inclination was “to shine in armour”. This was supported with his involvement in the ill-fated Second Crusade,1147–1149, ending in his death.

[16] M. J. Franklin, Roger of Clinton (Oxford, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: 2004).

[17] C. C. Taylor, ‘The origins of Lichfield’, South Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions, (1969),10, 43–52.

[18] J. Gould, ‘The twelfth-century water supply to Lichfield Close’. The Antiquaries J. (1976), 56, 1, 73–79.

[19] William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum. (Rolls Ser.), 311 (Cambridge University Library: 1125). It conflicts with his assertion that Lichfield was a small village (uilla exigua).

[20] H. Wharton, Anglia Sacra. Volume 1(London: 1691), 433. This was possibly from Thomas de Chesterfield, 1347.

[21]  See note 3.

[22] Ibid, Wharton (1691), 434.See note 20.

[23] M W Greenslade and R B Pugh (ed),  'House of secular canons - Lichfield cathedral: To the Reformation', in A History of the County of Stafford: Volume 3,  (London, 1970), 140-166. 

[24] M. Greenslade, Lichfield: The Cathedral. In: A history of the County of Stafford: Volume 14, Lichfield. (London: 1990), 47–-57.

[25] W. Rodwell, The Norman quire of Lichfield Cathedral. Its plan and liturgical arrangement. 50th Annual report to the Friends of Lichfield Cathedral. In Lichfield Cathedral Library. (1987), 10-14.

[26] R. Willis, ‘On foundations of early buildings recently discovered in Lichfield Cathedral’. The Archaeological J., (1861), 28I, 17–8.

[27] A. Clifton-Taylor, The Cathedrals of England. (London: 1986), 15.

[28] N. Pevsner and P. Metcalf, The Cathedrals of England: Midland, Eastern and Northern England. (New York: 1985), 182, 187-8.

[29] J. C. Woodhouse, A short account of Lichfield Cathedral (Lichfield, Thomas George Lomax: 1811).  

 [30] Lichfield cathedral is one of nine non-monastic cathedrals of the ‘Old Foundation’. That is, they all have an early beginning and were set up without a monastic attachment. Of the nine (St Pauls, York, Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln, Salisbury, Wells and Lichfield) only Hereford and Lichfield cathedrals still occupy the same site as their original church.

 [31] J, Hewitt, Handbook of Lichfield Cathedral, (Lichfield: 1882), 2. 

Fortress cathedral, 1640

Summary. It is most likely there was a wall or vallum around the early cathedral-church of Lichfield. In 1299, Bishop Langton was given a licence to build a stone, crenellated wall around his palace and houses in the Close. It had an affinity with the moated wall around the bishop’s palace at Wells. By 1640 and the approach of a Civil War there was a formidable, unique curtain wall with bastion towers and a moat around the Close. Three sieges, during 1643-46, destroyed much of the wall, gates, palace and cathedral. The precise shape of the west gate, the structure of the southern boundary and aspects of the moat are uncertain.  

Early medieval layout of Lichfield, c. 1100, before construction of the town, Minster Pool and third cathedral. Adapted from A. Sargent.[1]

Ancient texts described a protective wall around the Cathedral Close in the 12th-century, presumably organised by Bishop Roger de Clinton, 1129-48.[2] The Close was said to be a castellum, c. 1200,[3] or small castle. A 17th-century description was, Castrum Lichesfeldense muniendo villam vallo vallendo milites; meaning, ‘The soldiers fortified the castle of Lichfield and fortified the town with a rampart’.[4] Some suggesting a castle was within the town and not around the Close.[5] Taylor described it as a rather vaguely worded document.[6]  Harwood thought the whole settlement was entrenched so that, Clinton fortified the castle, to have made a rampart round the village, and to have enrolled and mustered the soldiers.[7] Was it a response to the Anarchy War, 1138-1153? It is now believed there was some kind of fortification of the Close[8] but it was probably rudimentary. The Victorian County History could only conclude the Close appeared to have been fortified.[9]  So what sort of early fortification was built? It was around three sides of the Close, 300 m long and 250 m wide. The south side river or stream had been dammed and the new pool protected this side.

Suggested topography of the Close around the year 1100.[10] The enclosure could have been a ditch and embankment, but it is more likely to have used the bedrock to give a substantial vallum.

Gough map, is the earliest map of Lichfield, though the date of the map is much conjectured. Lichfield is not shown with an enclosed wall, which suggests a wall around the Close is not as important as a wall around the town. The country is shown on its side and North points to the left.

     In 1299, around 30 years before completion of the cathedral, Bishop Walter de Langton obtained a licence (April 20, 1299 page 409 in Calendar of Patent Rolls Edward I, Volume 3.) to strengthen and crenellate the boundary walls. It read, Licence, in honour of the cathedral church of Lichefeld and of the saints whose bodies rest there, and for the security and quiet of the canons and ministers of the church residing there, for Walter de Langeton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, to enclose the precinct of his and the canons’ houses within the close of the church with a stone wall, and to crenellate the wall.                                   

This wall gave security and quiet to Langton’s palace and to the canon’s houses in the Close. Its purpose was not military and it probably was not impregnable. It was not to protect the cathedral. Wharton, 1691, stated simply, he refortified the Close with a stone wall.[11] The east wall had three interval towers with two within the bishop’s palace[12] and one where there is now Selwyn House. This low-level fortification resembled the curtain wall built around Langton’s palace at Eccleshall.

Maddison explained the fortifying was a response to Edward I’s marshalling for his three campaigns of 1277, 1282 and 1294,[13] and chimes with the building of castles. If this is true, it would be expected troops were garrisoned in the Close, but there is no reference to this in the fragmentary documents. The licence does not describe a formidable castle to garrison troops.

Langton’s rise in the church was assisted by his uncle who in 1265 became Archbishop of York and by his close friend Robert Burnell who became Bishop of Bath and Wells. The walls, gatehouse and moat at Wells were added after 1329, which was after Langton’s death in 1321, but around the same time as the building of the Lichfield ramparts. Since it is known the layout of the church and the choirs at Lichfield and Wells were similar,[14] the hall in Langton’s palace matched the size of Bishop Burnell’s at Wells,1292,[15] statuary around the north door has similarities with those on Wells, and the west fronts of the two cathedrals have similarities, it is possible the two moated walls and tower have resemblances. It is possible the low walls, 5m high, and bastions (not towers) at Wells meant to give security and quiet to the bishop’s palace and had the same function as Lichfield’s wall.

Aerial view of the bishop’s palace at Wells. The walls are only 5m high and the corners have bastions, not high towers. This indicates the fortification gave security from ordinary people, but would have been weak against a military siege. Was Lichfield like this?

            

This low-level fortification does not agree with narratives in the last two centuries. Harwood said,[16] the Close, was surrounded by water, and fortified by walls and bastions, and was a place of considerable strength.[17] Victoria County History has Langton constructed a stone perimeter wall with massive gatehouses at the south and west entrances.[18] In a seminal work[19] on the Civil War sieges it was claimed “Langton fortified the Close by surrounding the whole of it, including the south side, with stone walls, built in a handsome manner and strengthened with towers and turrets. To the west and south of these fortifications were gates (the southern gate was a postern), each furnished with a portcullis and a drawbridge to give access over a moat.” Two thick oak doors, one internal and one to the outside guarded each entrance. It is clear these are descriptions of later additions to the fortification. Probably the walls had to be reinforced soon after the age of cannon began in the 1330s.The twin semi-octagonal towers at the Dam Street entrance were completed after 1322 and the west gate c. 1355 with a portcullis added 1376.

          In 1348, a licence[20] was granted to stop people using a road which ran along the road south of the cathedral. Calander of Patent rolls, 1348-50, page 56 for April 18, 1348, stated, Certain of the town of Lichfield claimed to have a common transit through the close leading from Bakenstrete by the gate of the close, with bridges over the water there, sufficient for the transit of men, carts, wains or horses. An inquisition found it did not cause damage for this transit. However, the king confirms the charter (1299) so that only the bishop, the dean and chapter, and the ministers of them and the church shall have transit through the close. 

          This confirms Langton’s purpose for security, privacy and quiet. A map of the Close wall in 1610 shows a straight, low wall around the Close with corner towers, two gates and no moat. The wall does not appear impregnable.

This confirms Langton’s purpose to have security, privacy and quiet. Whether all this considerable fortification was completed in the 14th century, or more added in the intervening 300 years to the English Civil War is unknown.A map of the Close wall in 1610 shows a straight, low wall around the Close with corner towers, two gates and no moat. The wall does not appear impregnable.

Appearance of the fortress cathedral on a map by John Speed dated 1610, not showing a moat. [21] 

    

Bassett’s plan for 1350, 1982, showing a simple square wall, block-shaped west gate and an absence of a moat; all confirming Speed’s map.

        A journal written by the Parliamentary army General, Sir William Brereton, [22] stated at the beginning of the first siege, March 1643, the walls of the Close had been strengthened and loopholes pieced in the stonework, a deep and wide moat surrounded the Close, mounds were thrown up on the inner banks, double wooden doors, portcullises and drawbridges added to the gates and additional walls and bastions added. The west gate had two outer towers to make it a barbican and this would have strengthened the doorway, the weakest part of the fortification. It is clear the Royalists led by the Earl of Chesterfield had greatly added to the fortification before the first battle. Clarendon wrote, 1702-4, at the beginning of the Civil War “The Close in Lichfield was a place naturally strong, and defended with a moat, and a very high and thick wall; which in the infancy of the war was thought a good fortification”. On the second siege, April 1643, he added, “The cathedral church and all the clergymen’s houses was strongly fortified, and resolved against him (Prince Rupert). The wall, about which there was a broad and deep moat, was so thick and strong, that no battery the prince could raise would make any impression." 

There are 3 uncertainties concerning this 1640s fortification, namely, the extent of the moat, the nature of the southern boundary and the shape of the towers.

1.     Was the moat in 1640 dry, wet, complete or partial?

          The substantial ditch which enclosed the whole complex was known to have been cut or re-cut in c. 1130. It was dug into the underlying sandstone and presumably acted as a convenient quarry for buildings within the Close. It was around 30 m. wide and 5 m. deep.[23] There is no evidence at the time of construction that the ditch contained water. Lomax said the Close was nearly surrounded by water.[24] Speed’s map of 1610 does not show any moat.

Gresley’s (1840)[25] plan of the Close for 1640 showing a moat on two sides, an unequal west gate and a southern wall against the pool.

 Thorpe's (1950) [26]   similar plan of the Close showing a moat on sections of the east and west sides. The southeast gate has an outward extension.

  

Tringham’s plan (1985)[27]  of the Close from surveys in 1649 and 1660, showing a moat on two sides of the Close. This followed the layout shown on John Snape’s map of Lichfield drawn in 1791.

          It is plausible the water course along the east wall extended as far as the bishop’s palace, because it could then drain waste from the palace. Likewise, it extended three-quarters along the west wall and drained waste from the houses along Beacon Street. The north dyke being at a higher elevation (presently, 8m higher than the pool) would not be fed with water from the southern stream, but could have filled with rainwater or from a spring. The bedrock of Mercian red sandstone has a relatively low permeability and can hold water. So, was the whole Close surrounded with a moat at the start of the Civil War, 1643?

          Prince Rupert arrived in Lichfield on April 6 1643 to retake the Close from the occupying Parliamentarian Army. His Royalist forces surrounded the Close and began to pound the walls, but to no avail. So, he recruited men to mine tunnels under the wall. Clayton wrote, “Before they could start undermining the walls the top moat (north side) had to be drained of water, and this was probably done by diverting the springs that fed the moat from the higher ground”.[28] It is presumed the diggers were under some metal shield to prevent being shot from the ramparts.

The northwest corner of the fortress cathedral at the time of the second siege and after undermining the northeast tower with gunpowder. Note the shielding around the northwest tower to protect the miners. Also, the rectangular shape of the west gate. A reconstruction of the second siege of Lichfield; Mike Kilfoyle; 1993; LCA 0576.

          Griffiths Higgs was the dean of Lichfield and wrote a first-hand account of events in the spring of 1643 in Latin.[29] Higgs was a Royalist and wrote, “Rupert for the second siege moved his machines and catapults, providing mantlets (protective iron shields) for the siege-men. He used battering rams, hurled rocks and constructed underground mines. He fixed ladders to the walls and built a bridge across the moat. After the Close was taken by the Royalists, Richard Bagot of Stafford was declared governor and he had water brought back into the moat.” This infers a wet moat existed, particularly on the north side. 

          It is obvious why Rupert tried to breach the wall on the northwest corner. This has the highest elevation and presumably the lowest water level. It could also have had the lowest wall offset by the deepest ditch. Furthermore, it might have been a wall without a house behind; breaching a wall and then having to fight through a house might have been too much. If so, it adds to the notion by 1643 the whole of the Close had a complete moat. 

2.     Did the south side have a wall or were backs of houses and the pool sufficient protection?

          John Speed’s map, 1610, appears to show houses along the south boundary of the Close. So does a hand-drawn view of the Close from the south by William Dugdale.

Dugdale’s drawing, Ashmole MS 1521 of 1643 (should be 1646). Some of the houses appear to be outside of the wall?

Cox,[30] 1738, wrote the Close was so-called because it was enclosed with a stone wall and deep fosse (trench or dyke) on all sides except the south where it was defended by a pool of water.  If the walled Close was primarily to protect the bishop’s palace, then its own high wall south of the palace was sufficient. Entry through the southeast gate would be restricted and probably only allowed the bishop’s carriage and staff to pass through. No southern wall was repeated in Mike Kilfoyle’s drawings and in Tringham’s layout for the mid-17th century.  Ellis and Atherton stated the Close was protected by the Minster Pool on the south (or city side) and had a ditch on the other three sides.²⁵ Thorpe’s plan, 1950, however, has a definite curtain wall along the Minster pool. At the Dam Street end there is a portion of a wall still existing. Was this a true wall, or a long back to a row of houses now removed?

Painting thought to be mid-17th century by an unknown artist shows a square west gate and no southern wall.

At the end of the garden to No. 19 The Close is a length of walling which would have given protection.

                  

At both the southeast and southwest corners a house was incorporated into the wall and had a defensive turret. It is indicates houses were added to the defensive wall.

St Mary’s house with defensive turret.

Hewitt[31] (1874) wrote various maps and plans show the Close precincts do not extend to the pool bank, so that it may be doubted if the pool ever formed a moat barrier to the fortress. An interspace of dry land between the pool and the Close seems vulnerable to access and insecure. It appears the southside had a combination of walls and backs of houses, probably strengthened with access to their roofs, along the edge of Minster Pool and this was sufficient deterrence to any incursion by an enemy, but it is uncertain. Gresley (1840)[32] mentions earth mounds being built up in the back gardens on the south side and soldiers using them as barricades, but if they were placed between the houses/wall and the pool it would have been exposure to cannon fire and if behind the wall it would have been useless. In December 1645, ice on Minster Pool was deliberately broken several times to prevent easy crossing of the pool. An archaeological dig, 1976-7, south of College Hall found no evidence of a defensive wall.   

3.     What was the shape of the towers?

A drawing exists of the west gate [33]before its final demolition in 1800.[34] It shows three shields, a rampant lion with chequered square (left), the arms of the see of Lichfield (centre) and the arms of Charles I (right). This is the centre of the gate and gives no clue as to the shape of the side towers. Lomax stated over the gate was a tower,[35] but that does not accord with other castle gates.

West gate drawing before its demolition in 1800

An etching by Henry White[36] shows a small west gate that has round towers.

Henry White etching. Lichfield Cathedral in 1640, William Salt Library.The west gate appears small, whereas the ferry gate on the south side appears large. The towers are drawn round when it is known the corner towers were octagonal.

 

                                                                                                                        The remains of the side tower, still visible in the left wall to the entrance to the Close, suggest a large tower block. This is reminiscent of the gatehouse to the bishop’s palace at Wells.

North side of the west gate. It is about 20 feet high and 20 feet wide. The south side was demolished to make way for Newton's College.

It cannot be ruled out the west gate had octagonal towers much like around the Close. It is odd there is no account of its appearance. The remains of a tower at the bishop’s palace at Eccleshall show it was octagonal.

                                        Tower at Eccleshall castle 

 It seems incongruous the corner towers and possibly the southern gate towers were octagonal and the west gate was not.

 

Southern Gate opposite Dam Street. Early guides state the southeast gates were of massive oak, studded with iron, and having a wicket for the passage of people on foot. The water from Minster Pool was bridged by a draw-bridge before flowing to Stowe Pool. The gateway was flanked by towers, projecting from the walls of the Close into the fosse, one of which on the east side was used as a dwelling, and called the turret house.[37]

                                                                           South west gate drawing, 1840.

 Corner Towers. The corner towers appear octagonal and this is apparent in the remnant of the northeast tower. Its sides are 15 feet long. The foundation of a tower in the southeast was a half- octagon with 12 feet sides, but is this the corner tower or the eastern tower of the gate?  The octagonal foundation appears to be facing east, not south and thus was on a corner, so the corner tower was the turret tower attached today to a house. The southwest tower was the largest.[38]

Foundation to southeast tower showing it has octagonal sides 12 feet wide. It is faces south and east.

 

Northern  wall and northeast tower showing it was octagonal with 15 feet long sides, The wall was about 4  feet thick.                                

                                   

 Northeast tower showing brickwork above stonework

Inside the tower..

        There are uncertainties in the shape of the curtain wall, especially the shape of the towers alongside the gates. It is incongruous, the west-gate had tall, square side towers, whereas the south-east gate towers were octagonal. The height of the castellated wall appears to vary considerably, with the north wall being higher than the south or east wall.

                                                       Summary

      After the second siege with the breaching of the northwest corner wall and takeover by the Royalists, Prince Rupert ordered the strengthening of the fortifications. It was recorded in a Parliamentary record (No. 38, 20-27 April, 1643) that the following were undertaken, [39] 

•  making up the breach in the wall where the mine was sprung
•  making a drawbridge with chains and repairing the gate wall
•  installing new gates with ironwork
•  repairing the inner tower at the west gate and adding a cannon
•  drawing water around the Close. So there was water around the Close by the time of the third siege.
•  In 1645 ‘the ‘bulwarks were raised’       

The Royalists surrendered the Close on July 10, 1646, and on the July 16th orders were given to slight the fortifications, but so little was left to remove.[40] Brereton’s army stayed on to demolish the walls. The two gateways were kept, but the doors and portcullises were removed. It is likely the moat must have been drained completely, and this was confirmed by Erdwicke[41] in 1717 when he wrote the Close had ‘a good, deep dry trench.’ 

Reconstructions of the walls.

 

[1] A. Sargent, ‘Early medieval Lichfield. A reassessment’. Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions, (2013), 1–32.

[2] H. Wharton, Anglia Sacra (1691), 434.

[3] M. W. Greenslade, 'Lichfield: The cathedral close', in A History of the County of Stafford: Volume 14, Lichfield, (London, 1990), 57-67. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/staffs/vol14/

[4] H. Wharton, Anglia Sacra, i. 434; S.H.C. 4th ser. xi. 8.

[5] The site was reputed to be close to the street named ‘Castle Dyke’, between Frog Lane and Wade Street. Leland wrote, “There hathe bene a castle of auncient tyme in the southe ende of the towne, but no parte of it standithe. The plote with the dikes is sene, and is yet caullyd The Castle Felde; but in my coniecture the more lykely place wher it shuld of very auntient tyme have stond is the very close of the palace. That ground is somewhat castle like. L. Toulmin Smith, The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535–1543. (London: 1907–10), 99.

[6] C. C. Taylor, ‘The origins of Lichfield, Staffordshire’, South Staffordshire archaeological and historical society transactions for 1968-9, (1969), 10, 43-52.                  

[7] T. Harwood, The history and antiquities of the church and city of Lichfield. (London: 1806), 10-11, 288, 292, 295.

[8] W. Pitt, Topographical history of Staffordshire. (1817).

[9]  M. W. Greenslade (ed.), 'Lichfield: History to c.1500', in A History of the County of Stafford: Volume 14, Lichfield, (London, 1990), pp. 4-14, note 46.

[10] T. R. Slater, ‘The topography and planning of Medieval Lichfield. A critique. South Staffordshire archaeological and historical society transactions for 1984-1985. (1986), 26, 11-35.

[11] See note 2, Wharton, 1691, volume 1, 442.

[12] For a plan of the palace see N. Tringham, 'Palace of Walter Langton in Lichfield Close', Medieval Archaeology and Architecture at Lichfield, ed. J. Maddison (1993), 88.

[13] J. Maddison, ‘Building at Lichfield Cathedral during the episcopate of Walter Langton, 1296–1321.’ In Medieval archaeology and architecture at Lichfield, XIII, British Archaeological Association (1993), 66.

[14] R. Willis, ‘On foundations of early buildings recently discovered in Lichfield Cathedral’. The Archaeological Journal, (1861), 18, 1–24. Willis visited the Cathedral in 1849 to examine window tracery. In 1854 he was invited to forward a drawing for the restoration of the choir area. Before publication Willis gave a lecture reported in The Gentleman’s Magazine, March 1861, Vol. 210, 296‑300.

[15] D. Lepine, ‘‘Glorious confessor’: the cult of S Chad at Lichfield Cathedral during the later Middle Ages’, Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society-Transactions, (2021), 33.

[16] See Harwood note 7. Harwood (1806), 10.

[17] Ibid 20.

[18] Ibid 11, note 404.

[19] H. Clayton, Loyal and Ancient City. Lichfield in the Civil Wars. (Lichfield: 1987).

[20] Calendar of Patent Rolls 1348–50, 56, April 18 1348.

[21] First published in 1611-12 by J. Sudbury and G. Humble. 

[22] J. McKenna, A Journal of the English Civil War. The Letter Book of Sir William Brereton. (North Carolina and London: 2012), 59, 99. . J. W. W. Bund, The Civil War in Worcestershire, 1642-1646 and the Scotch invasion of 1651. (Birmingham: 1905), 30, confirmed the Close was fortified by the Royalists before the first siege, 1643.

[23] T. R. Slater, (1986), 15. See note 10. Current cathedral ditch has been measured to be 42 m (139 feet) wide, around 6 m (20 feet) deep and with a bank around 2 m high.

[24] T. Lomax, A short account of the City and Close of Lichfield. (Lichfield: 1819).

[25] W. Gresley, The siege of Lichfield: A tale illustrative of the Great Rebellion. (London: 1840), 274.

[26] H. Thorpe, ‘Lichfield: a study of its growth and function.’ Collections for a history of Staffordshire, 1950-51, (1954) 137-211

[27] N. J. Tringham, ‘Two seventeenth-century surveys of Lichfield Cathedral Close, South Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society transactions for 1983-84. (1985), 25, 35-49.

[28] H. Clayton, ‘Loyal and Ancient City. The Civil War in Lichfield’. (Lichfield, self-published: 1987), 43.

[29] N. Ellis and I. Atherton, ‘Griffith Higgs's Account of the Sieges of and Iconoclasm at Lichfield Cathedral in 1643, Midland History, (2009) 34:2, 233-245.

[30] T, Cox, Magna Britannia, (London: 1738), 234.

[31] J. Hewitt, ‘Lichfield Cathedral Close and its sieges’. Archaeological J. (1874), 31, 1, 327–336.

[32] W. Gresley, (1840) 67, see note 25, wrote, The Royalists, on their side, had not been backward in making preparation for defence. Mounds had been thrown up in the gardens between the Cathedral and the pool; the old houses had been pierced with loop-holes and embrasures; and the bastions of the south gate, and the battlements of the Lady Chapel, had been lined with musketeers and marksmen, who were protected partly by the battlements, partly by woolsacks carried up to the roofs of the buildings for that purpose.

[33] It is thought Langton’s master mason was Henry de Ellerton, active as the master of the King’s Works 1304-22. He took over the building of Caernarfon Castle in 1323. The King’s Gate might have a resemblance to Lichfield’s west-gate. 

[34] A pen and ink drawing by C. E. Skinner in March 1800 prior to the demolition of the gate.

[35] T. Lomax, (1819), 206. See note 24.

[36] T. Harwood (1806), 307. See note 7.

[37] T. Lomax, (1819), 210. See note 24.

[38] H. Clayton (1987), 17. See note 28.

[39] Ibid. 53. “A continuation of certain special remarkable passages informed to both houses of parliament no.38 20th April 1643 - 27th April 1643”  

[40] Ibid. 125

[41] S. Erdwicke, Survey of Staffordshire. Containing William Dugdale’s transcript. (London: 1717), 100.