Chapter VIII: Part II (2)

Some years ago I had a large quantity of heavy masonry to construct on
one of the railways. It was not unlike the Roman Wall in character. I
found a difficulty in dealing with the regularly educated mason, and
bought several scores of trowels and hammers; these I placed in the
hands of uneducated labourers, set them to work under the
superintendence of educated foremen, looking after the whole myself.
This is a case similar to the one I have imagined for the great Wall;
only the work my labourers performed had more difficulties about it
than the Wall, and yet, these uneducated men performed the work
perfectly.[40]

Think of the Roman bringing in at the sword’s point, hundreds of
captive natives, placing for the first time tools in their hands,
indicating the work to be done, and compelling the trembling slaves to
do it![41]

The stones employed in building the Wall and stations were very carefully selected. When good stones were to be had near at hand, they were taken; but those of inferior quality were never used to avoid the labour of bringing better from a distance. In some parts of the line, in Cumberland especially, the stone must have been brought from quarries seven or eight miles off. A quartzose grit was generally selected not only on account of its hardness, but because its rough surface gave it a firmer adhesion to the mortar. The stone which has been used in the works at Wallsend is of a much coarser grit than any that is found in the neighbourhood.

[Sidenote: THE QUARRIES USED.]

The quarries from which the stone has been procured can in many instances be precisely ascertained. At Fallowfield, not far from CILURNUM, is an ancient quarry on the face of which the words,

[P]ETRA FLAVI CARANTINI,

the rock of Flavius Carantinus—are still to be traced. The vignette at the close of this part represents its present condition. On opening out, in the year 1837, some old quarries on the high, brown hill of Borcum, near Thorngrafton, a small copper vessel was found, containing a large number of coins, all of the upper empire. Another Roman quarry existed on Haltwhistle Fell. In a paper recently read before the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Mr. John Clayton says—

In riding over Haltwhistle Fell, before its enclosure, in the summer
of 1844, I came upon some workmen employed in re-opening an old
quarry. They told me they had met with a ‘written stone’; I
dismounted, and climbed the face of the rock, when I found inscribed
in letters clear and fresh

LEG. VI. V.

From its position on a wide waste, far removed from any abode, but in
the immediate vicinity of the Roman Wall, this quarry could not
possibly have been used for any other purpose than to supply stones
for the building of the Wall; and from the freshness of the letters of
the inscription, it must have been filled up with earth soon after the
soldiers ceased to use it. The workmen promised to spare the ‘written
rock,’ but the next time I rode that way it had been shivered to
atoms.

Drawn & Lithographed by John Storey
WRITTEN ROCK ON THE RIVER GELT.
]

[Sidenote: INSCRIPTIONS ON THE QUARRIES.]

In Cumberland, there are several Roman inscriptions on the face of the ancient quarries. About a mile west of Birdoswald, and little more than a quarter of a mile south of the road, is Coome Crag, which, besides other markings, presents the following inscription—

SE · · RVS
AI · · · ·
· · · VSTUS

This perhaps may be read—SEVERUS ALEXANDER AUGUSTUS. The most remarkable of this class of Antiquities, however, is the ‘Written Rock of the Gelt,’ near Brampton. The lithograph on the opposite page is a very accurate representation of this curious relic of antiquity. As the scar is nearly perpendicular, and the river Gelt washes its base, it is not without some difficulty that the inquiring visitor can give it a satisfactory examination; it will, however, well reward his exertions, and the beauty of the surrounding scenery will give additional zest to the ramble. [Sidenote: INSCRIPTIONS ON THE QUARRIES.]The inscribed part of the rock is fully fifty feet above the water. The letters seem to have been made by connecting with a chisel or pick a number of holes drilled in the rock in the required order; at all events, the terminations of the strokes have been thus formed. Some doubt exists as to the precise reading of the inscription, but the general purport of it is this:—The vexillarii of the second legion under an optio called Agricola, were, in the consulship of Flavius Aper and Albinus Maximus (A.D. 207), employed to hew stone here for the Romans.[42] It is piteous, when surveying so interesting a relic of antiquity, and one which has outlived the accidents of upwards of sixteen centuries, to observe that it has been approached by men who cannot sympathize with the mighty dead, and who care not what violence they do to the feelings of those who can. To the defacement, as I believe, of some portion of the inscription, the names of F. GRAHAM, W. HARDCASTLE, T. THOMPSON, W. NELSON, have been carved upon the rock. Notoriety is easily earned, but it is not always of an enviable character.

[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE FACING-STONES.]

The exterior masonry of the Wall consists, on both sides, of carefully squared free-stone blocks[43]; the interior, of rubble of any description firmly imbedded in mortar. The character of the facing-stones is peculiar, yet pretty uniform. They are eight or nine inches thick, and ten or eleven broad; their length, which is perhaps their characteristic feature, not unfrequently amounts to twenty inches. The part of the stone exposed to the weather is cut across ‘the bait,’ so as to avoid its scaling off by the lines of stratification; the stone tapers towards the end which is set into the Wall, and has a form nearly resembling that of a wedge. The cut shews its usual form. Owing to the extent to which the stones are set into the Wall, the necessity of bonding tiles—so characteristic of Roman masonry in the south of England—is altogether superseded. There does not appear to have been a single tile used in any part of the Wall. Stones of the shape and size which have now been described were just those which could be most easily wrought in the quarry, most conveniently carried on the backs of the poor enslaved Britons to the Wall, and most easily fitted into their bed. The uniformity in their appearance is such as to enable us, after a little practice, at once to recognize them in the churches, castles, farm-buildings, and fences of the district through which the Wall runs.

[Sidenote: MASONRY OF THE STATIONS.]

In Cumberland, the stones are rather larger than in the eastern portion of the line, a thickness of twelve inches not being uncommon, with a corresponding breadth. The blocks in the north face of the Wall, also, are not unfrequently larger than those in the south. The stones of which the walls of the stations are composed are smaller than those of the main Wall. Their average thickness is from five to seven inches, and their breadth from six to eight. The woodcut which is here introduced, depicts the junction of the west wall of the station of AMBOGLANNA with the Wall, and well displays the different character of the stones used in two erections. As already observed, the stations appear to have been built before the Wall, and as the necessity of the case required that they should be run up as quickly as possible, a smaller class of stone was allowed to pass muster here than was used in the Wall. The workmanship also is of inferior quality.

[Sidenote: THE TOOLING OF THE STONES.]

The front of the stones, both of the Wall and stations, is roughly ‘scabbled’ with the pick. In some parts of the line, this tooling takes a definite form; when this is the case, the marking called the diamond broaching is most common. Sometimes the stone is scored with waved lines, or with small squares, or with nearly upright lines. The woodcuts illustrative of the masonry at Chester Holm, and of the Crypt at Hexham, to be introduced along with the account of these places, will exemplify some of these kinds of broaching. It was not until I had become tolerably familiar with the Wall, that my attention was called to this peculiar kind of tooling. A visit to HABITANCUM and BREMENIUM, where the stones are nearly all broached in the diamond fashion, induced me to inspect the Wall more narrowly in this respect. I have since frequently detected it, especially in Cumberland. It is rare in the Northumbrian portion. Is this broaching peculiar to a particular legion, or to a certain period? The station of HABITANCUM is understood to have been rebuilt by Caracalla—can the other stations, and those parts of the Wall where this kind of marking appears, have also undergone repair at the same time, or is it the work of some particular legion? The same kind of broaching may be noticed in some of the stones at Chester, the DEVA ICENORUM of the Romans, which was for a long time the head quarters of the 20th legion. Though unable to resolve the doubt, I think that the prosecution of the inquiry may lead to some worthy result.

[Sidenote: MASONS' MARKS.]

Cuttings resembling masons’ marks occasionally occur. Sometimes they consist of a single or double stroke; sometimes of a diagonal cross, sometimes of a rectangular. The other marks which are here represented are less frequently met with.[44]

[Sidenote: ROMAN MORTAR.]

The tenacity of the mortar which was used, forms an important element in the strength of the whole fabric. That which is in use now is generally spoiled, from a variety of circumstances. The prevailing practice is, first of all, to slack the lime by pouring a quantity of water upon it when lying in a heap; in most cases this does not sufficiently pulverize it: it is then mixed with any earth bearing the least resemblance to sand, and the two are worked together very imperfectly with a shovel. The mortar thus made often stands and hardens, so as to require to to be once and again mixed with water, and worked up before it is used. It thus becomes quite impoverished; and, after all, for the convenience of the mason, it is employed in so dry a state that the stone soon takes all the moisture from it, and it becomes little better than powder. The gigantic railway operations of recent times have driven men out of the beaten track, and compelled them afresh to discover the Roman method of preparing mortar. On the authority of engineers well acquainted with the Roman Wall, I am enabled to state, that the mortar of that structure is precisely similar to the grout and concrete[45] of the railway mason of the present day. Specimens of the ancient and modern grout are before me, and there cannot be a doubt as to the identity of their preparation.

The following is the mode in which the railway engineer prepares his mortar. The lime, in the state in which it comes from the kiln, is first ground to powder, and is then mixed with sand and gravel, and chippings of stone. The purposes for which the mortar is required indicate the coarseness and quantity of the intermingling gravel. When wanted as concrete, to form, independently of other materials, the foundation of some heavy structure, stony fragments of larger size are mingled with the lime than when the mortar is to be used to cement chiselled stones, or even than when wanted to constitute with rubble the interior of a wall. The mixture of pounded lime and gravel, when made, is not mingled with water, until the moment of its application to the work for which it is required, but it is then intimately united with an abundant quantity of it. When used as concrete, the mass will, in three hours, have solidity sufficient to bear the weight of a man, and in about three days it will have acquired a rock-like firmness.

Such, doubtless, is the way[46] in which the mortar of the Roman Wall was prepared, and it would have this very important advantage over that generally used at present, that, in a very short time, the work would acquire a massiveness and strength, sufficient to resist the attacks of an enemy. The mortar of the Saxon and Norman periods is of the same character.

Occasionally, but by no means frequently, small pieces of charcoal are mixed with the mortar. These have evidently been derived from the wood used in burning the lime. Excepting in the buildings of the stations, pounded tile, so characteristic of the Roman mortar in the south of England, is by no means a common constituent of the mortar of the Wall. Limestone is abundant in most parts of the district through which the Wall passes. The Romans probably burnt it in ‘sow kilns.’ The limestone and fuel being arranged in alternate layers, the whole was carefully covered with turf and ignited. This simple method is still much resorted to when the lime is wanted for farm purposes.

_PLATE III_

[Sidenote: THE MODE OF BUILDING.]

Supposing the stones to be now quarried and squared, the lime burnt and mixed with sand and gravel, the next point to be attended to is the method of using them. The foundation has been prepared by the removal of the natural soil to the width of about nine feet. In the hill district, a very scanty portion of earth covers the rocks; in the richer regions an excavation of from fifteen to eighteen inches has been made before the subsoil was reached. On the outer and inner margins of the ground thus bared, two rows of flags of from two to four inches in thickness, and from eighteen to twenty in breadth, were generally laid; no mortar was placed under them.[47] On these lay the first course of facing-stones, which were usually the largest stones used in the structure. In higher courses the facing-stones are uniformly of free-stone, on the ground course a ‘whin-stone’ is occasionally introduced. The flagstones of the foundation usually project from one to five inches beyond the first course of facing-stones, and these again usually stand out an inch or two beyond the second course, after which, the wall is taken straight up. In some parts of the line the flagstones do not appear in the foundation—the first course of facing-stones being laid directly upon the ground. In the neighbourhood of Sewingshields, where large tracts of the Wall have been recently removed, a careful observer informs me, that the entire foundation has for some distance been laid upon a bed of clay of three or four inches thick.

[Sidenote: THE RUBBLE OF THE WALL.]

One or two courses of facing-stones having been placed in their beds and carefully pointed, a mass of mortar in a very fluid state was poured into the interior of the wall, and stones of any kind or shape that were of a convenient size were ‘puddled’ in amongst it. Whin-stones, as being most abundant in the district, are generally used for the filling. Course after course was added, and one mass of concrete imposed upon another, until the Wall reached the required height. When the whole was finished it formed a solid, compact mass, without any holes or crevices in the interior, and in a short time became as firm as the unhewn rock.

In some parts of the line the mortar has been ‘hand-laid.’ The rubble of the interior having been first disposed in its place, the mortar has been laid upon it with a trowel. In this case the mortar never penetrates the interstices of the mass, and does not make such solid masonry as the method generally pursued. When, however, this plan is adopted, the rubble stones are often laid upon their edges in a slanting position; and when those of the next layer, as occasionally occurs, are made to lean in the opposite direction, we have the kind of masonry represented in the adjoining diagram, which is appropriately called herring-bone work. The nearest approach to this that I have seen upon the line of the Wall is at Steel-rig, and Hare-hill. In Hodgson’s Northumberland[48] a section of the Wall on Walltown crag is given, exhibiting herring-bone masonry. In this instance the stones are disposed transversely to the Wall, at Steel-rig and Hare-hill they are disposed longitudinally; the latter method is the easier of the two.[49]

On wavy ground the courses of the Wall follow the undulations of the surface, but on steep inclines the stones are laid parallel to the horizon. The Wall, in this case, must have been built up from the bottom of the defile, where also, in order the better to resist the superincumbent mass, it not unfrequently has a greater breadth than usual. As shewing that different sections of the Wall have been erected under distinct superintendents, it may occasionally be observed that, whilst on one slope of a ‘gap’ the stones are laid parallel to the horizon, on the other, differing little perhaps in inclination, they are laid even with the ground.

[Sidenote: DURABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE.]

We must now take leave of this important part of our subject, the masonry of the Wall. Judging from those portions of it which remain, it may safely be asserted, that no structure can be conceived to possess greater strength and durability. The first time I happened to visit Bowness (in the year 1831), some portions of the Wall, seven feet high, were in the course of being removed; it was found necessary to resort to the force of gunpowder in order to effect its destruction. In the substantial nature of their works, the Romans have left the impress of their own mighty minds. They built not for the day. They did not conceive that their existence was bound up in the fate of a single generation, but that it was spread over the destinies of succeeding ages. Their works contrast strongly with the efforts of some modern builders. The editor of the pictorial volume, styled ‘Old England,’ seems, in the following passage, to speak from personal observation.

Passing by the fragments of which we have spoken, we are under the
north wall [of Richborough]—a wondrous work calculated to impress us
with a conviction that the people who built it were not the petty
labourers of an hour, who were contented with temporary defences and
frail resting places. The outer works upon the southern cliff of
Dover, which were run up during the war with Napoleon, at prodigious
expense, are crumbling and perishing, through the weakness of job and
contract, which could not endure for half a century. And here stand
the walls of Richborough, as they have stood for eighteen hundred
years, from twenty to thirty feet high, eleven or twelve feet thick at
the base, with their outer masonry in many parts as perfect as at the
hour when their courses of tiles and stones were first laid in
beautiful regularity.

[Sidenote: ITS EVENTUAL DECAY.]

If the meddling hand of man had been withheld from the Barrier of the Lower Isthmus, the Wall might have stood, even to the present hour, in almost its original integrity. It is necessary to say ‘almost,’ for nothing can be more correct than the observation of Hodgson—

Though man has had the chief labour in effecting its destruction, its
whole line and all its stations, castles, and towers, ever since it
was deserted by the Romans, have been incessantly suffering
prostration by the hand of nature. The feeble roots of grasses, ferns,
and shrubs, have been assisted by the more destructive wedges and
levers of forest trees in levelling it with the ground; and, in many
places in the west of this county, for considerable distances
together, the ruins that time has thrown from its brow, lie in a deep
green mound at its feet; and thorns, briars, hazel, and mountain ash
(entwined with relentless ivy), are still, in the parts that remain
above ground, at the labour of demolition in which, for the last
fourteen centuries, they have been unceasingly engaged.

In this day, when the Arabic numerals assert an influence quite as potent as that which the lictors’ rods obtained in ancient Rome, the inquiries may not be destitute of interest—What amount of labour was involved in the construction of the Barrier, in what time could it be accomplished, and what, at the present value of labour and materials, would be the cost of its construction?

[Sidenote: MONEY VALUE OF THE BARRIER.]

The Wall is sixty-eight miles long; granting that it was only sixteen
feet high, but had a continuous thickness of eight feet, we have
1,702,115 cubic yards of masonry, to say nothing of stations,
mile-castles, and turrets.

Twelve shillings per cubic yard is as near as may be the present value
of masonry, such as that of which the Roman Wall consists—the cost of
this part of the structure would therefore be 1,021,269_l._

Taking into account that the labour was forced, each cubic yard of the
Wall would, at the least, require, in quarrying the stone, its
carriage to the Wall, its setting, and other operations, one entire
day’s exertions of one man. In this way we have 1,702,115 days’ labour
in the stone Wall.

Taking the north fosse at the dimensions already given, its excavation
would involve the removal of 5,585,072 cubic yards. A modern
excavator, stimulated by pay proportioned to his work, enjoying food,
and raiment, and shelter, such as the ancient Briton was a stranger
to, and possessing the advantage of good tools, and good organization,
can remove the enormous quantity of twenty cubic yards of earth per
day. The labourer, driven to his ungrateful task by a Roman
task-master, and compelled to support himself as best he might, and to
labour with tools of the rudest construction, would not accomplish the
half of this task; the removal of eight yards _per diem_ would
probably be an average day’s work. The excavation of the north fosse
would thus, under these circumstances, involve 698,134 days’ labour.
At the present time, when twenty cubic yards may be removed per man in
a day, and when a day’s wages may be set down at half-a-crown, the
whole cost of the excavation of the fosse would be 34,906_l._

In this estimate no account has been taken of the increased labour
occasioned by cutting through the rocks that are sometimes met with.
The entire absence of the ditch, however, in the hilly district,
compensates for this omission.

The fosse of the Vallum is rather less than that of the Wall. Making a
deduction of one-third on this account, and supposing that the
distance which the Vallum falls short of the Wall at each extremity,
makes amends for the increased labour of cutting through the rocky
ground, we have 3,723,382 cubic yards to be removed, involving 465,422
days of forced labour. The whole could now be done for the sum of
23,271_l._ No account is taken of the labour expended in raising the
earthen ramparts, or the cost of their construction, for the reason,
that the removal of the earth from the fosse implied its being
deposited somewhere; no place would be more convenient for this
purpose than the mounds of the rampart.

[Sidenote: TIME REQUIRED FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION.]

Adding together these results, we find that the cost of the Wall and
its north fosse would be 1,056,175_l._, and that the cost of the
Vallum, added to this would form a total of 1,079,446_l._ The number
of days’ labour involved in the Wall would be 2,400,249, and, adding
to this, that of the Vallum, we have for the whole 2,865,671 days’
labour.

The largest number of men that we can conceive to be brought to bear
at once upon the Wall, including such of the Roman troops as could be
spared from military operations, is ten thousand. This body, at the
rate already supposed, would, by continuous labour, execute the Wall
and its ditch in 240 days, and, taking the Vallum also into account,
in 286 days. In the exposed district over which the Wall runs, it is
not probable that the weather would allow of the work being pursued
during more than two hundred days in the year. If, in addition to
this, we make deductions for the chances of war, two years may be
stated as the shortest time in which the whole of the works could be
executed.

A recent writer, who, in a work denominated ‘A History of the Picts or Romano-British Wall,’ adopts the notion of Gildas, that the stone wall was built, not by Hadrian or Severus, but by the trembling Britons on their abandonment by the Romans, supports his opinion by denominating the work an un-Roman-like defence, and argues that men who were unaccustomed to fear, would not seek the assistance of a wall and a ditch. However regardless of life the Romans may, in the abstract, have been, they knew how to economize their resources. In the battle of the Grampians, Agricola withheld his legionary soldiers, and made use only of his auxiliary troops. He could better afford to expend the one than the other. As well might a warrior despise the protection of a helmet or a shield, as refuse the defence of a stone wall.

[Sidenote: WALLS NOT UNWORTHY OF ROME.]

The best refutation, however, of this theory, is the fact, that in other places the Romans, about the same period, raised similar barriers. At two of these we shall glance, before beginning a detailed inspection of the Barrier of the Lower Isthmus. The comparison will probably afford valuable instruction.

[Sidenote: THE GERMAN BARRIER.]

The DEVIL’S WALL, in Germany, bears many marks of resemblance to the English Wall. It seems[50] to consist of the _Pfahl_, a mound of stakes, or vallum, ascribed to Hadrian, and a stone wall which is said to have been executed by some of his successors. The works extended westwards from Regensburg [Ratisbon] on the Danube, towards the sources of that river, a distance of nearly two hundred miles. They formed the boundary of the Roman empire in those parts where the Danube was not broad and deep enough to be of itself a sufficient protection. A deep trench ran along the Wall on its northern side, and along its southern face roads and camps were formed. At regular intervals of one mile, towers of observation were placed of the same size, though, being circular, not of the same form as the mile-castles on the English Wall. It is not possible, from the present remains, to determine with certainty the height or breadth of the Wall. ‘I found it in many places,’ says Professor Buchner, ‘from four to six, in others from ten to twelve, feet broad. We may therefore perhaps conclude, that its medium breadth was from six to seven feet, and that its height, as corresponding to this breadth, may have been from eighteen to twenty-four feet.’ The works have the same tendency to advance in a straight line as those of our own Barrier. ‘No mountain is so high, no abyss so steep, no wood so thick, no morass so profound, through which it does not penetrate.’ ‘The whole line of the fortification has been laid down and executed according to a well-digested plan.’

[Sidenote: THE ANTONINE WALL.]

GRAHAM’S DIKE, so denominated probably from the Celtic words _grym_, strength, and _diog_, a ditch, is a barrier which fortified the Upper Isthmus of Britain. It extended from Borrowstoness, on the Firth of Forth, to West Kilpatrick, on the river Clyde, a distance of about twenty-seven English miles. It was constructed by Lollius Urbicus in the reign of Antoninus Pius, the adopted son of Hadrian. The following succinct account of this important design is taken from the ‘Caledonia Romana,’ a work of great ability, by the late lamented Mr. Robert Stuart, of Glasgow:—

This great military work consisted, in the first place, of an immense
fosse or ditch—averaging about forty feet in width, by some twenty in
depth—which extended over hill and plain, in one unbroken line, from
sea to sea. Behind this ditch, on its southern side, and within a few
feet of its edge, was raised a rampart of intermingled stone and
earth, strengthened by sods of turf, which measured, it is supposed,
about twenty feet in height, and twenty-four in thickness at the base.
This rampart, or _agger_, was surmounted by a parapet, behind which
ran a level platform, for the accommodation of its defenders. To the
southward of the whole was situated the Military Way—a regular
causewayed road, about twenty-feet wide—which kept by the course of
the Wall at irregular distances, approaching, in some instances, to
within a few yards, and in others receding to a considerable extent.
Along the entire line there were established, it is believed, nineteen
principal stations or forts. The mean distance between each may be
stated at rather more than two English miles. Along these intervals
were placed many smaller _castella_, or watch-towers. While the
continuous rampart seems to have been little more than a well-formed
earthen mound, it is probable that many, if not all, of the stations,
were either rivetted with stone or entirely built of that material. In
some places, it would even appear that the Vallum itself had been
raised upon a stone foundation—probably in situations where the ground
was low and marshy, and where it was found necessary to form drains
beneath the works, to prevent the accumulation of water on their
anterior side.

[Sidenote: MUTUAL SUPPORT OF THE BARRIERS.]

The Barrier of the Upper Isthmus never consisted of more than a single line of fortification. This circumstance may seem to militate against the view that we have taken of the double line of the Southern Barrier. If in the one case the conquered tribes to the south were disregarded, why should they not be so in the other also? We shall not, however, greatly err if we regard the Antonine Wall as but an advanced work of Hadrian’s entrenchment. On this view of the matter, the difficulty is at once removed, for the Lower Barrier would be a sufficient security against danger in the rear. Certain it is, that the southern line was not abandoned when the other was constructed. Several altars have been found on the Lower Barrier inscribed with the name Antoninus Pius.[51] A slab bearing the names of the consuls Sex. Sulpicius Tertullus, and C. Tineius Sacerdos, elicits the following remarks from judge Cay[52]:—

These were consuls in A.D. 158; consequently, we have undeniable
authority to assert, that Antoninus Pius repaired Hadrian’s Vallum
(or, at least, the stations _per lineam Valli_), as well as built one
between the Scottish Firths. This stone is certainly most valuable, as
it clearly proves, that though Antoninus extended the boundary so far
north, he could not, or durst not, trust the Mæatæ, but thought
himself obliged to keep up the southern pretenturæ, lest they should,
on any disturbance, join the Caledonians.

Such prudence is characteristic of good generalship. Napoleon never made an important move without first resolving what to do in case of failure. Assuredly Hadrian did not act in a manner unbecoming a Roman, when, at the same time that he shewed a stony front to the Caledonians, he placed an earthen rampart between himself and the doubtful fidelity of his southern subjects.

[Sidenote: THE BARRIERS IN RELATION TO THE RIVERS.]

The position of the Barriers of the Lower and of the Upper Isthmus, and of the Devil’s Wall, in relation to the rivers in their vicinity, requires some remark. The Tyne in the eastern, and the Irthing and the Eden in the western part of the island, are uniformly to the south of the English Wall. A similar remark applies to the Devil’s Wall, in Germany, which is drawn along the northern shore of the Danube, the side exposed to the enemy. The Clyde, and its feeders, are to the south of the Antonine Wall. Why did the Romans not avail themselves of the natural trenches of these river-basins? The valley of the Tyne is peculiarly broad and deep. A chain of camps on its southern bank, where the mediæval castles afterwards stood, would alone, we might suppose, have bid defiance to the passage of any foe.

A similarity of practice in these cases favours the belief that important objects were to be accomplished by it. What are they?—

By erecting a chain of posts on the high grounds to the north of the rivers, a better observation of the movements of the enemy was obtained than would otherwise have been practicable. In the days of Roman occupation, large tracts of country, the banks of rivers especially, would be covered with forests. The conquerors, unless they had secured the enemy’s side of the river-basins, would have been perpetually subject to unexpected attacks. They could not be so easily taken by surprise on the high grounds of the northern slopes.

[Sidenote: IMPORTANCE OF RIVER BASINS.]

Probably the value of the land on the margin of the rivers, was an additional motive for the course pursued. The alluvial soil by a river’s side is usually the most fertile portion of a country. The banks of the Tyne and the Eden are peculiarly productive. Without a wall the enemy would have had undisputed possession of the slopes which enjoyed the finest aspect—that to the south—while those on the other side would have been subject to frequent depredation. This consideration is of the more importance, as the lands of the district were given to the soldiers who garrisoned the frontier, as a means of securing their fidelity.

[Sidenote: PRUDENCE OF THE ROMANS.]

So far from the importance of the natural boundary, the river, being overlooked by the Romans, I am disposed to regard the works on its northern bank as a proof of the value which they set upon it. The natural and the artificial barriers were probably regarded by them as but separate members of one complete fortification. In case of a rush of invasion from the North, the Wall would arrest the attack and the river entirely repel it. The stone and earth works would impede the progress of a foe, however formidable, and give time for the formation of an army on the southern bank of the stream. It was, moreover, ‘political in the Romans,’ as Stukely remarks,[53] 'to leave on the north side of the Wall that huge tract of waterless and dismal moor, a great barren solitude, where in some places you may walk sixty miles endwise, without meeting with a house or tree; to ride is impracticable. Thus, as much as in them lay, without the horror of barbarity, did they remove the barbarians from their territories; whilst within the Wall, either naturally or by their industry, all things smiled like the garden of Eden.'

The vast hosts which the Caledonians were able to muster rendered all these precautions necessary; and it was, moreover, becoming in the Romans—a generation of warriors the mightiest the world has ever seen—to plant the foot firmly on any land they thought fit to occupy. Assuredly they did so in the Lower Isthmus of Britain.

-----

Footnote 14:

Hodgson states the mean of nineteen measurements to be one hundred and
twenty six yards.—_Northumberland_, II. iii. 310. This high number is
obtained by its including the mountain districts, where the works are
widely separated.

Footnote 15:

Harl. MSS. 374,—impr. Hodg. North’d. II. iii. 273.

Footnote 16:

Harl. MSS. 373,—impr. Richardson’s Reprints and Imprints, divis.
Miscell.

Footnote 17:

It will be observed here that the erection of this structure has not
been _always_ ascribed to Severus.

Footnote 18:

Greater extremes are met with, but they are rare. Hodgson in a note p.
276 says, The foundations in the turnpike-road, just west of Portgate
are scarcely seven feet broad; but opposite a plantation a little
further west, ten feet and a half. Hutton found the Wall at Brunton
only five feet and a half thick.

Footnote 19:

This is particularly the case about Old Wall in Cumberland.

Footnote 20:

Hutton’s Roman Wall, 139.

Footnote 21:

Hodg. North’d. II. iii. 276.

Footnote 22:

Horsley, in the profiles of the barrier which he gives, represents the
marginal rampart or _agger_ as being much larger than the south one.
The present aspect of the works does not warrant such a delineation.

Footnote 23:

When travelling along the road west of Birdoswald, I have seen a
ploughman and his team entirely disappear, on descending into the
fosse of the Vallum.

Footnote 24:

An inspection of Horsley’s own sections will at once show
this.—_Britan. Romana_, 158.

Footnote 25:

In corroboration of this statement, it may be mentioned that an
intelligent and substantial farmer offered to take, on a twenty-one
years’ lease, the Corchester field, in which the station of
CORSTOPITUM stood, at the yearly rate of 6_l._ per acre. It contains
twelve acres.

Footnote 26:

The Notitia has _Lergorum_, but it will be afterwards shewn that this
is probably an error for _Lingonum_.

Footnote 27:

The Notitia has _Astorum_ in this and the subsequent instances, but
all the inscriptions hitherto found have _Asturum_.

Footnote 28:

Brit. Rom. 102.

Footnote 29:

Ibid. 473.

Footnote 30:

This slab is in the possession of his Grace the Duke of
Northumberland, and is preserved, along with several other interesting
reliques of the Wall, in that noble baronial residence, so worthy of
the chiefs of Percy, Alnwick Castle.

Footnote 31:

Now in the Dean and Chapter Library at Durham.

Footnote 32:

According both to Hyginus and Vegetius, the first cohort of a legion,
in the times of the lower empire, was called _milliaria_, from its
being stronger than any cohort of the legion, and from its generally
consisting of about a thousand men.

_Arch. Æl._ ii., 83.

Footnote 33:

A correspondent of the author writes 'Even in my own day it was the
custom of the superstitious, on the line of the Wall, especially
between Birdoswald and Cambeck Fort to pound the stones, bearing
inscriptions, into sand for their kitchens, or bury them in the
foundations of houses or walls, for the simple reason that they
considered them unlucky—calling them 'witch stones’. When one was
found, the _old wives_ fearing that the butter might not form in the
churn, took good care that it should never again make its appearance.
Thus down went many a splendid Roman altar, a sacrifice to ignorance
and superstition'!

Footnote 34:

The plough has now passed over the station of Watch Cross. The
enquiries which I have made on the spot, and in the neighbourhood,
are, on the whole, confirmatory of Hodgson’s view.

Footnote 35:

Mounsey’s Account of the occupation of Carlisle in 1745.

Footnote 36:

Ford’s Hand-book of Spain, 1st edition, p. 306.

Footnote 37:

On putting the inquiry pointedly to a person who had ploughed up some
portions of the Vallum in the neighbourhood of Wallend, Cumberland,
and who was also acquainted with the mode in which the Maiden-way (a
Roman road) was formed, I was told that there were no traces of
pavement in the Vallum.

Footnote 38:

We must not, however, pronounce a road to be impracticable, because
now it would be thought so. A Northumberland farmer, speaking to me
upon this subject, said he had seen roads which, in his neighbourhood,
were regularly traversed only a century ago, on which no one would
venture now-a-days; ‘it was like coming down a crag-side.’ He had
driven through mosses in which the horses were commonly enveloped, but
had no misgivings so long as he could see the heads of the animals.

Footnote 39:

Hodgson, however, distinctly proves, that the _cornage_, or
castle-guard rent of the North of England—originally a payment in lieu
of cattle, and called in English, _horngeld_ and _neatgeld_,
cattle-tax, or ox-lay—has nothing whatever to do with sounding the
war-alarm by _horns_.

Footnote 40:

It must, however, be borne in mind, that even the uneducated labourer,
in a highly civilized community, has unconsciously received a
considerable amount of mental training, which places him in a
situation much superior to that of the mere savage.

Footnote 41:

The remainder of this valuable communication is, in order to avoid
repetition, embodied in the subsequent account of the Masonry of the
Wall.

Footnote 42:

Hodgson II. ii. 298.

Footnote 43:

It would be described by a modern builder as a rough blocking course.

Footnote 44:

The cuts representing these markings are transferred from my note
book, without reference to scale.

Footnote 45:

Concrete contains less lime, and is mixed with a smaller proportion of
water than grout. It is chiefly used in large masses, to form an
artificial foundation for a building.

Footnote 46:

The almost entire absence of those little white lumps of lime, not
properly mixed with sand, which are found in the imperfectly prepared
mortar of modern times, shews that the lime must in some way have been
crushed by rollers or beaters.

Footnote 47:

Mr. Bell, of Irthington, tells me that in some places the foundation
flags of the north side point upwards, at an angle of about twenty
degrees, caused apparently by the settling of the ponderous mass. In
this circumstance, we have an interesting confirmation of the
supposition that the Wall was surmounted with a parapet on its north
side. The foundation would have settled equally if both sides had been
burdened alike.

Footnote 48: