Jay City A Reykjavik Thriller

Purchase at alibris.com
( 4.5/5.0 ★ | 205 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
539780312340704&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780312340704
Jay City A Reykjavik Thriller

ISBN: 9780312340704
Category: Media > Books
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 18.4 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Fine in Fine jacket Book First printing. AS NEW.
Winner of the Crime Writers' Association Gold Dagger Award. Nominee
Gumsoe Award Best Euro Crime Novel, 2006.

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26539780312340704&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780312340704
 Jay City A Reykjavik
Thriller

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653978031234070

4&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780312340704 to do
latest version of Jay City A Reykjavik Thriller in multiple formats such as PDF, EPUB, and more.

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
now live five centuries more to equal the longevity of its
predecessor.

9. TAKING DOWN THE HOUSES ON OLD LONDON BRIDGE.

(From a water-colour painting by C. Pyne.)

This had been, all its life long, an exceptional bridge, {53} with a
biography of its own, worthy of a biographer, which it got;35 the
others presented a less grandiose appearance. People were even
very glad to find bridges like the one at Stratford-at-Bow, in spite of
its want of width and its deep ruts; or like the wooden bridge over
the Dyke with arches so low and narrow that all water traffic was
interrupted by any slight rising of the level of the water. The state of
this last bridge, which, in truth, was more of a hindrance than a help
to communications, at length excited the indignation of neighbouring
counties. During the fifteenth century, it was granted, therefore, to
the inhabitants upon their pressing request, that they might
reconstruct the bridge, with a movable arch for boats.36
In the same way disappeared, also in the fifteenth century, a
bridge described by Leland in his “Itinerary” as having been a “poore
bridge of tymber and no causey to come to it,” which crossed the
Avon at Stratford. It was in such a state that “many poore folkys and
othar refusyd to cum to Stratford when Avon was up, or cominge
thithar stoode in jeoperdy of lyfe.” The rich Sir Hugh of Clopton,
sometime mayor of London, who was born at Clopton near Stratford,
and died in 1497, moved by the danger of his compatriots, and
“having never wife nor children, convertid a great peace of his
substance in good workes in Stratford, first making a sumptuus new
bridge and large of stone, wher in the middle be a vi great arches
for the maine streame of Avon and at eche ende certen smaul
arches to bere the causey, and so to passe commodiously at such
tymes as the ryver risith.”37 This same bridge is still in use, and well
deserves the praise bestowed upon it by Leland. But fine as it {54} is,
one would have less regretted its disappearance than the destruction
of a “praty house of bricke and tymbre,” built by the same Hugh of
Clopton with the purpose of ending his days in it. That house was
purchased afterwards—also with the intent of ending his life in it—by
a certain countryman of Hugh, who has since become famous
enough, William Shakespeare, who repaired the house, then called
New Place, and died in it in the year 1616.
The calling in of the foreign cleric Isembert to superintend the
works of London Bridge seems to have been exceptional. The
building of ordinary bridges was usually entrusted to local craftsmen
or masons; and it would have been strange indeed if the people who
could raise such splendid cathedral naves all over England, had been
at a loss to span rivers with bridges. One of the few indentures for
the building of a bridge which have come down to us concerns the
re-construction of Catterick bridge, Yorkshire, in 1422, on the great
Roman road, the Erming Street, and the contractors seem to have
been English. The document is curious in many respects.
The contract binds several authorities on the one hand, and
“Tho. Ampilforde, John Garette, and Robert Maunselle, masons,” on
the other. It is stated in it “yat ye foresaides Tho., John, and Rob.,
schalle make a brigge of stane oure (over) ye water of Swalle atte
Catrik be twix ye old stane brigge and ye new brigge of tree (of
wood), quilke forsaid brigge, with ye grace of God, salle be made
sufficiant [and war]kmanly in mason craft accordand in substance to
Barnacastelle brigge, aftir ye ground and ye watyr accordes, of twa
pilers, twa land stathes (abutments), and thre arches.” The deed
goes on to give a minute account of the way in which every part of
the work must be performed, of the material that will be used, and
of the time when the bridge must be entirely finished and open to
circulation: “And ye {57} saides John, Tho., and Rob., schalle this
forsaid brigge sufficiantly in masoncraft make and fully perfurnist in
all partiez and holy endyd be ye Fest of Seint Michille ye Arcangelle
quilk yt shalle fall in ye yere of our Lorde Gode Mle ccccxxv.” It is
understood besides that they will receive in payment, at certain fixed
dates, “gounes,” and also sums of money, the total of which will be
260 marks sterling.38
 10. HUGH OF CLOPTON’S BRIDGE AT STRATFORD-ON-AVON.
(Fifteenth Century.)

The bridge built by the three masons, John, Thomas, and Robert,
is still in existence, but it has undergone great and grievous
alterations.
We have already seen some examples of the means employed at
this period to secure the maintenance of these valuable
constructions, when that maintenance had to be ensured by
something more than the charges incident to the ownership of the
neighbouring lands (trinoda necessitas); we know that it was
sometimes provided through “indulgences” promised to benefactors,
sometimes by the action of gilds, or municipalities, sometimes also
by the endowments with which one of the great would enrich the
bridge founded by him. But without speaking of occasional gifts,39
several other methods were employed with success, even with
profit, such as the lawful levying of those tolls which Godfrey Pratt
had arbitrarily imposed on his fellow citizens, or the collection of
pious offerings made at the chapel of the bridge and to its warden.
The right of toll was called brudtholl (bridgetoll) or pontagium; the
grantee, to whom the benefit went, bound himself in return to make
all the necessary repairs. Sometimes the King accorded the right as
a favour during a certain period, as appears, for example, from the
{58} following petition, which is of the time of Edward I or Edward II:

“To our lord the king, prays his vassal William of Latymer lord of
Yarm,40 that he will grant him pontage for five years at the bridge of
Yarm, which is broken down, where men were wont to pass with
carts and with horses on the king’s highway between the water of
Tees towards Scotland. May it please him to do this for the soul of
Madame his consort, who is to God commended, and for the
common profit of the people who pass.” The King’s reply was
favourable: “The King grants the pontage for the term.”41

Some of the tariffs in force at certain bridges during the

fourteenth century have come down to us and have been printed;
the most detailed of these is of the year 1306, and concerns London
Bridge. It is annexed to a patent of Edward I, and enumerates not
only passengers, carriages, and animals of every quality or
description, but also every sort of “saleable” ware which may pass
either on or under the bridge: though it may seem somewhat unfair
to have drawn money from shipmen towards the expenses of a
structure that was their most formidable competitor.42 This list,
which is a great help in forming an exact idea of the commodities
brought {59} to London by land or by river, covers no less than four
pages of printed matter: including coal, timber, beer, wines, horses,
cattle, pigs, grain, sheep, butter and cheese, fish, furs and skins,
metal pots and cups, millstones, silk and other cloths, etc.; the place
they come from is sometimes mentioned: Northampton, Flanders,
Normandy.
 Another very curious petition (1334) will show the use of the
other mode, that is, the collection of voluntary offerings from
charitable passers-by. The share of the clergy in the care of these
buildings, the greediness with which the profitable right of collecting
the gifts was disputed, and the embezzlements sometimes resulting
therefrom are to be noticed:

“To our lord the king and his Council showeth their poor chaplain,
Robert le Fenere, parson of the church of St. Clement, of
Huntingdon, of the diocese of Lincoln, that there is a little chapel
lately built in his parish on the bridge of Huntingdon, the keeping of
which chapel our lord the king has granted and delivered during
pleasure to one Sir Adam, warden of the house of St. John of
Huntingdon, who receives and takes away all manner of offerings
and alms without doing anything for the repair of the bridge or of
the said chapel as he is bound to do. On the other hand, it seems
hurtful to God and Holy Church that offerings should be appropriated
to any one except to the parson within whose parish the chapel is
founded. Wherefore the said Robert prays, for God and Holy Church
and for the souls of our lord the king’s father and his ancestors, that
he may have the keeping of the said chapel annexed to his church,
together with the charge of the bridge, and he will take heed with all
care to maintain them well, with better will than any stranger, for the
profit and honour of Holy Church, to please God and all people
passing that way.”43

This jumble of human and divine interests (from the birthplace,

that was to be, of Oliver Cromwell) was submitted to the usual
examination, and the request was set aside, with the following note:
“Non est peticio parliamenti”; it is not a petition for Parliament.
In many cases, the bridge was itself at once proprietor of real
estate and beneficiary of the offerings made to its chapel, and
sometimes also grantee of a right of toll; it had income from both
civil and religious sources. Such were notably the bridges of London,
of Rochester,44 of Bedford, and many others. John de Bodenho,
chaplain, explains to Parliament that the inhabitants of Bedford hold
their own town at farm from the king, and have undertaken to
maintain their bridge. For this they “assigned certain tenements and
rents in the said town to support it, and with their alms have newly
built an oratory on the side of the water belonging to Lord Mowbray,
by leave of the lord, adjoining the said bridge.” The burgesses gave
to the plaintiff the charge of the reparations, together with the
whole revenues. But the priest, John of Derby, represented to the
king that it was a royal chapel which he might dispose of, and the
king has given it to him, which is very unjust, since the chapel is not
the king’s; even those who founded it are still living. All these
reasons were found good; the judges were ordered to grant the
plaintiff’s plea, and {61} were reprimanded for not having done it
sooner, as had already been prescribed to them.45
Enriched by so many offerings, protected by the trinoda
necessitas, and by the common interest of the landed proprietors,
these bridges should have been continually repaired, and have
remained sound. But there was nothing of the sort, and the distance
between legal theory and actual practice was great. When the taxes
were regularly collected and honestly applied, they usually sufficed
to support the building; even the right of collecting them, being in
itself profitable, was, as has been seen, strongly contested for; but
the example of Godfrey Pratt and of some others has already shown
that all the wardens were not honest. Many, even in the highest
positions, imitated Godfrey. London Bridge itself, so rich, so useful,
so admired, was in constant need of repairs, never done until danger
was imminent, or even a catastrophe had happened. Henry III
granted the farm of the bridge revenues “to his beloved wife,” who
neglected to maintain it, and appropriated to herself without scruple
the rents of the building; none the less did the king renew his patent
at the expiration of the term, that his said beloved might benefit
“from a richer favour.” The result was not long awaited; it was soon
found that the bridge was in ruins, and to restore it the ordinary
resources were not enough; it was necessary to send collectors
throughout the country to gather offerings from those willing to give.
Edward I, in January 1281, begged his subjects to hasten; the
bridge would give way if they did not send prompt assistance. He
ordered the archbishops, bishops, all the clergy, to allow his
collectors to address the people freely with “pious exhortations,” that
the subsidies should be craved without delay. But nevertheless the
supplies arrived too late; the catastrophe had already happened, a
“sudden {62} ruin” had befallen the bridge, and to repair this
misfortune the king established a special tax upon the passengers,
merchandise and boats (February 4, 1282), which tax was imposed
again and the new tariff afore mentioned was put into force on May
7, 1306. What this sudden ruin was we learn from Stow’s “Annales”;
the winter had been very severe, the frost and snow had caused
great cracks in the floor of the bridge, so that towards the Feast of
the Purification (February 2), five of the arches fell in. Many other
bridges, too, in the country had suffered damage, Rochester Bridge
had even entirely fallen.46
It may be imagined what fate awaited unendowed country
bridges. The alms from the passers-by proved insufficient, so that
little by little, nobody repairing them, the arches wore through, the
parapets were detached, not a cart passed but fresh stones
disappeared in the river, and soon carriages and riders could not
venture without danger over the half demolished building. If
moreover a flood should occur, all was over with the bridge and
often with the imprudent or hurried travellers who might be crossing
late in the evening. An accident of this kind was brought up for his
justification by a chamberlain of North Wales, from whom Edward III
claimed a hundred marks. The chamberlain averred that he had duly
sent the money by his clerk, William of Markeley; but, alas, “the said
William was drowned in Severn, at Moneford bridge, by the rising
flood of water, and could not be found, so that he was devoured by
beasts; thus the said hundred marks chanced to be {63} lost.”47 At
that time there were still wolves in England, and the disappearance
of the body, with the 100 marks, though even then wolves did not
feed on marks, would appear less unlikely than at present.
In those days neglect attained a degree now impossible and
which we can scarcely imagine. The Commons of the counties of
Nottingham, Derby, and Lincoln, and of the town of Nottingham,
declare to the Good Parliament of 1376, that there is near the town
of Nottingham a great bridge over the Trent, called Heybethebridge,
“to the making and repair of which nobody is bound and alms only
are collected, by which bridge all the comers and goers between the
north and the south parts should have their passage.” This bridge is
“ruinous,” and “oftentimes have several persons been drowned, as
well horsemen as carts, man, and harness.” The complainants pray
for power to appoint two bridge wardens, who shall administer the
property that will be given in view of its maintenance, “for God and
as a work of charity.” But the king did not accede to their request.48
Or maybe it happened that the riverside proprietors let their
obligation fall into oblivion, even when it was at the beginning formal
and precise enough. The legislator had, however, taken some
precautions; he had inscribed bridges on the list of the articles for
those inquiries periodically opened in England by the justices in Eyre,
sheriffs and bailiffs, as we shall see further on49; but those
concerned found means to defraud the law. People had been so long
used to see ruin menace the edifice, that when it actually did give
way no one could say who ought to have repaired it. It then became
{64} necessary to apply to the king for a special inquiry, and to seek

on whom lay the service. Parliament thus decides in 1339, on the

demand of the prior of St. Neots: “Item, let there be good and true
men assigned to survey the bridge and causeway of St. Neots,
whether they be broken down and carried away by the rising of the
waters, as the prior alleges, or not. And in case they are broken
down and carried away, to inquire who ought and was used to have
it repaired, and who is bound of right to do it; and how the bridge
and roadway may be re-made and repaired. And what they50 find
they shall return into the chancery.”
In consequence of such inquests the persons charged with the
maintenance being determined by the findings of a jury convened on
the spot, a tax is levied upon them for the carrying out of the
repairs. But they often protest and refuse to pay; they are sued,
they appeal to the king; horse, cart, anything that may come to
hand and which belongs to them is promptly seized to be sold for
the benefit of the bridge; the dispute drags on, and meanwhile the
edifice gives way. Hamo de Morston, for example, in the eleventh
year of Edward II, complains that his horse has been taken from
him. Called to justify themselves, Simon Porter and two others who
have made the seizure, explain that there is a bridge at Shoreham,
called the Long bridge, which is half destroyed; now it has been
found that the building ought to be restored at the expense of the
tenants of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hamo, who is one of them,
having refused to pay his part of the contribution, Simon and the
others took the horse. They acted by order of a bailiff, and their
conduct is vindicated. Another case of the same period is that of the
Abbot of Coggeshall who, after a similar inquest, refused to execute
any {65} repairs to a bridge near his lands under pretext that within
memory of man there had been no other bridge over the river “than
a certain plank of board,” and that at all times it had been found
sufficient for horsemen and pedestrians. Innumerable are the
examples of inquests of this sort and of the difficulties in executing
the measures decided on.51
Owing to these several causes the chronicle-history of even the
most important English bridges, when it is possible to trace it, is a
long tale of crumblings into the river, rebuildings, and repairs, and
ever-recurring catastrophes. Sometimes when the damage was
great, and much money was needed and was not forthcoming, a
ferry was established as a substitute for the late bridge, and
remained in use for years and years together.
Such a series of events is offered by the history of the bridge on
the Tweed at Berwick, which was one of the longest in England. The
first time we hear of it is in the year 1199, and the news is that it
gave way at that date, owing to a rise of the river. It was rebuilt and
gave way again. Sometimes it was rebuilt of wood and sometimes of
stone; occasionally it fell altogether from end to end, and then a
ferry was established, and was maintained for a long period. This
was the case in 1294, when great harm was done by the
inundations. “Where the bridge fell at this time,” says the latest
historian of Berwick, “there it lay for many years. The only method
of crossing was by ferry boats, worked from both sides of the river;
while the ferry in times of danger was defended by soldiers. Thus, in
Sir Robert Heron’s (the controller) ‘Book of Bills’ for 1310, there is
allowed one half quarter of pease to each of six crossbowmen (one
of them being John Sharp Arewe) guarding the ferry of the Tweed at
Berwick.”52 The ferry {66} follows vicissitudes scarcely less numerous
than the bridge itself, and disputes arise as to the right of working it,
or rather of collecting its tolls. The revenues of the bridge, now that
there is no longer any bridge, are also a matter of difficulty, and the
king has to interfere to settle the question of the rents of houses and
of fisheries belonging to the ruined monument.
In 1347 at last the citizens of the town began to think seriously
of rebuilding their bridge, and the king granted them the right of
collecting towards the expenses a toll of sixpence on every ship
entering their harbour. The bridge was then rebuilt, but not in such a
way as not to fall again, which has since happened to it many times.
Not less doleful is the story of the bridge on the Dee at Chester,
of which we hear in the chronicles for the first time in 1227 and
1297, on account of its being carried away by the water,53 and the
same may be said of many of the bridges of mediæval England,
especially the longer ones.
 When rebuilding had to be done people generally did not care to
remove what remained of the old monument, for which reason,
when a bridge has broken down in our time, it has been often found
that it was made of an accumulation of superimposed bridges. Of
this the bridge over the Teign, between Newton Abbot and
Teignmouth, rebuilt in 1815, is an example. It became, in this case,
apparent that four successive bridges at least had been at various
times erected with or over the remains of previous constructions. Mr.
P. T. Taylor, who investigated the matter at that time, gave as his
opinion “that the last or upper work was done in the sixteenth
century, and that the red bridge had been built on the salt marsh in
the thirteenth century; since which time there has been an
accumulation of soil to the depth of ten feet. He supposes the
wooden bridge to be as old {69} as the Conquest, and the white stone
bridge to have been a Roman work.”54
 11. THE CHAPEL ON THE BRIDGE AT WAKEFIELD.
(Fourteenth Century; present state)

Given these circumstances, it is rather a matter of surprise than

otherwise to find that a good number of mediæval bridges still
subsist in England; the more so as the nineteenth century has been
a great destroyer of bridges. The enormous increase of population
and the proportionate want of means of communication during that
period has proved fatal to many bridges, and especially to the more
famous and important ones which had been built in the more largely
populated districts. Owing to such necessities London Bridge itself
has disappeared, and even the recollection of the long years, during
which it had been, so to say, a factor in English history and
associated with the life of the nation, could not save it.
Many others had the same fate, or were, at least, as at Norwich,
Durham, Chester, Wakefield, Monmouth, and elsewhere, partly
rebuilt or enlarged, not always in such a way as to retain much of
their pristine appearance. For all that, however, enough of them
remain to give an accurate idea of what they were, without having
recourse merely to descriptions or drawings in contemporary
manuscripts. None, it is true, can for elegance and completeness
compete with such bridges as are still to be found in France; for
example, with the magnificent thirteenth-century bridge of Valentré
at Cahors, of which a picture has been given above (p. 37). Those
that remain are sufficient, nevertheless, to testify to the skill of old
English architects in that branch of their art. As might have been
expected, these bridges abound chiefly in those parts of the country
where the increase of traffic and population has been the least
conspicuous, on roads little more frequented to-day than in the
Middle Ages, which then led to strong castles or flourishing
monasteries, and only lead now to {70} ivy-clad ruins. For this reason
they are more numerous in some parts of Wales than anywhere in
England.
In several cases the chapels which placed them under the
protection of a saint and where offerings were collected have
escaped the hand of the restorer and are still extant. There is one,
of the fifteenth century, at Rotherham, Yorkshire, “a chapel of stone
wel wrought,” says Leland55; another, a fine small one, is to be seen
on the bridge at Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire; a third, a very tall
structure, stands on the middle of the bridge at St. Ives,
Huntingdonshire; but the finest example by far is the chapel on the
bridge at Wakefield, both chapel and bridge dating from the
fourteenth century. Leland mentions them as “the faire bridge of
stone of nine arches, under which runnith the river of Calder, and on
the east side of this bridge is a right goodly chapel of our lady and
two cantuarie preestes founded in it.” This foundation was made
about 1358; Edward III, by a charter dated at Wakefield, settled
“£10 per annum on William Kaye and William Bull and their
successors for ever to perform divine service in a chapel of St. Mary
newly built on the bridge at Wakefield.”56
In our century the bridge has been widened towards the west,
the arches being round on that side and having been left Gothic on
the other. The chapel, the foundations of which rest on an island in
the river, was repaired in 1847, but its original style was carefully
respected.57 The greatest change is in the surroundings, where
nothing recalls either Dr. Primrose or the clear {73} waters of
Plantagenet times; and the smoke and refuse of innumerable
manufactures blacken the bridge, the chapel, the river, and even the
sky itself.
 12. THE BRIDGE WITH A DEFENSIVE TOWER AT WARKWORTH, NORTHUMBERLAND.
(Fourteenth Century; present state.)

Several specimens also remain of bridges with the triangular

recesses we have mentioned, left on the top of the piers for the
safety of foot passengers. Among many other examples may be
quoted the beautiful fourteenth-century bridge at Warkworth,
Northumberland,58 which also deserves notice for another
characteristic much more rarely to be met with, that is, the
preservation of the tower built at one end for its defence. Most of
the bridges of any importance were protected in this way, which, as
the country became quieter, was found useless; the consideration
that they were ornamental rarely sufficed to prevent their being
pulled down. Those at Chester were removed in 1782–1784; those
at York were demolished with the bridge itself, of the thirteenth
century, at the beginning of the nineteenth; the Durham one, built
on Framwellgate Bridge, in 1760; the beautiful fortified entrance to
one of the two bridges at Shrewsbury disappeared in the same
century, as well as the whole structure, with the picturesque old
houses it bore. It must be conceded that those towers were
sometimes very inconvenient. A witness of the fact told me that,
quite recently, a gipsy’s caravan was stopped at the tower on
Warkworth Bridge, being unable to pass under it owing to the
lowness of the arch. The pavement had to be hollowed out to allow
of the caravan’s proceeding on its way.
The best example of a defensive tower is the machicolated one
at Monmouth, on the Monnow Bridge; except for the opening of
passages to be used by people on foot, the fortified gate looks as it
did in the Middle {74} Ages. The bridge itself, familiar to the
Monmouth-born “Prince Hal” of Shakespeare, and of England, has,
been, however, widened, as at Wakefield and elsewhere. The ribs of
the ancient arches are still visible within the modern ones.
In Elizabethan times defensive towers for bridges continued to be
built, but in poetry only. Spenser raised, in his lines, a beautiful
structure, of Doric style, as befitted the Renaissance days in which
he lived, at the entrance to the island of Venus:
It was a bridge ybuilt in goodly wize,
With curious corbes and pendants graven faire,
And arched all with porches, did arize
On stately pillours, fram’d after the Doricke guize.
And for defence thereof, on th’ other end
There reared was a castle faire and strong,
That warded all which in and out did wend,
And flancked both the bridges sides along.59

But, except as castles in the air, such fortifications were no longer

in demand.
 The rarest of all bridges are, nowadays in England, those having
houses on them, as was the fashion in the Middle Ages. The
picturesque High Bridge at Lincoln, originally built in the 12th
century, still preserves the lodgings built over it60; a solitary house
remains on Elvet Bridge at Durham, and the only bridge of some
length, with a complete row of houses, is a com­par­a­tive­ly recent
one, being the familiar Pulteney Bridge built at Bath by William
Pulteney in the eighteenth century. {75}
 13. THE DEFENSIVE TOWER ON THE MONNOW BRIDGE, MONMOUTH.

{77}

The more numerous of the mediæval bridges still in existence are

those of one arch; there are many of them in Wales, some being
most elegant and picturesque, such as the famous Devil’s Bridge
over the Mynach, near Aberystwith. In England the largest is the one
over the moat of Norwich Castle; and the most curious the three-
branched one at Crowland, this last belonging in its actual state to
the fourteenth century. It is no longer used, as no road passes over
it and no water under.61 Another of the finest, and one of the least
known, crosses the Esk, near Danby Castle, Yorkshire. Its date is
about 1385; the arms of Neville, Lord Latimer, who had it built, are
yet to be seen at the top of the parapet.

14. THE BRIDGE NEAR DANBY CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.

(Fourteenth Century.)]

Lastly, a word may be said of the larger bridges, most {78} of

which have unfortunately undergone great alterations and repairs.
Besides the Wakefield Bridge above mentioned, there is one over the
Dee, at Chester, part of which is as old as the thirteenth century,
thoroughly repaired since Ormerod disrespectfully described it as “a
long fabric of red stone extremely dangerous and unsightly.”62 At
Durham there are the Framwellgate and Elvet bridges, both
originally built in the twelfth century. A six-arched bridge, rebuilt in
the fifteenth century, exists at Hereford; another, repaired in 1449,
with the help of indulgences, remains at Bidford.63 A four-arched
one, built in the fourteenth century, over the Dee is to be seen at
Llangollen, being “one of the Tri Thlws Cymru, or three beauties of
Wales;”64 the arches are irregular in size, for the builder, in this and
many other cases, minding more the solidity of the structure than its
regularity, erected the piers at the places where the presence of
rocks in the bed of the river made it most convenient. A very
noteworthy one is the thirteenth-century bridge over the Nith, at
Dumfries, in Scotland, which had formerly thirteen arches, seven of
which only are now in use. It was long considered the finest after
that of London. Other mediæval bridges of several arches remain at
Huntingdon,65 at St. Ives, at Norwich (Bishop’s Bridge), at Potter
Heigham (a most picturesque one), at Tewkesbury, etc.66 The
Tewkesbury one, with the middle arch enlarged in modern times, but
the {79} triangular recesses for foot passengers still in use, dates back
to King John, teste Leland, whose biography of the bridge shows
that it went through the vicissitudes usual in the life of such
buildings: “King John beyng Erle of Glocester by his wife caussid the
bridge of Twekesbyri to be made of stone. He that was put in truste
to do it first made a stone bridge over the gret poure of booth the
armes [of the Avon] by north and weste: and after, to spede and
spare mony, he made at the northe ende a wodde bridge of a greate