A ‘pays’ is the term used to describe ‘each landscape as a distinctive and unique assemblage of facets or components’ (Muir 2000: 6). Such a region does not conform to any administrative division but is recognised by its inhabitants as having a ‘terrestrial unity’ of its own, based upon its physical and cultural endowments (Blache et al 1926: 6; Postgate 1962: 80; Everritt 1977;
Fox 1989). In this thesis a pays is taken to be an environmental niche, defined by its climate, topography, geology, hydrology and macro-flora, which gave rise to distinct and localised cultural practices evidenced in Suffolk in the 11* and 12* centuries (Appendices 4.1-8).
Landscape studies have traditionally subdivided Suffolk into such distinct landscapes or ‘pays’
(Kirby 1735: 1-2; Young 1797: 3-5; Raynbird 1849: 2-5; Darby 1952; Kerridge 1967; Trist 1971; Dymond 1968; Martin 1999a; Williamson 2003). Despite the popularity of pays as a classification, they are problematic:
1. Not all Suffolk pays have received the same academic attention, for example, the fens have received a large amount of academic attention yet the larger London Clay District has received none.
2. Pays are constructs displaying considerable local diversity within themselves (Williamson 2003: 114-5). They are highly problematic in terms of:
a. Accuracy: By 1086 Nayland, Bures, Menham, Gorleston, Knettishall, Rushford, Mildenhall, Rum burgh and Thetford were recorded in more than one county in the Domesday Book. Furthermore, Harkstead was an outlier o f Brightlingsea in Essex and Exning was still part of Cambridgeshire until the mid-12* century (Welldon Finn 1967:
51-3).
b. Scale and resolution: As we can see from the drift geology o f the previous chapter, it is difficult to convey the full complexity even by means o f a map, for example, of all the soil types found within the boundaries of a single field let alone a detailed soil study of a single pays (Hodges et al. 1984: xx-i).
c. Number: There is no agreement on how many pays occur in Suffolk. Different models have been produced by different disciplines, defining and classifying their models according to their specific research interests. Kirby divided Suffolk into three
‘pays’: Woodland, Fielding and Sandland (Kirby 2004: 1-2). Darby identified six
regions (Darby 1971: 204-7). Dymond simplified this model back to three: Breckland, High Suffolk and Sandlings (Dymond 1968). The Countryside Commission and English Nature divided the county into seven distinct areas (Martin 1999a: 20-1 & 19In).
Williamson has offered yet another model, based on soil types and subdivided into nine
‘pays’ (Williamson 2003: 63). Finally, Suffolk Archaeology Unit has since 1998 been undertaking an English Heritage funded Historic Landscape Characterisation project in the county, focussing on field patterns, boundaries and hedge-rows (Suffolk
Archaeology Unit 2007). Problems of classification are further compounded by sub
classes within each landscape, for example in the Brecklands (Sussams 1996: 5-6).
d. Definition: There is no theoretical agreement on what precisely constitutes a
‘landscape’. For example, some German geographers have used the term 'Landschaft' in an explicitly essentialist manner by identifying a ‘spiritual’ or ‘aesthetic’ dimension to landscapes (Gold 1980: 115-6). Alternatively, anthropologists such as Frake have offered an impressionistic, data-free, post-modernist and unrecognisable interpretation o f the East Anglian landscape (Frake 1996: 229-257).
The inclusion o f potentially essentialist notions such as ‘pays’ is justified here, because the different landscape types represent ecological niches, which are empirically defined by their climate, topography, underlying geologies and hydrology. These in turn give rise to the macro
flora and ecology o f each district. Furthermore, the historical evidence of specialised
exploitation or processing o f environmental resources within discrete regions of 11*- and 12^- century East Anglia, for example sheep-barley production, eel and herring fishing, gives rise to distinctive local cultural practices (Darby 1971: 204-207; Britnell 1996: 48).
Therefore, in view o f the conceptual limitations upon pays, Suffolk is subdivided, for the purpose of this thesis, into eight pays: Breckland, East Anglian Heights, Fenland, London Clay District, Broadlands, High Suffolk, South Suffolk and Sandlings (Map 3.21). An outline description the topography, geology, hydrology, Domesday timber resources and local cultural practices of each pays is given are in Appendices 4.1-8, allowing us to plot the distribution of castles across the different environments found in Suffolk during the 1 f*’ and 12* century (Map 3.22).
3,28,1: Pays summary
The numbers and percentages of castles are distributed across the pays of Suffolk (Map 3.22) as follows:
High Suffolk: 12 (44%) South Suffolk: 7 (26%) Broadlands: 1 (4%) East Anglian Heights: 0 Brecklands: 3(11% )
London Clay District: 1 (4%) Fenland: 0
Sandlings: 3(11% )
From this it is possible to conclude that:
1. The pays o f High Suffolk has the highest number of castles, with 12 (44%) of the castles in the county. It should also be noted that this pays has the largest amount of woodland, highest rate o f precipitation, a lower topography, a better geology for well- sinking, and raising earthworks and the highest density of ponds. Moreover, this pays also has both the highest concentration of both total and free populations.
2. The pays o f High and South Suffolk combined contain 19 (70%) o f the castles in the county, but this area also accounts for approximately 70% of the total area of the county.
3. There are few castles in the London Clay District or Suffolk Broadlands; and those that do exist are located upon on discreet island geologies, evidenced at Nayland and Burgh.
4. In Suffolk the pays of the East Anglian Heights and Fenland do not possess castles, though castles are evidenced in the same pays outside the county.
5. Castles are frequently located close to the converging boundaries of more than one pays, for example, at Bramsfield, Clare, Creeting, Desning, Freckenham, Great Fakenham, Haughley, Ipswich., Lidgate and Otley.
3,28,2: Pays Conclusion
Environmental factors o f topography, geology, hydrology and Domesday timber-supply, along with their respective technologies evidenced in the 11* and 12* centuries, constrain the claims that can be made about the normative earth and timber Suffolk castle.
The climate, topography, geology and hydrology of Suffolk have created different environments and ecologies within the county, which in the medieval period gave rise to distinctive cultural practices and landscapes, here referred to as ‘pays’.
The largest concentration of Suffolk castles were located in the pays of High Suffolk, which contains the best environmental and ecological resources for castle building, despite the high levels of free population and therefore more powerful civil institutions.
Chapter 4.0: Sœlig Sudfolc^, 4.1: Introduction
The purpose o f this chapter is to explore the - cultural, structural and societal - level of BraudePs Annales model, and it has three specific objectives:
• To explore the cultural level of history by identifying an important mentalité operating in 9*- and 12**’-century Suffolk arising from the cult of St Edmund.
• To explore the structural level o f history by identifying the significance of the institution of the Abbey of St Edmund in Suffolk between 1066 and 1200.
• To explore the societal level of history by identifying the military and feudal
organisation o f the Abbey - the Knights of St Edmund - that included numerous castle- building agents and how this was used as a means of social control over the new Anglo- Norman elite.
The overall aim is to establish how the cult and Abbey of St Edmund influenced castle building within the Liberty o f St Edmund and Suffolk in the 11* and 12* centuries (Map 2.7).
No study of Suffolk in the 11* and 12* centuries can avoid the cult, abbey or barony of St Edmund, the last Anglo-Saxon king of East Anglia (d. 869). The swift generation of the cult is all the more remarkable as East Anglia remained part of the Danelaw until 917 and thus the cult had developed in an area under occupation (Whitelock 1970: 218; Ridyard 1988: 214-5).
The economic, political and ecclesiastical power o f St Edmund’s abbey - it was one of the county’s largest feudal landowners, controlled the eight and a half hundreds of the Liberty of St Edmund, where the Abbot acted as viceroy and enjoyed extraordinary ecclesiastical autonomy - were all predicated on the physical presence and supernatural power of St Edmund. It was widely believed in the 11* and 12* centuries, and promoted by St Edmund’s Abbey, that this supernatural power was regularly exercised in the defence of St Edmund’s shrine, his
community and his property. The site of his shrine was where the potentia of the saint was most powerfully demonstrated (Brown 1981: 1-49 & 106). There are records of demons being cast
* Later referred to as ‘silly Suffolk’, but originally OE Sœ lig Sudfolc ‘blessed or holy Suffolk’ (Bosworth
& Toller 1898: 811).
out, people claiming to see visions and mysterious lights being seen at the shrine (Arnold 1890:
27, 38, 100, 118, 195, 199 & 372; 1896: 230). Moreover, apart from Bury, St Edmund had six Suffolk churches dedicated to him in the county, at Hargrave, Assington, Bromeswell, Fritton, Kessingland and Southwold (Farmer 1978: 120-2, Matthew and Harrison 2004 17: 754-5, Map 4.1).
Davis (1955: 228) has argued that St Edmund had a specialisation:
‘He was the defender o f men and the soul of the resistance. ..In death, as in life, St. Edmund was the saint who resisted tyrants’.
This was not his only specialisation. Ridyard (1988: 229-230) has emphasised the regional character of the St Edmund cult, his role as patron saint of East Anglia and his local popularity.
Furthermore, Gransden (1995a: 45) notes that Edmund was a royal saint. Therefore, St Edmund had three distinct roles; as a figure of resistance to tyranny, as a regional martyr and as a royal saint. This explains both the local popularity of the cult and the later patronage by the kings of England of his shrine and community.
Beyond the shrine itself, the principal means of transmission of the cult of St Edmund was by means o f the hagiographie biographies written about him that formed part of the liturgical life of his abbey and shrine. The hagiography of St Edmund developed between 869 and 1200, and this tradition formed part o f the mentalité of Suffolk society until 1538. In addition, the
chronological distribution o f these hagiographies and the topos they contain give us important clues about dating aspects of the material culture associated with St Edmund, his Abbey and Liberty.
These hagiographies promoted the cult to a wider audience, and its success is demonstrated by chapels dedicated to St Edmund at Westminster Abbey, Rochester Cathedral, St Denis’ Abbey in Paris and Lucca Cathedral in Tuscany (Blum 1998: 57-68, Matten 1996:35). This
hagiographie tradition was the product of two sources o f agency. The first was the oral East Anglian folk tradition dating from before 987 and the second the official commissioned, edited and embellished hagiographies produced by the Church after 987. It will be argued below that there is a relationship between the hagiographies produced about St Edmund and the political crises that his abbey faced in the 11^ and 12* centuries and that the abbey deliberately promoted the concept of a divine level of defence or protection for the shrine and property of St Edmund and his community. A topos was deliberately constructed of a psychopathic and vengeful saint with a special ability to target those who offended him, irrespective of rank, nationality or geographic location.
The Abbey o f St Edmund permitted the construction o f eleven castles within the Liberty of St Edmund between 1066 and 1200. O f these, only three had existed before 1135 and survived as functioning castles until after c .l200. The remaining eight castles were all constructed between
1086 and 1153, but none are evidenced operating as castles beyond c .l200. Although slighted as effective fortification, some o f these castles continued to function as manorial centres, for example Court Knolls at Nayland (Everett and Anderson 2001).
Ten o f the castles constructed within the Liberty were either built by Knights of St Edmund, by royal officials or other allies of the Abbey. These presumably were built with the permission of the abbey. Furthermore, all the castles appear to be located around the periphery of the Liberty, and it will be argued that this distribution protected the Liberty and core estates of St Edmund’s Abbey. Only one castle at Milden is identified as hostile to the abbey (Chapter 5.4.).