184 files changed, 17 insertions, 16720 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7b82bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+*.txt text eol=lf
+*.htm text eol=lf
+*.html text eol=lf
+*.md text eol=lf
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6bd6c62
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #66260 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/66260)
diff --git a/old/66260-0.txt b/old/66260-0.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 364712f..0000000
--- a/old/66260-0.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,6947 +0,0 @@
-The Project Gutenberg eBook of Londinium Architecture and the Crafts, by W.
-R. Lethaby
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
-whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
-of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
-www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
-will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
-using this eBook.
-
-Title: Londinium Architecture and the Crafts
-
-Author: W. R. Lethaby
-
-Release Date: September 10, 2021 [eBook #66260]
-
-Language: English
-
-Character set encoding: UTF-8
-
-Produced by: Charlene Taylor, Barry Abrahamsen, and the Online Distributed
-             Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
-             produced from images generously made available by The Internet
-             Archive) Last Edit of Project Info
-
-*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LONDINIUM ARCHITECTURE AND THE
-CRAFTS ***
-
-
-
-
-                               LONDINIUM
-                      ARCHITECTURE AND THE CRAFTS
-
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-                              +LONDINIUM+
-                              ARCHITECTURE
-                             AND THE CRAFTS
-
-
-
-                                   BY
-
-                             W. R. LETHABY
-
-
-
-                            WITH 175 FIGURES
-
-
-
-                             [Illustration]
-
-
-
-                                 LONDON
-                           +DUCKWORTH & CO.+
-                   3 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                        First Published in 1923
-
-                          All Rights Reserved
-
-
-
-
-                      PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
-              MORRISON AND GIBB LTD., TANFIELD, EDINBURGH
-
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                                CONTENTS
-
-
-               CHAP.                                 PAGE
-
-                  I. BUILDING MATERIALS AND METHODS     7
-
-                 II. BUILDINGS AND STREETS             33
-
-                III. WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE           57
-
-                 IV. CEMETERIES AND TOMBS              84
-
-                  V. SOME LARGER MONUMENTS            101
-
-                 VI. SCULPTURE                        120
-
-                VII. THE MOSAICS                      142
-
-               VIII. WALL PAINTINGS AND MARBLE        162
-                     LININGS
-
-                 IX. LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS       176
-
-                  X. THE CRAFTS                       193
-
-                 XI. EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON           214
-
-                XII. THE ORIGIN OF LONDON             228
-
-                     INDEX                            247
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-               THESE chapters were first printed in “The
-               Builder” during the year 1921. For that
-               reason, and because the earlier records of
-               Roman discoveries in London given in this
-               Journal seemed to have been less worked
-               over than other sources, a large number of
-               references are given to its pages. The
-               account of Roman London in the “Victoria
-               County History,” C. Roach Smith’s
-               “Illustrations of Roman London,” and Mr.
-               T. Ward’s “Roman Era in Britain,” and
-               “Roman British Buildings,” may be
-               specially mentioned among the works
-               consulted. The first named is cited as
-               V.C.H. Mr. A. H. Lyell’s “Bibliographical
-               List of Romano-British Remains” (1912) is
-               indispensable to the student.
-
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-                              +LONDINIUM+
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER I+
-
-                     BUILDING MATERIALS AND METHODS
-
-
-IT is curious that Roman buildings and crafts in Britain have hardly
-been studied as part of the story of our national art. The subject has
-been neglected by architects and left aside for antiquaries. Yet when
-this story is fully written, it will appear how important it is as
-history, and how suggestive in the fields of practice. This provincial
-Roman art was, in fact, very different from the “classical style” of
-ordinary architectural treatises. M. Louis Gillet in the latest history
-of French art considers this phenomenon. “It is very difficult to
-measure exactly the part of the Gauls in the works of the Roman epoch
-which cover the land, such, for instance, as the _Maison Carrée_ and the
-Mausoleum at St. Remy. There is in these _chefs d’œuvre_ something not
-of Rome. The elements are used with liberty and delicacy more like the
-work of the Renaissance than of Vitruvius. In three centuries Gaul had
-become educated: these Gallo-Roman works, like certain verses of
-Ausonius, show little of Rome, they are already French.” We should
-hesitate to say just this in Britain, although the Brito-Roman arts were
-intimately allied to those of Gaul. In fuller truth and wider fact, they
-were closely related to the provincial Roman art as practised in Spain,
-North Africa, Syria, and Asia Minor. Alexandria was probably the chief
-centre from which the new experimenting spirit radiated. We may agree,
-however, that in the centuries of the Roman occupation, Britain like
-Gaul became educated and absorbed the foreign culture with some national
-difference. In attempting to give some account of Roman building and
-minor arts in London, I wish to bring out and deepen our sense of the
-antiquity and dignity of the City, so as to suggest an historical
-background against which we may see our modern ways and works in proper
-perspective and proportion.
-
-_Tools, etc._—Roman building methods were remarkably like our own of a
-century ago. The large number of tools which have been found and brought
-together in our museums are one proof of this. We have adzes and axes,
-hammers, chisels and gouges, saws, drills and files; also foot-rules,
-plumb-bobs and a plane. The plane found at Silchester was an instrument
-of precision; the plumb-bob of bronze, from Wroxeter, in the British
-Museum, is quite a beautiful thing, and exactly like one figured by
-Daremberg and Saglio under the word _Perpendicularum_. At the Guildhall
-are masons’ chisels and trowels; the latter with long leaf-shaped
-blades. At the British Museum is the model of a frame saw. Only last
-year (1922) many tools were found at Colchester. (For the history of
-tools in antiquity, see Prof. Flinders Petrie’s volume.)
-
-A foot-rule found at Warrington gave a length of 11·54 in. The normal
-Roman foot is said to be 11·6496 in. (also 0·2957 m.). This agrees
-closely with the Greek foot and the Chaldean. (What is the history of
-the English foot?) The length of the Roman foot, a little over 11½ of
-our inches, is worth remembering, for measurements would have been set
-out by this standard. For example, we may examine the ordinary building
-“tile” used in Londinium. In the Lombard Street excavations of 1785 many
-Roman bricks were found which are said to have measured about 18 in. by
-12 in. I have found this measurement many times repeated, and also three
-more precise estimates. Dr. Woodward said that bricks from London Wall
-were 17-4/10 in. by 11-6/10 in., and he observed that this would be 1½
-by 1 Roman foot. Mr. Loftus Brock gave the size of one found in London
-Wall as 17 in. by 11⅝ in. Dr. P. Norman gave the size of another tile as
-about 17½ in. by nearly 12 in. At the Guildhall are several flue and
-roof tiles about 17½ in. long, and a large tile 23¼ in. long. We shall
-see when we come to examine buildings that the dimensions in many cases
-are likely to have been round numbers of Roman feet.
-
-_Masonry._—Walling had three main origins in mud, timber and stone.
-Walling stones were at first, and for long, packed together without
-mortar. Mud and stone were then combined; later, lime mortar took the
-place of mud, being a sort of mud which will set harder. In concrete,
-again, the mortar became the principal element. Stone walling was at
-first formed of irregular lumps. When hewn blocks came to be used a
-practice arose of linking them with wood or metal cramps. There are also
-three main types of wall construction—aggregation of mud, framing of
-timber, and association of blocks of stone. A later development of mud
-walling was to break up the material, by analogy with hewn stone, into
-regular lumps separately dried before they were used; thus crude bricks,
-the commonest building material in antiquity, were formed. Roofing tiles
-were developed from pottery, and such tiles came to be used for covering
-the tops of crude brick walls. Then, later, whole walls were formed of
-baked material, and thus the tile or brick wall was obtained. An
-alternative method of using mud was to daub it over timber or wattle
-(basket work) of sticks; and this seems to have been a common procedure
-in Celtic Britain.
-
-Interesting varieties of concrete walling were developed by Roman
-builders. One of these was the use of little stones for the faces of a
-wall, tailing back into the concrete mass and forming a hard skin or
-mail on the surfaces, very like modern paving. Triangular tiles with
-their points toothed into the concrete mass were also used. Then tile
-courses were set in stone and concrete walls at every few feet of
-height.
-
-I have been speaking of general principles and history, not limiting
-myself to Britain and Londinium, but the evolution of the wall is an
-interesting introduction to our proper subject.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 1.
-]
-
-In Londinium wrought stonework must have been very sparingly used
-because of the difficulty and cost of transit. There were columns,
-pilasters, plinths, cornices, etc., but it may be doubted whether there
-were any buildings other than small monuments wholly of such masonry.
-Even in the first century the “details” of masonry were far from being
-“correctly classical,” and ornaments were very redundant and inventive.
-Provincial Roman building was something very different from the grammars
-propounded by architects. As we may study it in the fine museums of
-Trèves, Lyons, and London, it seems more like proto-Romanesque than a
-late form of “classic.” The Corinthian capitals of Cirencester are very
-fine works indeed; the acanthus is treated freshly, the points of the
-leaves being sharp and arranged as in Byzantine work; a sculptured
-pediment and ornamental frieze at Bath are also free and fine. On the
-other hand, moulded work is usually coarse and poor. An interesting
-architectural fragment found in London was the upper drum of a column
-which had several bands of leafage around the shaft and was a remote
-descendant of the acanthus column at Delphi (Fig. 1). Parts of small
-columns and their bases have been found, the latter with crude
-mouldings. I mention them because small circular work was usually turned
-in a lathe like Saxon baluster-shafts. A small capital from Silchester
-in the Reading Museum is of the bowl form so characteristic of
-Romanesque art.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 2.
-]
-
-A few fragments of mouldings and other stones are in our museums (Fig.
-2), and a considerable number of semicircular stones have been found
-which must have been copings. Large wrought stones were usually cramped
-together; lewis holes show how they were hoisted; smaller wall-facings
-were, I think, cut with an axe instead of a chisel. We find mention of
-one stone arch (a small niche?) in a Minute of the Society of
-Antiquaries: “Mar. 8, 1732: Mr. Sam Gale acquainted the Society, yt in
-digging up some old foundations near ye new Fabric erected Anno 1732 for
-ye Bank of England Mr. Sampson ye architect discovered a large old wall,
-eight foot under ye surface of ye ground, consisting of chalk stone and
-rubble, next to Threadneedle Street, in which was an arch of stone and a
-Busto of a man placed in it standing upon ye plinth, which he carefully
-covered up again: there was no inscription but he believed it to be
-Roman.”
-
-_Mortar and Concrete._—Roman builders early learnt how to make good
-mortar and concrete, being careful to use clean coarse gravel and finely
-divided lime. They also found that an addition of crushed tiles and
-pottery was an improvement, and for their good work used so much of this
-that the mortar became quite red. “Roman mortar was generally composed
-of lime, pounded tiles, sand and gravel, more or less coarse, and even
-small pebbles. At Richborough the mortar used in the interior of the
-walls is composed of lime and sand and pebbles or sea-beach, but the
-facing stones throughout are cemented with a much finer mortar in which
-powdered tile is introduced” (T. Wright).
-
-One of the advantages of coarsely-crushed tiles is that it absorbs and
-holds water so that the mortar made with it dries very slowly and thus
-hardens perfectly. In _Archæologia_ (lx.) an analysis is given of
-“mortar made with crushed tiles as grit in place of, or in conjunction
-with, sand.” In Rochester Museum a dishful of the crushed tile is shown
-which was taken from a heap found ready for use at the Roman villa at
-Darenth. I may say here that I have found mortar prepared in this way
-wonderfully tenacious, and suitable for special purposes like stopping
-holes in ancient walls. A strong cement made of finely powdered tiles,
-lime and oil was used by Byzantine and mediæval builders and probably by
-the Romans also. Villars de Honnecourt (thirteenth century) gives a
-recipe: “Take lime and pounded pagan tile in equal quantities until its
-colour predominates; moisten this with oil and with it you can make a
-tank hold water.” The use of crushed pottery in cement goes back to
-Minoan days in Crete.
-
-In London a long, thick wall of concrete formed between timbering was
-recently found between Knightrider and Friday Streets; it showed prints
-of half-round upright posts and horizontal planking; it bent in its
-course and may have been the boundary of a stream. On the site of the
-old Post Office a Roman rubbish pit was found, about 50 ft. by 35 ft. in
-size. “In late Roman times the whole pit had been covered with concrete
-about a foot thick and a building had been erected on the spot”
-(_Archæol._ lxvi.). At Newgate the Roman structure was erected on a
-“raft” of rubble in clay finished with a layer of concrete. Rubble in
-clay formed the foundation of the City Wall.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 3.
-]
-
-Many walls, described as of chalk, rubble or rag-masonry, have been
-found in London—one instance at the Bank has been quoted above. Chalk
-and flints were the most accessible material after local gravel, clay
-and wood. Mr. F. W. Troup tells me that “in the foundations for the
-Blackfriars House, New Bridge Street, we exposed a remarkable foundation
-(possibly not Roman). It consisted of rammed chalk, fine white material
-about 4 ft. wide and high, laid on great planks of elm 6 in. thick,
-which appeared to be sawn. These were laid side by side in the direction
-of the length of the wall, which ran along the west bank of the Fleet
-River.” I mention this, although it was probably a mediæval wall, as an
-example of a record; we ought to have every excavation registered. The
-walls of a room found in Leadenhall Street in 1830 were of rubble
-forming a hard concretion, with a single row of bond tiles through the
-thickness of the wall at about every 2 ft. in height. A sketch of this
-wall at the Society of Antiquaries shows it plastered outside and in.
-This was one of the common types of walling. Better stone walls were
-formed with face casings of roughly-squared little stones—what the
-French call _petit appareil_—as described above. An immense amount of
-piling was used in wet ground under streets and wharves, as well as
-walls. Foundations have been discovered of three rows of piles close
-together with a wall coming directly on their heads (Fig. 3). A wall
-found on the site of the Mansion House seems to have had only one row of
-piles; it was plastered outside.
-
-_Tile Walling._—The brick commonly used in Rome was a crude or unbaked
-block; the burnt walling tile was, as said above, developed from
-pottery, and it always remained pottery-like in texture and thin in
-substance. As Mr. T. May has said of bricks: “They were made of heavy
-clay, well tempered and long exposed; the modern practice is to use the
-lightest possible clay right off without tempering.” Walling tiles were
-used in Londinium not only as bonding courses, but for the entire
-substance of walls. It is usual to write “Roman tiles or bricks”
-interchangeably, but in origin and character the thing was a tile, and,
-indeed, roofing tiles with flanged edges were used as a walling material
-occasionally. Tiles were of various sizes and shapes, but an oblong, 1½
-ft. by 1 ft. and about 1½ in. thick, was most usual. In the Guildhall
-Museum are several triangular tiles which must, I think, have been used
-for facing walls with concrete cores. Solid tile walling was used in
-Londinium so extensively that it was evidently a common material for
-better buildings. The Lombard Street excavations of 1785 exposed “a wall
-which consisted of the smaller-sized Roman bricks, in which were two
-perpendicular flues, one semicircular and the other rectangular; the
-height of the wall was 10 ft. and the depth to the top from the surface
-was also 10 ft.” Here we have evidence of a brick wall rising the full
-height of one story at least (_Archæol._ viii.). Roach Smith noticed a
-wall in Scott’s Yard “8 ft. thick, entirely composed of oblong tiles in
-mortar.” Mr. Lambert has recently described some walls of brick 3¼ ft.
-thick found at Miles Lane. A building in Lower Thames Street had walls
-of _red_ and _yellow_ tiles in alternate layers. This fact I learn from
-a sketch by Fairholt at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and such use of
-bricks of two colours was a common practice. In Hodge’s sketches of the
-tile walls of a great building discovered at Leadenhall Market it is
-noted that some of the courses were red and buff. Price recorded of
-walls, 2½ ft. thick, found in the Bucklersbury excavations, that “the
-tiles were the usual kind of red and yellow brick.”
-
-More recently a bath chamber has been found in Cannon Street built of
-tiles which on the illustration are indicated in alternate courses of
-red and yellow. In the description in _Archæologia_, it is remarked: “It
-would appear that the yellow was preferred, the red being employed where
-they were not visible.” Years ago Charles Knight observed that the tiles
-used in the City Wall at America Square varied from “bright red to
-palish yellow.” This has been confirmed by more recent accounts in
-_Archæologia_. Finally, Roach Smith, describing the discovery of a part
-of the South or River Wall of the City (_Archæological Journal_, vol.
-i.), says that the tiles used as bonding bands were straight and
-curved-edged (that is, flanged roof tiles), red and yellow in colour. At
-the Guildhall there are a roof tile and a flue tile of yellow colour.
-Building with tiles may for long have been customary, but the use of red
-and yellow tiles in the way described would probably have been a fashion
-during a limited time only, and in that case it follows that the
-buildings erected with red and yellow tiles are likely to be nearly
-contemporary; the date would, I suppose, be the fourth century.
-Specially made tiles were used for columns. At the Guildhall are several
-round tiles 8 in. diameter, suitable for the piers of a hypocaust. Also
-some semicircular tiles 12 in. in diameter. In Rochester Museum are some
-quadrants making up a circle about 1½ ft. in diameter. Tiles, eight of
-which made up a circle, have lately been found at Colchester, and in the
-Guildhall Museum is a course of a round column made up of twelve tiles
-around a small central circle. A large number of columns were evidently
-of such bricks plastered.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 4.
-]
-
-_Arches and Vaults._—The arches in the City Wall, where it passed across
-the Walbrook, described by Roach Smith, were of no great span (3¼ ft.).
-They were constructed of ordinary tiles and were of a roughly-pointed
-shape. Arches of this form were not infrequently used in Roman works;
-they were not the result of inaccurate building. About a dozen years ago
-a well-built pointed arch of alternate tile and tufa, found at Naples,
-was described in _Archæologia_. The tiles, although thin, were sometimes
-made slightly wedge-shaped, and the city gates at Silchester seem to
-have had arches of such bricks.
-
-The only London vault which I can find mentioned is one found exactly
-two hundred years since at St. Martin-in-the-Fields. A Minute of the
-Society of Antiquaries reads: “May 2, 1722: Mr. Stukely related that the
-Roman building in St. Martin’s Church was an arch built of Roman brick
-and at the bottom laid with a most strong cement of an unusual
-composition, of which he has got a lump. There was a square duct in each
-wall its whole length, of 9 in. breadth; there were several of these
-side by side: this building is below the springs on the gravel.” This
-building that was an arch, with its many flues, and cement
-floor—doubtless _opus signinum_—was obviously a Roman bath chamber, but
-probably it was quite small.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 5.
-]
-
-Evidence of the existence of fairly large vaults has been found at the
-Baths of Silchester, Wroxeter and Bath. These were all constructed in a
-most interesting and suggestive way of voussoirs made as hollow boxes in
-the tile material. Similar box voussoirs have been discovered at
-Chedworth and elsewhere.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 6.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 7.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 8.
-]
-
-I have found two such box voussoirs in the Rochester Museum, each about
-9 in. by 6 in. on the face and 5 in. on the soffit (Fig. 4). The
-surfaces are roughly scored across with parallel lines forming an X.
-These two tiles together show an obvious curvature; they came from a
-villa at Darenth. In the Guildhall Museum I have also found a box
-voussoir which is almost identical with those at Rochester. It is thus
-described: “74, Flue (?) tile, red brick, the front decorated with
-incised cross lines; in the centre both front and back is a circular
-perforation: 9½ in. long, 6¾ in. high, 6½ in. wide.” The longest
-dimension is not in the direction of the tube, and the height is greater
-at one end than the other, so that the wedge form is quite apparent. The
-small holes in both the larger sides were doubtless to give better hold
-to the mortar in which they were set (Fig. 5). Roach Smith recorded what
-must have been broken parts of similar voussoirs as found in Thames
-Street in 1848 (_Journ. Brit. Archæol. Assoc._, vol. iv.), but here they
-seem to have been used as waste material in building the little piers of
-hypocausts. Roman builders also constructed vaults of pipes and pots set
-in mortar concrete as were our box voussoirs, but I know of no British
-examples. Vaults of wide span seem to have covered large chambers in the
-Basilica at Verulam (see _Victoria County History_). The method of using
-the box voussoirs has been well explained from the Silchester examples
-by the late Mr. Fox in _Archæologia_ (cf. Fig. 6). A fragment at
-Westminster Abbey is either part of a voussoir or of a short flue tile
-(Fig.7).
-
-Some notes made at Bath further explain the interesting methods of
-building vaults with box voussoirs. There are several such voussoirs in
-the ruins of the Great Bath, 12 in. to 13 in. deep by 6 in. and 6½ in.;
-6¾ in. and 7½ in.; 8¼ in. and 10 in.; 8 in. and 11 in. at the top and
-bottom. Fig. 9 is a sketch of the third; it is scored on the face. The
-notches cut in the sides take the place of the holes in the London
-examples, and doubtless were for the mortar to get a better key; Fig. 10
-is from a vault of this construction which was further strengthened by a
-series of curved tiles set in the outer concrete mass, which was 6 in.
-thick; Fig. 11 shows the ridge of such a vault—this may be an
-imagination of my own. One of the fragments showed six or eight flat
-tiles set longitudinally crossing the lines of the box-tiles (Fig. 12).
-The ridge termination (Fig. 16) is also from Bath.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 9.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 10.
-]
-
-Some large voussoir box-tiles from Gaul are shown in the British Museum,
-No. 394, in the section of Greek and Roman life.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 11.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 12.
-]
-
-Well-constructed arched sewers have been found in the City (see
-_Victoria County History_).
-
-Many socketed water-pipes are in our museums. Such pipes were
-occasionally used in Rome as down-pipes, and we might do worse than
-revert to the custom and get rid of the iron rust nuisance. In the
-British Museum there are some larger socketed pipes with small holes cut
-in them along a line. These must, I think, have been for draining
-surface water, for which purpose flue tiles were also used. Larger
-sewers were of brick or stone.
-
-_Carpentry._—In mediæval days the carpenter was the chief house builder,
-and much timber would have been used in Roman London. In 1901-2 remains
-of piling was found in the bed of the Walbrook at London Wall. These
-piles had served as supports for dwellings. “The large quantities of
-loose nails indicated that the superimposed dwellings were of timber”
-(_Builder_, December 13, 1902). Timber piling has also been found at St.
-Martin’s le Grand and other sites. There was clearly much soft wet
-ground in the City. The better-class dwelling in Bucklersbury, to which
-belonged the fine mosaic floor now at the Guildhall, seems to have been
-largely of timber. In December last (1921) Mr. Lambert described at the
-Society of Antiquaries a remarkable piece of wharfing on the river bank
-at Miles Lane. This was a solid wall of squared balks of timber about 2
-ft. square, laid one over the other and having ties into the ground
-behind. The construction showed an interesting set of tenons, halvings
-and housings. A bored wood pipe was also found. In Thames Street a house
-found in 1848 had a well-made drain made with 2 in. planks forming
-bottom and sides, which is said to have been covered in with tiles.
-
-_Wattle and Daub._—It was ever a problem in London how to build without
-stone. Wood, gravel and mud were plentiful, and these were the common
-walling materials during the Middle Ages. As lately as the eighteenth
-century some of the suburban churches were described by Hatton as being
-of “boulder work,” that is, a concrete of coarse gravel; and the walls
-of the Temple Church, before the falsifying restorations, were of some
-sort of concreted rubble skinned over with plaster on the face. Hearne
-reports that Wren said that there were few masons in London when he was
-young. Mud walls are mentioned in mediæval records, and “daubers” were,
-I suppose, primarily those who did the filling in of post and pan work.
-The smaller houses of Londinium were largely of wattle and daub, and
-doubtless others were of crude brick. For the use of wattle and daub we
-have plentiful direct evidence. In the account of the excavations in and
-about Lombard Street in 1785 (_Archæol._ viii.) curious fragments were
-found which are thus described: “About this spot and in many other
-places large pieces of porous brick were met with of a very loose
-texture, seeming as if mixed with straw before they were burnt. They are
-commonly channelled on the surface; their size is quite uncertain, being
-mere fragments, their thickness about 1½ in. or 2 in.” Again,
-chalk-stone foundations and “channelled brick” are mentioned together.
-The “brick” fragments were of daubing, and the channels were the marks
-of laths, as has been shown by other finds. Similar remnants have
-recently been discovered on the Post Office site and in King William
-Street. “Débris of a wood and daub house which had been destroyed by
-fire.... In several cases the plaster was still adhering to the daub”
-(_Archæol._ lxvi.). Other fragments are preserved in the Silchester
-collection at Reading. The London fragments were found under conditions
-which showed that they had belonged to first-century dwellings. This
-method of building had been practised by the Celts, and we may imagine
-that the “populace” of Londinium was housed in small huts of wattle and
-clay roofed with reed thatch. In the country, old garden walls are
-occasionally found, I believe, built of mud daubing on both sides of
-wattle work, and sheep shelters of wattle-hurdles and dry fern are, I
-suppose, direct descendants of the old British manner of building.
-
-Mr. Bushe-Fox has remarked that one of the earliest houses at Silchester
-and the earliest houses at Wroxeter were of wattle and daub
-construction. See also Mr. Lambert’s paper in _Archæologia_, December
-1921.
-
-_Hypocausts and Flue Tiles and Wall Linings._—Several examples have been
-found in London of the Roman system of heating buildings by hypocausts.
-These were low under-floor spaces a foot or two high connected with an
-external stoke-hole in one direction and having a flue or flues in the
-other. When the hypocaust, as was frequently the case, occupied the
-whole space below a chamber the floor was supported on a large number of
-roughly-built little piers with a row or two of flat tiles above
-spanning the intervals, and over them a layer of concrete and a mosaic
-or other floor. The flues were usually box-tiles, and in the case of the
-hot chambers of a bath one side of a wall or even more might be lined
-with them. A hypocaust with its stoke-hole and flue or flues was really
-a kiln of low power, in which people were warmed on a similar principle
-to the baking of pottery. The box-tiles were much the shape of a modern
-brick, and about twice as big; they were hollow and usually had scorings
-or impressed patterns on the surface to make mortar or plaster adhere
-(Figs. 6 and 7). Frequently they had a hole or two holes in their narrow
-sides, so that the mortar might better hold them in place. In the
-British Museum there is a long and large pipe with ornamental
-scratchings on the surface which may possibly be a chimney.
-
-The system of central heating by the hypocaust seems to have been an
-admirable contrivance. Lysons illustrated an example at Littlecote where
-flue tiles ran up in the angles of a room like Tobin tubes, being cased
-round only by the plaster. The two best known London hypocausts were
-found in Lower Thames Street and in Bucklersbury. The former extended
-under the floors of two adjoining apartments. The Bucklersbury example
-had channels under the floor spreading to several wall flues, each being
-of two box-tiles placed side by side. (See Price’s account and _V.C.H._)
-Occasionally flue tiles had two smaller channels; there is a broken
-example of such a tile in the British Museum. Flue tiles were sometimes
-of a rounded form ∩, and in this case the wall itself must have served
-to enclose the flue. In the excavations in Lombard Street in 1785
-(_Archæol._ viii.) a brick wall is described which had two flues, one
-being “semicircular.” A long and well-made ∩-shaped flue in the British
-Museum, with an impressed lozenge pattern on the surface, is described
-as a ridge-tile. There is also a fragment of still larger diameter at
-the Guildhall. Similar flues found at Woodchester were used as
-horizontal heating channels under the floor.
-
-Here also one of the walls was found to be lined with flanged tiles, set
-thus, │__││__│, with the flanges against the walls. This may have been a
-provision against a damp wall. I have seen a similar wall in Rome—I
-believe subterranean—also another very similar where large flat tiles,
-having four projections at the back like short legs to a low stool, were
-used as linings. Each of the four studs was pierced for a nail.
-Fragments of tiles found at Newgate in 1877 were about 1½ ft. square and
-1¼ in. thick, “with rough clay stubs for attachment”; they were scored
-over the surface with wavy lines, and were probably used internally. (In
-_V.C.H._ it is said that these may have been mediæval, but the examples
-just given show that they were Roman.) In the British Museum and at the
-Guildhall are some flat tiles, scored on one side to receive plastering,
-and with four notches in the sides to allow of nails being driven
-between two adjoining tiles. These, too, must have been for wall
-linings.
-
-The impressed patterns on the surfaces of some of these flue tiles are
-quite neat and pretty, and they are interesting in the history of design
-as being “all-over patterns.” In some cases at least, they seem to have
-been produced by a roller having a unit of the design cut on it in the
-style of a butter print. A tile found in Kent, illustrated by Haverfield
-(_Romanization_, p. 33), has the inscription: “Cabriabanus made this
-wall-tile” (_parietalam_)—“The man who made the tiles apparently incised
-the legend on a wooden cylinder and rolled it over the tiles, producing
-a recurrent inscription.” The patterns superseded the scorings and seem
-to have been for the same purpose—to afford a better hold for the
-plaster than a plain face. Fig. 13 is of tiles found in Thames Street.
-Fig. 14 is a fragment illustrated in Roach Smith’s Catalogue.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 13.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 14.
-]
-
-Inscriptions roughly scratched on tiles led the late Dr. Haverfield to
-the conclusion that ordinary workers in Britain wrote Latin. At the
-Guildhall a tile has a humorous note about a workman who went off “on
-his own” too often. In the British Museum a tile has _Primus_, and one
-from Silchester has _Satis_.
-
-_Floors._—The floors which have been found were most generally of
-concrete, tiles and mosaic. In Rochester Museum are some lumps of
-material from concrete floors. There were also floors of “rough stones”
-and of “chalk stones.” A better kind of concrete floor was that known as
-_opus signinum_, made of lime and broken pottery polished on the
-surface; this made an admirable floor. Another excellent and much used
-surface was obtained by coarse tesseræ of tile from 1 in. to 2 in.
-square; sometimes pieces of yellow, black and white were intermixed. In
-Rochester Museum is a tile fragment subdivided by indented lines
-imitating this coarse kind of mosaic, also a square of light buff tile.
-At the Guildhall is a tile a Roman foot square, having incised squares.
-Tiles were of various forms and sizes. In the Reading Museum are round
-and polygonal tiles, and a very pretty floor formed of such tiles with
-coarse tesseræ intermixed. Some small paving tiles have been found (not
-in London) with patterns impressed on the surface (Fowler’s engravings).
-In the British Museum is a tile 7 in. square, and a large tile about 18
-by 14 in. is scored on the surface neatly, like the crosses of a Union
-Jack (cf. Fig. 7); it seems to be abraded on the surface, and may be a
-paving tile—if so, it must have made an excellent floor. Roach Smith
-mentions large tiles about 2 ft. square and 3 in. thick, and some of
-these are in the British Museum. Such tiles, as large as paving slabs,
-were useful in covering hypocausts, spanning the intervals between the
-little piers on which the corners rested.
-
-In the British Museum and at the Guildhall are portions of paving of
-small tiles set on edge in a herring-bone pattern. The former is
-described as having been found at Bush Lane, the latter near Dowgate
-Hill on the Walbrook. “Near by was piling and the cill of a bridge which
-crossed the brook from E. to W.” This seems to be the same pavement as
-that described in _The Builder_, 1884, as being on the west bank facing
-the brook; there was a second landing-stage in Trinity Square Gardens,
-on “the edge of a haven,” with a pavement over oak piling. (The haven at
-the tidal inlet to Walbrook was doubtless the original port of London.)
-I have seen similar herring-bone pavement of tiles on edge in Rome. I
-doubt there having been a bridge here.
-
-_Plastering._—External walls would mostly have been plastered. C. Knight
-mentioned the discovery near the Bank of traces of a Roman building, and
-of what was “apparently the basis of a Roman pillar (circular?) built of
-large flat bricks incrusted with a very hard cement, in which the
-mouldings were formed exactly as is done in the present day.”
-
-Rome itself must have been a city of plastered walls; the Pantheon, the
-great Basilica of Constantine in the Forum, and the splendid Baths were
-all, as may be seen to-day, plastered. The tile walls of the Basilica at
-Trèves were covered with red plastering. The Baths at Silchester were
-plastered externally. Of the great villa at Woodchester we are told the
-walls were “plastered on the outside and painted a dull red colour” (T.
-Wright). At Caerwent the Basilica was plastered a reddish-brown colour.
-The best description I have found of such plastering is that in
-_Archæologia_ of a round temple or tomb building found at Holmwood Hill,
-which was covered outside with “a mixture of lime and gravel and coarse
-fragments of broken tile. On this was laid a coat of stucco composed of
-lime and tile more minutely broken, the latter being rendered very
-smooth was covered with a dark pigment ... a sort of ochre.” It is clear
-that external plastering was generally finished with a red surface.
-
-Of internal plastering we have many fragments covered with painted
-decoration in the museums; it was generally very thick and smoothly
-finished on the surface; against the floor there was usually a
-projecting quarter-round fillet about 3 in. high, of hard cement. Such a
-skirting was found around the Bucklersbury mosaic pavement (Price).
-Sometimes a similar fillet ran up the angles of a room, as at a bath at
-Hartlip Villa, illustrated by T. Wright. I have seen a similar treatment
-in Rome, also a hollow curve.
-
-_Roofs, Windows, etc._—Roofs were generally covered with tiles,
-stone-slates, and doubtless thatch. Examples of the two former are in
-our museums. The flat tiles had turned-up edges; these were removed near
-the top for the next tile to lap over. The flanges were covered by
-half-round tiles, larger below than above, so that one lapped over the
-other. The flat tiles were frequently if not always of a key-stone
-shape, so that the bottom of the upper one set into the wider top of the
-lower one. (See one figured in Allen’s _London_.) Some have a single
-nail-hole near the top; but others, I suppose, can only have been nailed
-against the slanting sides. (See V. le Duc’s article “Tuille” for the
-Romanesque system.) In better work ante-fix tiles covered the
-terminations of the round tiles at the eaves. “Part of an ante-fix of
-red terra-cotta in the form of a lion’s mask” was found in the Strand
-(_V.C.H._). There are several in Reading Museum and one in the British
-Museum from Chester. The slates were thick and of a pointed shape below,
-forming diagonal lines when laid. Both the stones and tiles were very
-heavy, and must have required strong roof timbering.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 15.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 16.
-]
-
-Ridges were of tile or stone. A fragment in the Reading Museum from
-Silchester has a knob rising from the saddle-back of a ridge-tile
-strangely mediæval in appearance (Fig. 8). Probably one came at each end
-of the ridge only (cf. V. le Duc’s “Faîtière”). Ridges were frequently
-terminated by stone gable knobs, which have been found in many places
-(see Ward’s _Roman Buildings_), and occasionally in such a position as
-to show that a gable end fronted a street. A ridge termination in Exeter
-Museum is shown upside down as if it were a corbel (Fig. 15 is a memory
-sketch, and compare Fig. 16 from Bath). These terminations are late
-derivations from acroteria and prototypes of gable crosses; they are
-links in a continuous chain from Greek to Gothic.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 17.
-]
-
-Little joiner’s work has survived to our day. Doors would not have been
-very different from our own, as is shown by many examples of framed
-panel work from foreign sites in museums. A bronze pivot in the Museum
-at Westminster Abbey must have been a hinge of a door (Fig. 17). Iron
-strap-hinges in the museums are very similar to our own. There are two
-in the British Museum (Fig. 18). The plane found at Silchester is
-evidence for joiner’s work. In Leicester Museum is a fragment of a
-lion’s head and leg from a piece of furniture—probably a table. Turning
-in a lathe was practised, as some wooden dishes at the Guildhall show.
-There are many excellent locks and keys and hinges and handles in our
-museums.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 18.
-]
-
-The use of window glass was very general. It was cast in small panes, as
-is shown by the large proportion of existing fragments which have edges
-and corners. Practically a whole pane, about 12 in. by 12 in., is in the
-Rochester Museum. Near Warrington, on a Roman site, was found a stone
-slab with a shallow recess 12 in. by 8 in., which Mr. May regarded as a
-mould for glass (Ward). The average size of panes would have been about
-one Roman foot long. Glassware seems to have been made in London,
-Silchester and elsewhere, doubtless from imported “metal.” Some windows,
-possibly unglazed, were protected by iron gratings. An iron star X in
-the Guildhall Museum came from such a window guard as is shown by a
-complete example I sketched many years ago in the Strasbourg Museum (see
-_Arch. Rev._, May 1913) (Fig. 19). It had been suggested that such
-X-pieces were “holdfasts,” to keep the glass panes in position (Ward);
-but this is not the case; moreover, the pane at Rochester shows that it
-was “cemented” into place.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 19.
-]
-
-Lead must have been largely used; there are a dozen large “pigs” in the
-British Museum. Melted lead was found at Verulam in a position which
-suggested that it had been used on an important building. In the
-Guildhall Museum are some sections of lead water-pipes found in London,
-and at Westminster Abbey is a piece 4 in. in diameter, which must, I
-think, be Roman (Fig. 18, C).
-
-A study of Roman building methods may suggest to us many points for our
-consideration and emulation. I would especially mention their excellent
-mortar made of crushed tile, _opus signinum_, and coarse tesseræ floors,
-cement skirtings, red external plastering, the tile-shaped brick, tile
-wall linings and down-pipes, hip and gable knobs, vaults of box-tiles
-and pipes, the hypocaust system of heating, turning of stonework,
-painted decorations, marble linings, cast leadwork. Some day I hope our
-sterile histories of “architectural styles” will make way for accounts
-of practical building methods.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER II+
-
-                         BUILDINGS AND STREETS
-
-   “Set we forward friendly together, so through Lud’s-town march;
-    And in the temple of great Jupiter
-    Our peace we’ll ratify; seal it with feasts,
-    Set on there!”
-                                                            CYMBELINE.
-
-_BASILICA._—In 1880 the extensive foundations of an important building
-with massive walls were found on the site of Leadenhall Market, and a
-survey of the ruins made by Henry Hodge was published in _Archæologia_
-(vol. lxvi.). This great building was exceptional, not only in its scale
-but in its manner of workmanship. I know no other case where the walls
-of a building had wrought and coursed facings like the City Wall (Fig.
-20).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 20.
-]
-
-In 1881 Mr. E. P. L. Brock exhibited at a meeting of the British
-Archæological Association “plans of excavations recently carried out in
-Leadenhall Market, showing the foundations of an apse 33 ft. wide and
-indications of four different conflagrations. He also exhibited
-fragments of fresco painting with ornamental patterns.... The building
-appears to have had the form of a Basilica in some respects, with
-eastern apse, western nave, and two chambers like transepts on the south
-side” (_Archæol._ lxvi.). From the wording of this it appears that Brock
-meant that the building had a general resemblance to an early Christian
-church. Mr. Lambert in publishing Hodge’s drawings in _Archæologia_
-seems to have understood Brock to mean that it was the Civil Basilica of
-Londinium. This, indeed, I have no doubt it was, but at the time Brock
-wrote such buildings in Britain were hardly known.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 21.
-]
-
-The Civil Basilica or Public Hall was generally the “complement of the
-Forum; it was, in fact, a covered Forum used for commerce, exchange, and
-administration, or simply as a promenade” (Daremberg and Saglio). At
-Silchester the Forum and Basilica filled an “island” site, about 315 ft.
-by 280 ft., at the centre of the city. The Forum was a quadrangle
-included within a single row of buildings on three sides, having a
-colonnaded walk on the inside, while the Basilica occupied the fourth
-side facing the central avenue of the town. It was 233 ft. long by 58
-ft. wide, and was divided into a “nave” and “aisles,” the former being
-terminated at _each end_ by a large apse. In the interior were two
-ranges of Corinthian columns about 3 ft. in diameter, some capitals from
-which are now in Reading Museum. Cirencester Basilica was still larger,
-being about 77 ft. wide, divided into nave and aisles by fine Corinthian
-columns; at one end a great Hemicycle embraced both nave and aisles. It
-must have been a noble building (Fig. 21 is a restored plan of one end).
-At Wroxeter the Basilica was 67 ft. wide, divided into nave and aisles
-by ranges of Corinthian columns.
-
-The columns in the interior of the Basilica at Caerwent were also of
-Corinthian fashion: the shafts were 3 ft. in diameter and decorated with
-a leaf pattern. Under the floor were wide sleeper walls, one of which
-ran across the front of the Tribune. The exterior was covered with
-reddish-brown plastering, and the interior had painted decorations of
-large scale.
-
-The Basilica at Verulam had a very long hall, 26 ft. wide and about 360
-ft. in length. From it three great chambers opened at right angles. The
-central chamber was 40 ft. wide. The others were 34½ ft. wide, having
-apses at the farther ends included within square outer walls. There was
-evidence that these side chambers had been vaulted. Some painted wall
-plaster was found, and it was clear that the whole of the interior walls
-and vaults had been painted, mostly in floral designs, in dark olive
-green and other colours. Fragments of drapery indicated that there had
-been figures also. In front of the Basilica was a great quadrangle
-court, with a block of masonry on the central axis, which can hardly
-have been other than a pedestal for a statue (see _V.C.H._).
-
-The Basilica at Trèves is built wholly of tile-bricks, and was once
-covered with red plaster, of which some fragments remain in the window
-jambs. It is about 240 ft. long, the flank wall having six bays recessed
-between pilasters each containing an upper and a lower window. A large
-apse exists at one end, about 40 ft. wide. It has been restored to serve
-as a church, and is a noble building, big and bare. The British
-Basilicas, so far as they are now known, were of the following
-dimensions in width. The English measures may probably be equated with
-Roman feet as suggested: Silchester, 58 (60); Caerwent, 62 (65);
-Wroxeter, 67 (70); Cirencester, 78 (80); Chester, 76 (?).
-
-The foundations discovered on the site of Leadenhall Market represented
-some very large and exceptional structures. The following account is
-condensed from Mr. Lambert’s description in _Archæologia_: “The plans
-show at the eastern end a quarter-circle of 27 ft. 7 in. radius, which
-seems to represent the eastern apse mentioned by Brock; and in
-continuation of its southern line, a wall about 150 ft. long, having the
-extraordinary breadth of 12 ft. 7 in., runs to the line of and
-apparently underneath Gracechurch Street.... From the south side at the
-east end, spring at right angles three walls, which doubtless enclosed
-the ‘two chambers like transepts’ mentioned by Brock.... It is probable
-that work of different periods is included in this plan.... The northern
-half of the great wall appears to be brick, the rest stone or rubble, as
-though one wall had been built along the face of another.... It is clear
-from the drawings that the bulk of the eastern portions of the remains
-is homogeneous in structure. The extra thickness of the great wall and
-the fragments of solid brick walls at either end of the site represent
-perhaps later additions.... These remains form the most extensive
-fragment of a Roman building recorded within the Walls of London.” From
-the thick mortar joints of the brick walls, Mr. Lambert concludes that
-they were probably built in the third or fourth century. The more or
-less alternating use of red and buff bricks, as I have already
-suggested, is also evidence that this part of the work should be
-assigned to the fourth century. Concrete, tessellated and herring-bone
-floors were found, also flue tiles (Price, _Athen._, 1881).
-
-Some of the bricks used were of larger size than the ordinary, being 20
-in. by 12½ in., and the drawings show that they were carefully laid with
-alternate headers and stretchers (Fig. 17). They were 1¾ in. thick, and
-four courses made 10-12 in.; the joints were thus about 1¼ in. thick. At
-the Guildhall is a fragment of brickwork from Leadenhall Market, with
-bricks and joints both 1½ in. thick. The stone walling was of concreted
-rubble, with facings on each side in small, roughly wrought but
-carefully-coursed stones; the layers of bonding tiles passed through the
-thickness of these walls (Fig. 20). A large drain ran parallel to the
-outer south wall about 4 ft. wide, including its brick sides.
-
-The general plan shows a total length from the apse at the east to the
-broken wall at the west against Gracechurch Street of about 210 ft.
-About 44 ft. to the north of the Great Wall a parallel wall is shown on
-the plan, but no details are given, and it may not have been Roman.
-
-The interior curve of the _upper wall_ of the apse had a radius of about
-22 ft., and the width of a central “nave” agreeing with this can hardly
-have been less than 50 ft.; the total internal width, supposing there
-were “aisles” in line with the “chambers” at the end, would have been
-about 110 ft. There were thick transverse walls across the front of the
-apse, and again about 20 ft. to the west. I give (Fig. 22) a plan
-adapted from _Archæologia_; the walls shown black were not necessarily
-all above the floor level, although they are thinner than the lowest
-foundations. (Note that in the plan in _Archæologia_ the scale is given
-in divisions of 12 ft., and not of 10 ft. as usual.)
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 22.
-]
-
-My plan is restored as a possible reading of the evidence; the most
-certain parts are those in black (A); the foundations (B) may be of a
-different age; at the left (C) is the brick pier or wall against
-Gracechurch Street.
-
-A structure perhaps 110 ft. wide with a central avenue of 50 ft. would
-have been exceptional; on the other hand, a Basilica 220 ft. to 250 ft.
-long including the apse would have been rather short. One of the walls
-found to the west of Gracechurch Street was bent in its line as if it
-might have been against a stream. The nature of the site might have
-dictated a rather short and very wide building. It should be noticed
-that the line of Gracechurch Street is nearly or exactly at right angles
-to the great building. Hodge’s drawings show that the walls of
-Leadenhall Market were built directly on the Roman foundations, and
-hence square with them.
-
-The Basilica would have had ranges of Corinthian columns and perhaps a
-transverse row on the foundation in front of the apse, as at the
-Basilica Ulpia in Rome and at Pompeii: compare also the transverse walls
-at the Basilicas of Cirencester and Caerwent. The roof would probably
-have had trusses of low pitch exposed to the interior, like those of the
-early Christian churches.
-
-In 1908 a Roman wall, 3½ ft. wide, _parallel_ to Gracechurch Street, was
-found at No. 85. In 1912 a fine Roman wall, 4½ ft. wide, running north
-and south, was found just south of Corbet’s Court; turning at right
-angles it passed under Gracechurch Street. It was of ragstone with
-double courses of tiles; the base was 27 ft. below the present level; a
-piece of thinner wall ran close and _parallel_ with the roadway
-(_Archæologia_, lxiii.). Kelsey noted that in 1834 massive walls were
-found in Gracechurch Street from Corbet’s Court to the head of the
-street (_Archæologia_, lx.).
-
-The discovery was announced in January 1922 of a wall 2¾ ft. thick of
-ragstone and bond tiles “in the centre of Gracechurch Street a little
-south of the Cornhill crossing (to the west or left of Fig. 22). A
-length of about 10 ft. has been disclosed following the central line of
-Gracechurch Street. The presence of this Roman building in the middle of
-the highway proves that the mediæval street did not follow the line of
-the Roman street. Close at hand is Leadenhall. When the present market
-was reconstructed, excavations disclosed remains of an important Roman
-building. It is probable that the remains now unearthed are associated
-with the same group of buildings.” Another wall, 4½ ft. thick, was found
-at right angles to the thinner wall; the finds were at a depth of about
-13 ft. This building, which must have been part of the Basilica or
-adjacent to it and square with it, was thus as far west as the middle of
-the street, and doubtless farther, for the thinner wall in association
-with a thicker one would not have been an external wall. Other walls
-have recently been found under St. Peter’s, Cornhill, corresponding with
-those under Leadenhall Market. “All these finds seem to be part of a
-great building more than 400 ft. long, which crowned the eastern hill of
-London” (_Antiquaries’ Journal_, vol. ii. p. 260; see also p. 225,
-below).
-
-The smaller inset plan on Fig. 22 is a very visionary reading of the
-possibilities. A street in line with Fish Street Hill and the Bridge,
-which I will call _Axis Street_, may not have pointed to the centre of
-this great building, but rather by its west end as suggested (X). If
-this is too far west for the _Axis Street_, then we must suppose that it
-was directed towards some point in the south front of the Forum. (It is
-desirable that all the walls found in this locality should be accurately
-laid down on a plan.) A parallel street to the east, which I will call
-_North Gate Street_ (Y), would not be in continuation with _Axis
-Street_. The question whether Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street
-represent a Roman street from the Bridge to the Gate has been much
-argued over (see _Archæologia_, 1906), and it seems to have been shown
-that the line was interrupted in some way. The southern part, however,
-must, I think, represent the Roman street from the Bridge, although it
-may later have been bent aside to tend more directly to Bishopsgate. The
-facts and the fault in the line may be reconciled in some such way as
-suggested. (Hodge’s drawings are in the old Gardner collection, and it
-would be interesting to know what other Roman records are included.)
-
-Beyond the statement quoted from Brock no identification of the building
-is offered in _Archæologia_, and Mr. Bushe-Fox thought that if the walls
-were contemporary they could not belong to a Basilica. “If there were a
-nave with two aisles and an apse there would be no reason for the cross
-wall, nor for the excessive thickness of the side wall. The building had
-perhaps been a bath; the wall which ended abruptly at the west end was
-probably a flue for heating the apse, and the large drain would be
-accounted for” (_Proceedings_, 1914-5). That the building was indeed the
-civil Basilica of Londinium is proved to my mind by: A comparison of the
-plan with those of other British Basilicas—notice the way that the apse
-is within straight external walls, and compare Fig. 21; by the great
-scale of the work; by its central position in the City; by the scale and
-character of the construction; by the fact that the only possible
-alternative seems to be the supposition that it was the great Bath of
-the City, and for this neither the planning nor the situation seems
-suitable; by the exceptional wall decorations described below; by the
-fact that a tile bearing the official stamp PR-BRILON was found on the
-site (Price). It is a remarkable fact that Leadenhall was the market,
-and that the Crossing at Cornhill was the carfax of London during the
-Middle Ages.
-
-We have seen above that Brock said that fragments of painting were found
-on the site. In the British Museum are four pieces of wall painting,
-given by Mr. Hilton Price—1 and 2 in 1882, and 3 and 4 in 1883; the
-first pair are said to be from Leadenhall, the second pair from
-Leadenhall Market. One and 3 are fragments of large-scale scrolls of
-ornamental foliage of a grey-green colour; 2 is a piece of large-scale
-drapery, and 4 is part of a life-sized foot. These four remarkable
-fragments evidently form one group and came from the Basilica. The large
-scale of the ornament and figure work differentiates these pieces of
-painted plaster from all others found in London. At Silchester and
-Cirencester fragments of marble wall linings have been found on the
-sites of the Basilicas, and some of the marble fragments in the British
-Museum may have come from our Basilica, which must have been a handsome,
-indeed splendid, civic centre. In the Forum would have been statues of
-Emperors, and in the Basilica some impersonation of Londinium itself
-(cf. the fragment of such a figure found at Silchester, now at Reading).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 23.
-]
-
-_Houses._—In 1869 a mosaic pavement was discovered in Bucklersbury which
-is now at the Guildhall (_Builder_, May 15 and 29). It was fully
-described in a volume by Price. The floor was that of a small
-round-ended chamber, and belonged to a building on the western bank of
-the Walbrook, Around the apsidal end of the room which had the mosaic
-was a wall of stone and chalk, built upon piling; this wall contained
-the flues of the heating-system, and it terminated in piers at the ends
-of the semicircle. From the fact that no more walling was found and the
-evidence of an attached lobby which had a wooden sill around it, we may
-suppose that the rest of the house was of timber work (Fig. 23). The
-curved apse would be a strong form in which to build a mass of wall to
-contain the vertical wall flues; and it is an interesting example of
-building contrivance. We have already seen that timber and clay
-construction was frequent in Londinium. Near this building a well was
-found (built of square blocks of chalk, _The Builder_ says). This
-building with the mosaic floor must have been a superior house on the
-bank of the Walbrook. To the west, as we shall see, seems to have been a
-street possibly of shops; we can thus imagine a little group of
-buildings and streets, and a bridge over the Walbrook at the end of
-Bucklersbury.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 24.
-]
-
-The well mentioned above is one of a great number which have been
-discovered; for instance, in excavating for Copthall Avenue “a pit or
-well, boarded, and filled with earthenware vessels,” etc., was found
-(_Builder_, October 5, 1889). Such wells with boarding like a long
-barrel have been excavated at Silchester. Again to the south of Aldgate
-High Street two wells were found (_Builder_, May 3, 1884).
-
-The most complete Roman building which has been recovered and planned is
-one excavated in Lower Thames Street in 1848 and again in 1859
-(_Builder_, February 5, 1848, and June 11, 1859). A restored plan was
-given in the _Journal of the British Archæological Association_, vol.
-xxiv. (see Fig. 21). The two apsed chambers had hypocausts beneath their
-floors, supported on little piers built of tiles 8½ in. square, and
-broken materials. Fig. 25 is reproduced from the illustration of the
-eastern chamber given in _The Builder_. Several sketches and some notes,
-by Fairholt, of this building are in the Victoria and Albert Museum.
-About 4 or 5 ft. of the walls remained in places, all of tiles with
-mortar joints nearly as thick as themselves.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 25.—(A, old masonry; B, brickwork with a flue tile; C,
-    foundations of chamber.)
-  Foundations discovered in Lower Thames Street in 1859.
-]
-
-“The walls were of red and yellow brick in alternate layers composed of
-18 in. tiles.” Outside the walls was “a drain of wooden planks, 18 in.
-deep by 10 wide, running towards the river” (see plan). The walls were
-erected on piles. The sketches show some of the box-flue tiles which had
-impressed patterns (see Fig. 25). Some additional information is given
-on a lithograph by A. J. Stothard (1848). The walls were 3 ft. thick.
-Above the floor of the south room, which was of coarse red and yellow
-tesseræ, was a second, about a foot higher in level; this was “a layer
-of red concrete 2½ in. thick, hard, and the upper surface almost glazed”
-(compare a floor found in Eastcheap, “concrete stuccoed over and painted
-red.”—_V.C.H._). This building was doubtless a house; at the time it was
-found it was called a bath, but it seems too small to have been even a
-secondary public bath. As Thos. Wright says: “Many writers have
-concluded hastily that every house with a hypocaust was a public bath”
-(cf. the plan of a house at Lymne, _The Roman, etc._, p. 160). The
-stoke-hole of the hypocaust was at F, and there were flues up the middle
-wall and the western apse. The large room was 23 ft. square; some tiles
-of 2 ft. square were found here, also window glass and an iron key. The
-plan lay square with the south City Wall (Fig. 24), and the building can
-hardly be earlier than this wall. It may thus be accepted as a late
-fourth-century house, and we may further infer that box-tiles with
-impressed patterns were a characteristic of this century. On two sides
-of the house were lanes about 10 ft. wide. As in so many cases modern
-walls seem to have been laid out on the same alignment as the Roman
-building.
-
-The house just described had two apses, and the Bucklersbury house also
-had an apse. This was in agreement with general custom. As Thos. Wright
-remarked: “One peculiarity which is observed almost invariably in Roman
-houses in Britain is that one room has a semicircular alcove, and in
-some instances more than one room possesses this adjunct.” In the plan
-given in _Archæologia_ of the Roman walls and floors found in and about
-Lombard Street in 1785 two apses seem to be indicated; thus we have
-evidence for five in the scanty records; altogether there must have been
-scores in the city.
-
-Within the walls of the City were many large houses of the villa type as
-well as minor dwellings and streets of shops. Roach Smith speaks of such
-great houses about Crosby Square; he also describes a mosaic floor under
-Paternoster Row which extended 40 ft.; a second important floor on the
-site of India House, Leadenhall Street, was at least 22 ft. square, and
-may have been considerably more; a third large floor which was found
-under the Excise Office, Broad Street, was about 28 ft. square (probably
-30 Roman ft.). All these must have been the floors of the chief central
-rooms of large houses of the villa type. Tite saw this of the Broad
-Street floor as his speaking of the “triclinium, other rooms, and the
-garden” shows. This Broad Street pavement was lying square with more
-modern walls surrounding it, and it may not be doubted that buildings
-continuously occupied the site.
-
-The supposition that there were important houses of the villa type
-within the walls of the City has been fully confirmed by the excavations
-at Silchester, and I may here quote Dr. Haverfield’s general conclusions
-as to Roman towns in Britain. “Roman British towns were of fair size,
-Roman London, perhaps even Roman Cirencester were larger than Roman
-Cologne or Bordeaux. They possessed, too, the buildings proper to a
-Roman town—town hall, market-place, public baths, chess-board
-street-plan, all of Roman fashion; they had also shops and temples and
-here and there a hotel.... The dwelling-houses in them were not town
-houses fitted to stand side by side to form regular streets; they were
-country houses, dotted about like cottages in a village. But in one way
-or another and to a real amount, Britain shared in that expansion of
-town life which formed a special achievement of the Roman Empire.” The
-evidence as to the isolation of the houses is here a little overstated,
-but in the main the passage gives a true impression. Fragments of wall
-decorations and mosaics found in Southwark suggest that there were big
-houses on that side of the river, and doubtless others occupied sites
-along the Strand and Holborn.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 26.
-]
-
-I give here a little sketch plan (Fig. 26) of a house found about a
-century since at Worplesdon, Surrey, from a survey at the Society of
-Antiquaries. This house is interesting as its unaltered plan gives an
-example of a simple “Corridor House.” It was 62 ft. long by 22½ ft. wide
-within the foundations, and faced west. The slight foundations of flint,
-not much more than a foot wide, show that the walls must have been of
-timbering or wattle work. The rooms and passage had floors of plain
-coarse tesseræ, except that the outer side of the passage had a simple
-twist border in mosaic. Possibly there had been some pattern in the
-central room as the floor was there missing, and a note reads: “Near
-this place was found the lozenge-shaped tessellated pavement.”
-
-_Baths, Temples, etc._—Remnants of important buildings have been found
-in Cannon Street from time to time, and London Stone is probably a
-fragment of one of them. Wren was of the opinion “by reason of its large
-foundations that it was some more considerable monument in the Forum;
-for in the adjoining ground to the south were discovered some
-tessellated pavements, and other extensive remains of Roman workmanship
-and buildings.” Under Cannon Street a building with one apartment 40 ft.
-by 50 ft., and many other chambers, is mentioned in _V.C.H._ At Dowgate
-Hill the foundations of large edifices are listed in _V.C.H._, and of
-Bush Lane it is remarked: “That there must have been extensive buildings
-here seems clear.” At Trinity Lane, Great Queen Street, “great portions
-of immense walls with bonding tiles” have been found (_V.C.H._). There
-was a house on the south side of St. Paul’s known as _Camera_ or _Domus
-Dianæ_ which may have taken its name from some Roman monument. In a St.
-Paul’s deed of 1220 it appears as a messuage or inn, _domum que fuit
-Diane_.
-
-In December 1921 Mr. Lambert described the foundations of a building by
-Miles Lane. The plan of this suggested a house of the corridor type
-facing east. The site seems to have been levelled up by timber walling
-or wharfing against the river and running back into the sloping ground.
-
-One of the most important public buildings in the City would have been
-the Public Baths, as those of Silchester and Wroxeter show. At Trèves
-the great Baths cover acres of ground by the river. Bagford says that
-after the fire of London some Roman water-pipes were found in Creed Lane
-“which had been carried round a Bath that was built in a round form with
-niches at equal intervals for seats.” This suggests a part of important
-Baths, and Creed Lane does not seem an unlikely situation for the Public
-Baths. (In _V.C.H._ the site is said to have been in Ludgate Square.)
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 27.
-]
-
-The only certain evidence we have for Temples are some inscriptions and
-sculptures. For the most part they would, like those found at Silchester
-and elsewhere, have been small square and polygonal structures set on a
-rather high podium approached by steps. Fig. 27 is a restored plan of
-the little Temple found at Caerwent. Doubtless here and in most cases,
-the roof of the cella ran on to cover the podium. At the foot of the
-steps an external altar would have stood. The column illustrated before
-(Fig. 1) seems suitable for a temple. Roach Smith, speaking of the group
-of Mother Goddesses found in Crutched Friars (see _Builder_, October 30,
-1847), says: “It is the only instance with the exception of the
-discovery made in Nicholas Lane in which the site of a temple can with
-reason be identified” (_Ill. Rom. Lon._, p. 33). The find in Nicholas
-Lane was part of an important and early inscription which may have been
-on the chief temple in Londinium. Some sculptures found on the bank of
-the Walbrook suggest that a cell of Mithras occupied the site. In the
-fourth century a Christian church would, as at Silchester, have occupied
-an important site in the City.
-
-A large Theatre or Amphitheatre, or both, would have been necessary in
-such a town. Roach Smith, who had a wonderful instinct of insight,
-thought that such a building probably occupied a site against the bank
-of the Fleet, called “Breakneck Steps.” Lately it has been suggested
-that the drawing-in of the line of the City Walls at the north-west
-angle was done to avoid an amphitheatre; more probably, I think, it was
-to avoid wet ground. There is evidence that gladiator contests and
-chariot races were popular. For gladiators, compare two small bone
-figures at the British Museum, evidently from one shop, with the
-fragment of a little statuette at the Guildhall. The bronze
-trident-head, also at the Guildhall, really does seem to be a
-gladiator’s weapon as suggested in the catalogue. For chariot races, see
-the fragments of glass bowls, which may have been made in London, in the
-British Museum. I have found an additional little point of evidence on
-chariot races. Amongst Fairholt’s sketches at the Victoria and Albert
-Museum, is one of an enigmatical little fragment of a Castor vase, found
-in Bishopsgate Street, which seems to represent four heads of dogs
-running neck and neck. Now there is a whole vase in the British Museum
-(found in Colchester) which was practically a replica of the other, and
-this shows that the four running animals of the fragment were chariot
-horses, and the whole represented a race. Above the horses of the
-fragment is scratched ITALVS, which, I suggest, must have been the name
-of some favourite “winner” in Londinium.
-
-_Streets._—In his account of the Bucklersbury pavement, Price describes
-also some walls which were found “about 30 yds. westerly from the
-pavement” (the position is shown on his plan). “Two Roman walls running
-nearly in line with Bucklersbury directly towards the Walbrook.” In the
-space between them had been laid a drain to fall towards the brook with
-a tile pavement above, and mortar fillets against the walls. The walls
-were 2¾ ft. thick, and built on three rows of piles, and the space
-between was 2¼ ft. The tiles are of the usual kind of red and yellow
-brick. Above these walls were others of chalk and stone 3 ft. apart, of
-later date. This is one of a great number of instances where we find
-that mediæval buildings were founded directly on Roman walls. The space
-Price suggested was “an open passage-way, or it may be of an alley
-between two buildings.” Comparison makes it certain that the walls were
-those of neighbouring houses in a street; similar conditions have been
-found at Caerwent, Silchester, etc. At the former “the shops along the
-main street were probably roofed with gables; this is substantiated by
-the finding of a finial in front of a house. The narrow space between
-the houses would serve to carry away the water which would drop from the
-eaves” (_Archæol._, 1906). The walls are shown in Fig. 28.
-
-The Bucklersbury paved passage, only just wide enough for a man to get
-at it, with the underlying drain, is obviously a similar space. The
-tradition of dividing houses in streets from one another in this way
-lasted into the Middle Ages (see V. le Duc’s _Dict._, “Maison”) and, of
-course, occasionally to modern times. By this means party walls and
-difficult roof gutters are avoided. From the two parallel walls we are
-justified in inferring a row of houses—possibly shops—and a street
-running to the west of them; moreover, the example suggests to some
-extent what continuous streets of houses must have been like. In
-Southwark a passage-way between houses was found 3 ft. 8 in. wide. A
-wall with tile paving against the outside, found under the Mansion
-House, suggests a similar passage.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 28.
-]
-
-It has been mentioned above how in several cases, as is clear even from
-our imperfect records, that later walls were founded directly on Roman
-walls. Modern buildings were thus in direct and unbroken succession to
-Roman ones and maintained the same alignment. In the Archer collection
-at the British Museum is a drawing of “a Roman pavement and foundations,
-supposed to be remains of Tower Royal” in Cannon Street; this again was
-square with modern work. Roman remains have been found under several
-churches. Massive walls of chalk were found under St. Benet’s,
-Gracechurch. Roach Smith, speaking of a floor found at the corner of
-Clement’s Lane, says: “This adds another to the numerous instances of
-churches in London standing on foundations of Roman buildings.” In 1724
-Roman foundations were found under St. Mary, Woolnoth, and “three
-foundations of churches in the same place” (_Minutes Soc. Ant._, June
-17). Even Westminster Abbey and St. Martin’s in the Fields were built on
-Roman sites, and so probably was St. Andrew’s, Holborn.
-
-This continuity of the buildings from the Roman Age is not only an
-interesting fact, but it is a strong argument for the general continuity
-of the street lines as well. The plan of the extensive finds in and
-about Lombard Street in 1785 shows the building to have conformed very
-much to lines parallel with, and at right angles to St. Swithin,
-Sherborne, Abchurch, Nicholas, Birchin and Clement’s Lanes, and I cannot
-doubt that these lanes are in some degree the successors of Roman
-streets. In “Lombard Street and Birchin Lane the discoveries are said to
-have indicated a row of houses” (_V.C.H._). If all the evidence as to
-the “orientation” of buildings and walls was laid down on a plan, merely
-marking the direction of the minor ones with a cross, we might build up
-further results in regard to the direction of the streets. At the same
-time it would be vain to expect any large and simple scheme of lay-out
-of the chess-board type, the Walbrook and other streams, and probably
-the persistence of some earlier lines (Watling Street to St. Albans?)
-would have interfered with that. The Walbrook seems to have been crossed
-by two chief bridges, which must have been governing facts in the
-lay-out. One was at Bucklersbury, the other, Horseshoe Bridge farther
-south, is recorded from the thirteenth century. Cannon Street, I cannot
-doubt, represents one east to west street. Thames Street must have been
-formed when the south City Wall was built. I have spoken of the
-north-south lines above. Saint Benet “Gerschereche” is mentioned in a
-charter of 1053 (_Athen._, February 3, 1906).
-
-Wren found a “causeway” made up of stones and tiles by Bow Church (under
-the present tower). It is suggested in _V.C.H._ that this was an
-embankment, but _causeway_ was one of the regular names for a Roman
-road. At Rochester one 5 ft. or 6 ft. thick of hard stuff has been found
-crossing some soft ground.
-
-The best way now to see again the old Roman City of London is to go to
-the foot of the hill below St. Magnus the Martyr and then, turning away
-from the riverside quays of the seaport, to walk up the street which
-still retains something of the look of a High Street in an old market
-town. Behind it we may still discern the ghost of the Roman Axis Street.
-Right and left are narrow streets with red plastered houses separated by
-little “drangways.” Here at a corner is a small temple with a dedication
-to the deified emperor. There is the great City Bath. Farther on is the
-civic centre, the market-place and hall; one, a square piazza containing
-imperial statues in gilt bronze, and the other a big building having
-internal ranks of tall Corinthian columns, a wide apse, and an open
-timber roof—sombre but noble. Round about are many isolated and
-widespreading mansions, one doubtless being the palace of the Governor
-of the province. Beyond are the walls and gates which will be next
-described, and in the background rise the northern heaths and wooded
-hills now called Hampstead and Highgate.
-
-             “On alien ground, breathing an alien air,
-               A Roman stood, far from his ancient home,
-              And gazing, murmured, ‘Ah, the hills are fair,
-               But not the hills of Rome.’”
-                                          MARY E. COLERIDGE.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                             +CHAPTER III+
-
-                        WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE
-
-    “Gem of all Joy and Jasper of Jocundity, Strong be thy walls that
-    about thee stand; London, thou art the flower of cities all.”
-
-                                                         WILLIAM DUNBAR.
-
-
-THE walls, gates and bastions of the City may be traced by the record of
-early maps such as that of Braun and Hogenberg. The bastions of the east
-side are particularly shown on a plan of Holy Trinity Priory made in the
-sixteenth century; the west side from Ludgate to Cripplegate plainly
-appears in Hollar’s plan after the fire, 1667. There were two bastions
-between Ludgate and Newgate, then an angle bastion to the north; three
-more on the straight length to Aldersgate, then one beyond that gate at
-the angle where the wall turned north again; two bastions occurred
-between this angle and the bastion at the corner where the wall again
-turned east, which now exists in Cripplegate Churchyard.
-
-Several of the gates stood until 1760. In an old MS. book of notes I
-find under the heading “Remarkable Transactions in ye Mayoralty of Sir
-J. Chitty.”—“In July, ye gates of Aldgate, Cripplegate and Ludgate were
-sold by public auction in ye council chamber, Guildhall, and were
-accordingly taken down without obstructing either ye foot or cartway,
-and their sites laid into ye streets. Aldgate for £157, 10s.;
-Cripplegate, £93; and Ludgate for £148.” Many old drawings of parts of
-the wall are preserved in the Crace, the Archer and other collections.
-The exact line of the wall and positions of the bastions has been
-verified by modern excavations and discoveries. For full description and
-a plan, see the _Victoria County History_ and _Archæologia_, lxii.
-(1912). A good description of what was visible in 1855 is given in _The
-Builder_ for that year.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 29. See p. 61.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 30.
-]
-
-In September 1903 an important section of the Roman wall was found in
-excavating the site of Newgate Prison; in some parts it was about a
-dozen feet high. I saw it in October and noted—“The wall is about 8½ ft.
-wide. On the outside and inside one or two courses of facing stones were
-first raised and the core of rubble was then filled in to that height;
-first there was a thick couch of mortar, then a layer of rubble stones,
-then another liberal supply of mortar running down between the stones as
-grout; there were two or three such levellings-up in the heights between
-the tile bonding courses.” The wall had a rough rubble foundation, then
-a course of plinth stones on the outside, with three tile courses
-corresponding to it on the inside of the wall, then followed five
-courses of the fairly square facing stones on both sides of the wall,
-then two rows of tile, five courses more stone and two rows of tile,
-then five more stone courses; above this level the wall had been
-destroyed. The stones and tiles were set in mortar, and the latter,
-except for the three courses at the bottom on the inside, which served
-as a plinth, were carried right through the thickness of the wall; the
-“tiles” were Roman bricks about 18 in. by 12 in. and 1½ in. thick, laid
-in what we call Flemish bond. The stone facing courses were a little
-higher at the bottom than upwards, but all were comparatively small and
-square; there was a clear distinction between the wrought facings and
-the rubble filling, which was practically concrete. The “facings” were
-hard skins adhering to the filling and required by the method of
-building as described above (Fig. 30).
-
-The mode of construction of the wall is likely to be misunderstood when
-we speak as we almost necessarily do of facings and filling and of bond
-tiles. The “facing” stones were small, roughly wrought, and set in much
-mortar; they formed outer skins to the concreted mass into which they
-tailed back. The whole was homogeneous. The method was analogous to the
-facing of concrete with triangular bricks notching back into the core.
-
-The tile courses in the City Wall were doubtless bonds, but they also
-divided the wall into strata locking up the moisture of the mortar from
-too rapid absorption and evaporation. I have little doubt that the wall
-was carried up a stratum at a time over long lengths; it would thus have
-been available as a defence from an early stage, and scaffolding would
-not have been required. The building of this wall and casting the ditch
-about it required a great constructive effort. A strip of ground some
-100 feet wide must have been cleared as a preliminary. Then the immense
-quantity of stone required would have been brought by ships and barges.
-It is often said that old material was not re-used in the wall, but I
-can hardly think that two miles of chamfered plinth had to be provided
-out of new stone at the very beginning of the work. And material from
-destroyed monuments was doubtless broken up for the small facing stones.
-The lime-burning, brick-making, stone-cutting, as well as the actual
-building, called for much labour. It would be interesting to have the
-quantities taken out and an estimate prepared.
-
-The south wall along the river front is well described in _V.C.H._ Roach
-Smith, in an article in vol. i. of the _Archæological Journal_, recorded
-the fact that it had “alternate layers of red and yellow plain and
-curve-edged (_i.e._ flanged) tiles”; the rest being of ragstone and
-flint. It was founded on piles. In _The Builder_ (January 19, 1912) it
-is recorded that in digging for a foundation at No. 125 Lower Thames
-Street, between Fish Street Hill and Pudding Lane, there was found the
-base of the Roman wall resting upon long and thick timber balks laid
-crosswise, with piles beneath them; there were three courses of rough
-rag and sandstone capped with two courses of yellow bonding tiles, all
-in reddish mortar; what remained was about 3 ft. high and 10 ft. wide,
-and was at 24 ft. below the existing pavement. Full evidence of the
-course of the City Wall along the river front has been found (_Archæol._
-xliii.). It may be noticed that in mediæval regulations foreign sailors
-might not go beyond Thames Street; that is, pass where the wall had
-been, into the City proper. This south wall, like the bastions,
-contained remnants of Roman monuments.
-
-The south wall would have been interrupted at the outlet of the
-Walbrook, which must have been a tidal creek. This was doubtless the
-original harbour, and there would have been quays within the line of the
-wall. Daremberg and Saglio’s plan of Bordeaux shows a remarkable
-parallel to Londinium, standing on the bank of a great river, flanked by
-a little stream and with a port within the walls (Fig. 29). It seems
-probable that the strong wall which Roach Smith reports as having been
-found on the east side of the Walbrook may have been a quay wall. The
-Thames has been much encroached on where it passes the City. In making
-the approach to new London Bridge three successive embankments were
-found, one being of squared trunks of trees. A similar timber wall has
-just been found in Miles Lane. In Lower Thames Street the Roman house
-found on its north side was built on piles, “probably on the river bank”
-(_Athen._, 1848), and the south City Wall was wholly built on timbering.
-In earlier Londinium, Cannon Street must have been the southern
-thoroughfare.
-
-_Bastions._—In July 1909, when the angle bastion near Giltspur Street
-was excavated, I noted that close to it the City Wall was badly
-fractured, and inclined outwards; there had evidently been a serious
-settlement here, which was sufficiently accounted for by the nature of
-the ground—wet clay on the bank of a stream. The wall was taken lower
-than the ordinary level here, and the bastion was founded at a lower
-level still. The bastion was not bonded to the City Wall, but merely
-built against it with a straight joint; it was of horseshoe shape on
-plan and projected about 27 ft., the masonry was rubble in thin courses,
-and the whole looked mediæval to me. In the careful report in
-_Archæologia_ it was said that some evidence for Roman date was
-discovered in the foundation. The facts suggested to me not only that
-the bastion had been built against the wall, but that it was probably
-built at a point of failure in the original wall. It is agreed that the
-bastions were built later than the wall, and with a straight joint
-between them and it, and I would suggest that they were built to cover
-cracks and form buttresses as well as for their additional defensive
-value, and this may very well have been the general procedure. It would
-have been impossible to build a wall measured by miles on inferior
-foundations without bad settlements; the Egyptians provided for them by
-building such walls in sections with inclined straight joints at
-intervals.
-
-M. Blanchet, writing of the walls of the cities of Gaul, says: “Often
-the curtains are not bonded with the towers. This independence reminds
-one of a precept of Philo’s, which advises that the method should be
-followed so as to prevent the consequences of unequal settlement between
-the two. But there is a more simple explanation—the town under immediate
-danger ensures itself first with the curtain and adds the towers after.
-Most of the fortifications are those which the Romans built on the
-approach of the Barbarian invasions. To this period belong the walls of
-Rome and those of the cities of Gaul.” Choisy again has an interesting
-account of the towers of the walls of Constantinople, with a diagram of
-arches in the sides of the towers at the ground level, which were built
-so that the effective part of their foundations should be kept clear of
-the wall. Now, the foundations of the London bastions provide evidence
-of a similar way of thinking.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 31.
-]
-
-In Fig. 31 I give a sketch of this angle bastion made on July 5, 1909.
-Here is seen the City Wall curving round from the north to the west, and
-against it the bastion. The Roman wall was badly cracked and leaning
-outward (A); in the corner by the bastion the plinth and the foundation
-are seen, and below a sloping bank of wet clay (C), and farther out
-water (W). The bastion was built of rubble, and was hollow to the base;
-the form was different below and above (see B). In the sketch the tile
-courses are seen going through the thickness of the wall.
-
-The bastions which have been most carefully examined are those on the
-site of the General Post Office, described in _Archæologia_, lxiii.
-(1912). One is said to have been built in “the usual manner of random
-rubble”; it was separate from the City Wall, and the foundation was
-deeper than that of the wall. A second was built in a very soft spot.
-“Why it should have been selected is not easy to see, as at a little
-distance either way the builders could have found firm soil.” Its site
-was an old stream bed, and the conditions might well be the cause of a
-settlement at the point. This, as suggested above, may have been the
-reason the bastion was erected just here. (For the bastion by Giltspur
-Street, see _S. A. Proceedings_, 2 S. xxii. 476.)
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 32.
-]
-
-Nothing very definitely Roman was found in these bastions, but one at
-All Hallows was certainly Roman. This is described as (I condense)
-“built of stonework which, like the rest, so far as they have been
-observed, is of random rubble, built principally of irregular pieces and
-ragstone with portions of Roman tile (none complete) and other material;
-much of it appears to have done duty in some previous building. A base
-was formed of large square stones a uniform height of 2 ft.; they had
-been employed in some former building; several had lewis holes. This
-base rested on a table of large flat stones 9 in. thick. Most of these
-seem to have been portions of a cornice. Roman origin was shown by red
-mortar in which the joints had been set.” The foundation was about 3 ft.
-below that of the City Wall, and projected into the original Roman
-ditch. What is called the “table” above was a square-fronted lower base;
-the back of this base was set in advance of the City Wall; indeed, it
-was 3 ft. in front of it on the eastern side and “the gravel in this
-intervening space was undisturbed.” This gap is specially to be noted.
-The description of the masonry as random rubble must apply mainly to the
-core of the work, for the illustrations show an approximation to courses
-on the face; indeed, on the east side, thirteen courses may be counted
-in the photograph up to a line which seems to be the top of a sloping
-plinth; these courses averaged about 4½ in. high. The full significance
-of this account is only brought out on comparing it with Price’s
-description of what was found in excavating the Camomile Street bastion.
-This bastion was founded on two deep courses of heavy stones taken from
-Roman buildings, many sculptured, and having lewis holes in them. These
-masonry courses were set 1½ ft. in advance of the City Wall, one over
-the other, forming a straight joint, and leaving a gap “separated from
-the wall by an intervening space filled with rubble” (Price) which was
-filled with small stones. This curious and carefully-arranged
-construction in both bastions was clearly with the object of making the
-foundations of the bastions take their bearings away from the wall so
-that they would tend to lean inwards against the wall; it is analogous
-to the arches of the Constantinople towers. This bastion had a batter or
-slope at the bottom of about 4 ft. high. Price describes the masonry as
-“rag rubble walling faced with random courses. The size of the blocks of
-which the facing was composed varied from 3 in. to 8½ in. thick [high]
-and from 5 in. to 14 in. long.” This account is supported by the
-carefully-executed illustrations which show coursed facings of small
-stones which seem almost identical with the facings of the City Wall.
-Such masonry of small facing “blocks” with concreted rubble behind is
-certainly Roman. The masonry at the All Hallows bastion seems to have
-approximated to the same character; there it may be noticed the courses
-became narrower upwards. This was certainly not so regular as the
-masonry of the City Wall, but it may be said to have resembled it (Fig.
-32).
-
-At the Guildhall Museum is “a group of architectural remains and
-fragments of sculptured stones from tombs, public buildings, etc., found
-in a bastion of London Wall, Duke Street, Aldgate, 1881.” This find is
-best described in _The Athenæum_ for that year. Mr. Watkins, while
-excavating in Houndsditch and Duke Street, found the City Wall and a
-mass of masonry extending 18 ft. outward from the wall; the stones were
-dressed and weighed from 1 cwt. to 1½ tons. “In the structure he
-observed a channel 15 in. deep by 18 in. wide, which showed signs of use
-as a watercourse. It had been filled with concrete composed of chalk and
-flints. The site was the foundation of one of the bastions composed of
-sculptured stones in character similar to those previously recorded,
-upwards of twenty in number.” This was the second bastion east of
-Bishopsgate. The channel filled with concrete suggests a gap dividing
-the bastion from the City Wall as already described; but see also
-account in _V.C.H._
-
-In 1887 Mr. Loftus Brock reported to the British Archæological
-Association the removal of part of the City Wall on the east side of
-Wormwood Street. Nearly opposite Bevis Marks Synagogue the foundation of
-a circular-fronted bastion was found of worked freestones and not bonded
-into the main wall (_The Builder_, May 28, 1887). A paper by J. E. Price
-in 1884 (London and Middlesex Archæol. Soc.) referred to the discovery
-of a bastion containing several sculptured stones in St. Mary Axe (_The
-Builder_, November 22, 1884, and compare _V.C.H._).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 33.
-]
-
-In 1852 an excavation was made against the outside of the City Wall on
-Tower Hill, and a number of large wrought and carved stones were found
-(_The Builder_, September 4, 1852) (Fig. 33). In an account given in the
-_Journal of the British Archæological Association_ the workmen are said
-to have discovered a “complete quarry of stones cut in various forms and
-evidently belonging to some important building ... 125 making 40 cart
-loads.” Fairholt made an etching of the place while the work was in
-progress, which shows that the “quarry” was heaped against the external
-face of the wall like the bases of the other bastions, and that, in
-fact, it was a ruined bastion Fig. 34 from Roach Smith’s _Roman London_,
-slightly modified). Another account is given in the Antiquarian Etching
-Club by A. H. Burkitt, with a plate: “These interesting remains were
-discovered during the excavations in June 1852, which laid bare the wall
-to its base. The various portions of stone, which amounted to about
-forty cart loads, bear evidence of having belonged to an important
-building. The inscription and band of laurel leaves, which probably
-formed an ornament above it, indicate a monument of considerable
-magnitude to the memory of a commander of the Roman Navy. There were
-found at the same time fragments of frescoes with inscriptions.” (In
-Fig. 33 the fragment with laurel leaves is represented upside down.)
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 34.
-]
-
-The two stones specially mentioned are now in the British Museum. It
-appears from the accounts and illustrations that this bastion was built
-against the wall without being bonded to it in the lower part, that its
-foundation was formed of large carved and moulded stones, and was at a
-lower level than that of the wall. (The part below the plinth in Fig. 34
-on the left is rough foundation.)
-
-We thus have clear record that several of the bastions on the east and
-north sides of the City were constructed in a similar way. Those farther
-west near the Post Office were probably rebuilt in mediæval times. These
-were hollow at the base, not solid like the others.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 35.
-]
-
-The towers of the city wall of Carcassone, described by Viollet le Duc
-(_Dict._, vol. i.), were so similar in construction that it is plain our
-bastions were constructed according to general custom. In the
-illustration we see big stones at the base of the bastion only; large
-window-like openings closed with woodwork above; and an upper storey
-rising higher than the wall top. Fig. 35 is a suggested restoration of
-one of the London bastions, showing the foundation gap A, and an upper
-storey overlapping the City Wall.
-
-It is probable that most, or all, of the bastions from Tower Hill to
-Cripplegate were built in the same way as those just described, and
-there is evidence to suggest that the western bastions were also
-similar. In 1806 fragments of Roman monuments were found near Ludgate;
-“these may have come from a later Roman gate or from the adjoining
-bastion” (_V.C.H._). Allen says: “At the back of the London
-Coffee-house, Ludgate Hill, a circular tower and staircase was
-discovered; and about 3 ft. below the pavement some remains of Roman art
-were found.” An etching of the stones published by T. Fisher in 1807
-describes them as “dug out of the foundations of the wall of the City, a
-few yards north of Ludgate.” Archer, speaking of an inscribed pedestal,
-says it was found “in extending the premises at the back of the London
-Coffee-house. It appeared in a bastion of the City Wall, and was built
-in with the masonry near some remains of a circular staircase” (_Illust.
-Family Jour._, _c._ 1850). Now, Horwood’s plan of 1799 shows the back of
-the Coffee-house adjoining the line of the old wall and extending a long
-way north—apparently much more than sufficient to overlap the bastion
-numbered 55 on Mr. Reader’s plan. The Post Office excavations recently
-made down Ludgate Hill show that the natural ground is here only about
-10 ft. below the modern level.
-
-The Camomile Street and All Hallows bastions were about 20 ft. wide and
-projected about 16 ft. In mediæval days the bastions rose above the
-parapet walk on the main wall, and each formed a round-ended chamber
-having loopholes. This is well shown on the Survey of Holy Trinity,
-Aldgate, 1592, which I published about 1900 in _Middlesex Notes and
-Queries_. (Several round-fronted bastions are planned as well as Aldgate
-itself.) The mediæval arrangement, I have no doubt, followed the Roman
-scheme. The openings in the original bastions would, we may suppose,
-have been wider than mediæval loops, and have had semicircular arches of
-brick over them. (See Viollet le Duc’s _Dictionary_, vol. i. p. 333.)
-The walls and bastions which still exist at Le Mans and Senlis more
-closely resemble those of Londinium than any others I have seen. At Le
-Mans a long portion fronting, but some way back from the river Sarthe,
-has three bastions 60 yds. to 70 yds. apart, round on the front about 20
-ft. wide, and 15 in. or 16 in. projection. The curtain is about 30 ft.
-high, and the bastions rise higher—say, to 45 ft.; they rise sloping for
-some way from the ground (Fig. 36). The bastions at Senlis are very
-similar, but some of these have two storeys of large openings, three in
-each.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 36.
-]
-
-For a long time it was argued that the bastions of the Wall of London
-were mediæval; then very considerable difference of construction from
-the City Wall has been alleged. It has been said that their masonry was
-unlike the other, and that there were no tile bands. We only know with
-any certainty the lower parts of the bastions now recognised as Roman,
-and there is no reason for asserting that there were no tile bands in
-the upper parts. The bastion illustrated by Roach Smith from a sketch by
-Gough had bands of brick, but in the illustration this bastion appears
-as square, and this is unlikely (see _Archæol._ lxiii.). It is possible,
-however, that the form is a misreading of a rough sketch. This, I think,
-is more likely than the suggestion in _V.C.H._ that it was mediæval. An
-illustration of a round-fronted bastion near Falcon Square given by
-Thornbury (_Old and New London_), shows two bands of tile. This seems to
-be bastion 40 of _V.C.H._, which was about 40 ft. high; “in the upper
-part was a row of tile-brick, probably due to later patching.” There are
-also some other references to tiles in bastions, and on the whole I
-conclude that they probably had tile bands more or less like the wall.
-Both the bastion just mentioned and that of Gough’s sketch had openings
-below the upper storey, showing that in these bastions there were
-chambers below the level of the parapet. So there must have been at Le
-Mans (Fig. 36) and Senlis. Compare also V. le Duc’s _Dictionary_, vol.
-i. p. 333.
-
-In an article on the City Walls in the _Journal of the London Society_
-(November 1922), Dr. Norman says: “Last summer the remains of another
-bastion were laid bare not far from the west end of the Church of St.
-Anne and St. Agnes.” This was “the inner angle bastion” near Aldersgate.
-
-It is not exactly known when the City was protected by walls. Stow says:
-“It seemeth not to have been walled in the year of our Lord 296, because
-in that year the Franks easily entered London.” He accepted the legend
-that “Helen, the mother of Constantine, first enwalled this City.”
-Camden held the same view, and has a note: “Coins of Helena often found
-under the walls.”
-
-It is now agreed that the walls were built around a late and extended
-city, for rubbish pits and burials have been found within the walls. A
-belt of the former occupied the site of St. Paul’s and the Post Office.
-It was Roach Smith’s impression that the walls were probably built
-“after the recovery of the province by Constantine, or even later, when
-Theodosius restored the towns” (_Archæol. Jour._, 1844).
-
-Mr. Lambert, from planning the find-spots of Roman coins, comes to the
-conclusion that the wall was not in its later position until the fourth
-century. The type of walling is especially characteristic of the fourth
-century. Haverfield has pointed out some earlier cases of the use of
-bonding tiles, but these seem to be exceptional. (See also what is said
-of Colchester in _J.R.S._, 1919.) Daremberg and Saglio give 309 as the
-date of the earliest wall of our kind in Rome. (They illustrate an
-example from Timgad, in North Africa, which closely resembles the wall
-of London.) I suggest that a point of evidence may be found in the
-Constantinian coin, which has a city gate or fortification for device,
-and the inscription PROVIDENTIAE CAESS, with the mint mark of London
-(Fig. 37). This device was not invented for London, but I cannot think
-that at such a time it could have been adopted if Londinium still
-remained an open city—it would have invited too obvious irony after what
-had happened in 296. This coin was issued between 320 and 324, and I
-suggest that it may be accepted as a record of the walling of the City,
-or, perhaps more probably, the beginning of the works. The coins of
-Helen mentioned by Camden were issued about this time. In the later half
-of the fourth-century London acquired the title of Augusta, and this
-change of style probably followed on the change of status of its having
-then been completely walled. (I find that Mr. Reg. Smith has already
-made this same suggestion in _V.C.H._) Sir Arthur Evans has recently
-called attention to a silver coin of Valentinian the Elder as having in
-an abbreviated form the monetary stamp of _Londinensis Augusta_. “A
-group of coins shows that the Mint at London, which had been closed
-since the time of Constantine, was restored by Valentinian in A.D. 368”
-(_Proceedings, S. A._, 1915, p. 105). I suggest that this is a probable
-date for the completion of the river wall. Several of the cities of Gaul
-were protected by walls at a still later time.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 37.
-]
-
-Many of the carved fragments found in the bastions can be little earlier
-than the year A.D. 300. The important monuments of which remnants have
-been found must have been destroyed when the long, wide strip required
-for the original wall and its ditch was cleared, for the bastions
-themselves did not go beyond this ground. It seems possible that the big
-stones were reserved for founding bastions; this is more likely than
-that distant monuments were destroyed to provide foundation stones.
-
-“To put an end to incessant pillage the Gallo-Roman towns sacrificed
-their faubourgs, and, retrenching their extent, surrounded themselves
-with strong walls, which were very often supported on sculptured blocks
-taken from destroyed edifices. Le Mans, like the towns of Senlis, Tours,
-Autun, Bourges, Fréjus, etc., girded itself with ramparts flanked with
-round-fronted towers, of which important remains still exist, especially
-along the river Sarthe. The _enceinte_ of Le Mans enclosed an area about
-500 by 200 metres” (A. Ledru, 1900).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 38.
-]
-
-_Gates._—The excavations of 1903 at the Old Bailey revealed some
-remnants of the Roman gate on the site of Newgate. The most significant
-of these was a portion of plinth on the City side, with a return at the
-south end. This, as shown in _Archæologia_, lix., by Dr. P. Norman, when
-linked up with earlier discoveries made in 1875, allowed of the recovery
-of the plan of the gate (Fig. 38). The plinth had been removed from its
-place before I saw it, but the stones were certainly shaped in Roman
-days; they had a chamfer 8 in. wide, with a square face of similar width
-below, and they had been strongly cramped together; one had a “return
-end,” and clearly came from a corner (A and B). A portion of the western
-plinth was discovered in 1909 (_Archæol._ lxiii.). The gate, with its
-towers on either side, had a frontage of about 96 ft.—probably 100 Roman
-feet, as a Roman foot was about 11·60 in. The space between the towers
-appears to have been about 35 ft., which is not more than sufficient for
-two large archways. The great gate at Colchester, which was about 107
-ft. wide, had two carriage-ways 17 ft. wide, and two small side openings
-6 ft. wide as well (see _J.R.S._, 1919). Enough of the walling was found
-in 1875 to show that the London gate was of stone bonded with tiles; it
-was erected on a thick platform of “clay and ragstone,” which raised the
-plinth about 5 ft. above the plinth of the adjoining City Wall. Fig. 39
-is a restoration of the front.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 39.
-]
-
-Several years ago a mass of masonry with a face to the south was found
-under Bishopsgate Street a little within the line of the wall;
-underlying it was “puddling of flint and clay” over a wide area. It was
-suggested at the time (_Archæeol._ lx. p. 58) that this masonry and
-foundation might have belonged to Roman Bishopsgate, and the finding of
-what seems to have been a similar platform at Newgate strengthens the
-hypothesis. It had long ago been pointed out by T. Wright that the gate
-at Lymne was raised on a platform of big stones. At Lymne and Pevensey
-entrance gates had round-fronted towers, and the great gate at
-Colchester had quadrants.
-
-Mediæval Aldgate had two round-fronted towers; these are shown in the
-Survey of Holy Trinity Priory mentioned above, and they are so similar
-to the bastions of the wall that I was led to suggest that the double
-gateway and towers were probably substantially Roman work (Fig. 40).
-Some confirmation of this is given in _V.C.H._, but compare
-_Archæologia_, xliii. Fitzstephen, writing at the end of the twelfth
-century, says that London had “double gates,” and this was doubtless so
-from Roman days.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 40.
-]
-
-The Roman ditch outside Aldersgate, with a foundation for a bridge
-pointing towards the gate, was found about thirty years ago, and this is
-evidence for a Roman gate on this site (_Archæol._ lii.). Ludgate is
-guaranteed as Roman by the antiquity of the Strand and Fleet Street.
-Stow says that in 1595 he observed on the north side of Fleet Street
-from Chancery Lane to St. Dunstan’s Church, 4 ft. below the surface, “a
-pavement of hard stone, more sufficient than the first, under which they
-found in the made ground piles of timber almost close together, the same
-being black as pitch and rotten, which proved that the ground there, as
-sundry other places of the City, had been a marsh.” Close piling was
-such a common Roman procedure that it may not be doubted that what Stow
-observed was the Roman road to Ludgate.
-
-Mediæval Aldgate can be restored very fully by comparing the plan
-mentioned above with the view of the City given by Braun and Hogenberg
-(_c._ 1550). The gate is so accurately represented that two stair
-turrets appear over the positions where stairs are shown in the plan. If
-this gate is so accurately drawn, then the other indications may be
-accepted. In the Pepys collection, Cambridge, is an engraved view of a
-gate dated 1688; in the list of contents this is described as
-Cripplegate, but I believe it is rather Bishopsgate. It was an unaltered
-mediæval structure, with corbelled battlements and three statues in
-niches, one on each of the towers and one in the centre. Newgate is also
-represented in a woodcut view of about the same time, and in an
-engraving of considerable accuracy, from a book entitled _Herba
-Parietis_; here even Whittington’s coat-of-arms plainly appears. For a
-possible view of the Bridge gate, _c._ 1416, see an article by Mr. Weale
-in the _Burlington Magazine_, 1904.
-
-A Roman road on piles has recently been found in Southwark (_Archæol._
-lxiii.). Adding the Bridge gate, we now have evidence for the existence
-in Roman days of the six chief gates of Londinium. It has been suggested
-that there may have been an earth bank inside the walls, as at
-Silchester, but the different relation of the fronts of the gates to the
-walls in London are contrary arguments.
-
-_Ditches._—When the site of Newgate was excavated I saw the slope of the
-ditch clearly defined by the blacker earth lying above the clean yellow
-gravel. The latest and clearest account of the ditches is in
-_Archæologia_, lxiii. There was first a narrow V-shaped ditch dug when
-the wall was first built. A second wider ditch was excavated outside the
-other, which was at least partly filled when the bastions were built.
-There were similar double ditches at Silchester, and it has been pointed
-out that there the earlier V-shaped ditch probably supplied the gravel
-for building the wall; possibly this was the case at London too. The
-wide ditch was probably further expanded in front of the gates; it was
-about 75 ft. wide at the top of the bank outside Aldersgate.
-
-_The Original Port of London and the Bridge._—The space within the
-completed walls has been computed to have been about 330 acres by Dr.
-Philip Norman. Dr. Haverfield says: “At London, Silchester, Trier,
-Cologne, the walls seem to have enclosed the town at near its largest”
-(_Romanization_). Roach Smith first remarked that from the position of
-burials within the area of the City we might infer the position of an
-earlier Londinium. Loftus Brock also, following Woodward, in pointing
-out that the northern cemetery had come within the space enclosed by the
-City Wall at Bishopsgate, used the same argument. Mr. Reginald Smith
-plotted all the known burials on a plan. Mr. Lambert has also laid down
-the find spots of coins of different dates. In his recent paper in
-_Archæology_ he suggests that a stratum of charred material between
-London Bridge and the Walbrook represents the early Londinium destroyed
-by Boadicea. A large number of rubbish pits have been found within the
-walls. Putting these facts together it is evident that the original site
-of Londinium must have been by the inlet of the Walbrook, and it is
-probable that this little tidal creek was the first port of London—the
-seaport of Celtic Verulam, to which an old road led by Aldersgate and
-Islington. It is likely that before the Roman walls were built some
-defensive bank would have been thrown up between the Fleet and the
-Walbrook; compare the earth banks at Colchester. Can Barbican represent
-such a defence?
-
-London Bridge is mentioned in the tenth century. Stow tells us that it
-was first of timber. Then in 1067 a charter speaks of “Botolph’s Gate,
-with a wharf which was at the head of London Bridge.” He goes on: “About
-the year 1176 the stone bridge was begun near unto the bridge of timber,
-but towards the west, for Botolph’s wharf was, in the Conqueror’s time,
-at the head of London Bridge.”
-
-Nothing was known of a Roman bridge until last century. Then when the
-old stone bridge was destroyed evidence was found which convinced
-observers of the time that a Roman bridge had preceded it on the same
-line. Recently some writers, while accepting the Roman bridge as proved,
-have preferred to put it back to Stow’s line. Haverfield says: “No
-traces of a Roman bridge have yet been found (_Archæologia_, lx.): the
-oldest mediæval bridge (eleventh century) is said by Stow to have been
-near Botolph’s wharf (see plan).” This plan shows the bridge “temp.
-William the Conqueror” far to the east of Fish Street Hill (see also
-_V.C.H._). Exactly what Haverfield meant by saying that no traces of the
-bridge had been found is hard to say; it seems to have been as loose a
-statement as the one which seems to imply that the earliest mediæval
-bridge was of the eleventh century.
-
-Roach Smith, a cautious observer, was entirely convinced by the evidence
-that the mediæval bridge followed the course of the Roman bridge.
-“Throughout the line of the old bridge many thousands of Roman coins,
-with abundance of Roman pottery, were discovered, and beneath some of
-the central piles brass medallions of Aurelius, Faustina and Commodus.
-The enormous quantity of Roman coins may be accounted for by the
-practice of the Romans ... they may have been deposited upon the
-building or repairs of the bridge, as well as upon the accession of a
-new emperor.... The beautiful works of art which were discovered
-alongside the foundations, the colossal bronze head of Hadrian, the
-bronze images of Apollo, Mercury, Atys ... and other relics were
-possibly thrown into the river by early Christians” (_Archæol. Jour._,
-vol. i.). This seems substantial evidence. The charter cited by Stow
-only speaks of a wharf as being at the head of London Bridge; it does
-not tell us that the bridge ran into the middle of the wharf. The Roman
-bridge was linked up with an approach from the south over a raised
-causeway; the bridge-ends would have required much consolidation, and
-the foundations in the great tidal river must have been extremely
-difficult to construct. We should need very clear demonstration before
-we could believe that the early Saxons did more than patch up the work
-of skilled Roman engineers. Altering of the bridge to the Gracechurch
-Street line on the City side in 1176 would have meant replanning on a
-big scale. The ancient line of approach on the south side is guaranteed
-by the area of Roman finds (see _V.C.H._ plan). Gracechurch Street is
-known to have existed before the Conquest, and the positions of the
-ancient churches of St. Magnus’s and St. Olaf’s at each end of the
-bridge are significant: the bridge, I believe, was in the parishes of
-these two churches.
-
-Much more might be said, but I cannot think it is necessary. I conclude
-that the Roman bridge followed the line between the “Borough” and
-Gracechurch Street, and that the phrase in the charter was nothing more
-than a general indication of the position of the wharf.
-
-After the building of the Roman bridge, Billingsgate may have succeeded
-the Walbrook creek as the chief port of London.
-
-One of the sights of Londinium which may best be imagined is the
-approach over the bridge. Or we may think of the ring of turreted walls
-of the City by the river as seen from the northern heights. Or, again,
-we may think of the sights from the walk on the City Walls; the Kent
-hills beyond the Thames estuary, with ships coming up to make fast at
-Dowgate; then, turning to look inward over the City, we may imagine the
-narrow streets and plastered, red-tiled, houses. It must have been grim
-and grey when the roofs were covered with snow, and we may wonder what
-dwellers from the south thought of our fogs. Yet Londinium was a
-romantic city, a little Rome in the west, and we want some good story
-about it which shall bring it out of archæology into the minds of the
-citizens and the hearts of the children.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FROM A CARVING ON AN ALTAR AT RISINGHAM.
-]
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER IV+
-
-                          CEMETERIES AND TOMBS
-
-    “O more than mortal man that did this town begin, Whose knowledge
-    found the plot so fit to set it in. Built on a rising bank within a
-    vale to stand, And for thy healthful soil chose gravel mixed with
-    sand.”
-
-                                                 DRAYTON’S _Polyolbion_.
-
-
-                               CEMETERIES
-
-THE site of London by a noble tidal river, or rather at the head of a
-long estuary, on clean gravel ground intersected with streams, was well
-chosen. The ground was open heath with scrubby vegetation, except for
-woods here and there where the soil was suitable. Sir Thomas More
-planned his “Utopia” on a site similar to that of London. The buildings
-of London have spoilt an excellent golf course! The walled city set down
-in the fair land must have been beautiful indeed, as seen from the
-Hampstead or Surrey hills. On approaching the turreted walls by the
-straight and narrow roads, the traveller would have had to pass through
-a wide belt of cemeteries. Around Londinium in its later state, the
-gardens of the dead would have come right up to the city ditch, just as
-at Constantinople the beautiful Turkish cemeteries, with their noble
-cypresses, lie close beside the walls of the city.
-
-“Around Rome was a great belt of cemeteries; the sides of the main roads
-issuing from the gates were especially favoured sites; the chief region
-of all was that crossed by the Via Appia and Via Latina” (Lanciani).
-
-“An immense field of the dead had extended all along the north-eastern
-quarter of ancient London, from Wapping Marsh to the fen beyond
-Moorfields” (C. Knight).
-
-Goodman’s Fields, Moorfields, Spitalfields, were all cemeteries, and it
-is curious that they all have in common the name of fields. In the
-valley of the Fleet River by Ludgate and Blackfriars on the west were
-also cemeteries; and others lay beyond Southwark (Battersea Fields and
-St. George’s Fields?). The city of the dead must have been impressive on
-account of its extent and the number of its population, and doubtless it
-was beautiful. The harsh horror of modern cemeteries is a new thing on
-the earth. In antiquity, cemeteries had beauty, poetry, history.
-
-The monuments of Londinium would have been of many kinds, small and
-big—columns, sculptures, mausolea, altar-tombs, tomb-houses, and steles
-or slabs. These tombs were not cold and pale, but profusely carved, and,
-doubtless, in most cases, coloured. The monuments in the museum at
-Trèves show many traces of colour—red, green and yellow, if I remember
-aright. Dr. Ashby recently described a huge Roman necropolis at Syracuse
-in words which might apply to Londinium. “Fragments of memorials were
-found, varying from simple steles and columns to the chapel with rich
-architectural forms, the decorative portions being in soft limestone
-with considerable traces of polychromy.” Painting over coarse soft stone
-was a general tradition, and bright colour liberally applied would
-greatly change the aspect of rather crude carvings. At Bath an
-inscription mentions the repair and repainting of a building. This might
-be internal painting, but it was an external inscription and probably
-included outside work. The Corinthian temple at Bath was decorated with
-colour on the exterior. Mr. Irvine says of a piece of the cornice:
-“Considerable portions of the red paint with which it had been covered
-remained among the carving.”
-
-Finds of burials are still not infrequent in London; as specimen cases I
-quote two recent newspaper clippings: “A workman excavating in Cannon
-Street Road, Stepney, has unearthed an urn containing bones at a depth
-of 2 ft. below the road level; Sir C. H. Read observed that it provided
-a link in the track of the Roman road eastward, as the custom was to
-deposit these urns at the sides of the roads” (December 19, 1919). “The
-discovery of two Roman urns in Mansell Street, Goodman’s Fields, is of
-considerable importance. The urns were found about 10 ft. below the
-garden of a house. Both contained inner cinerary urns with calcined
-remains. The perfect one resembles an ordinary jar with a cover; the
-outer urn is perfectly round, and has handles on each side by the mouth.
-It is believed that the site was that of a Roman villa; bricks and tiles
-having been discovered in other parts of the site” (1913). The urns are
-now in the London Museum.
-
-The actual monuments once on the east of the City are represented by the
-fragments found in the Tower Hill bastion; those to the north, by the
-stones found in the Camomile Street and other bastions; those on the
-west, by the soldier’s monument found at Ludgate Hill by Wren, by later
-discoveries near Ludgate Hill, in 1806, and the fragment of the monument
-of Celsus found on the Blackfriars site.
-
-_Steles._—A memorial slab in the Guildhall Museum is particularly
-interesting, as it is obviously in the tradition of Hellenistic art. It
-is a true stele of the usual small scale, about 2 ft. wide and 2½ ft.
-high; it bears a relief sculpture of a soldier in a panel bordered by
-pilasters and finished with a pedimental top (Fig. 41). This broken slab
-is in the reserve collection and is not usually visible, nor is it in
-the catalogue; the supposition is that it was found in one of the
-bastions with so many other remnants of tombs. It must, I think, be one
-of the earliest Roman monuments discovered in London.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 41.
-]
-
-At the Guildhall is shown a sculptured slab thus described: “Monumental
-tablet, marble, bearing in relief the figure of a man armed with a
-trident and sword (?), and having a shield-like protection to the upper
-portion of his left arm; above is a fragmentary inscription; Greek; 21¾
-× 15½ × 3½ in.: Tottenham Court Road.” It was illustrated in an early
-volume of _Archæologia_ (xi. p. 48). On the original drawing at the
-Society of Antiquaries is written: “This white marble slab was found by
-Mr. Miller among the ruins of a house at Islington. It is now fixed up
-on the front of a warehouse in High Timber Street, near Labour-in-Vain
-Hill.” (This was south of Thames Street in the City.) The inscription is
-given by Hübner. With the writer in _V.C.H._, we may doubt whether this
-slab is not an importation like the Arundel Marbles; but other works in
-white marble will be described in this section, and gladiators were well
-known in Londinium (Fig. 42).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 42.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 43.
-]
-
-In the British Museum is a small stele with a well-carved relief of a
-man heavily draped in a dignified pose and classical taste, and also
-having a Greek inscription. This stone slab is little more than 1 ft.
-wide by about 2½ ft. high (Fig. 43). It was obtained in 1911, but it was
-drawn by Archer about eighty years ago. It was found in White’s Conduit
-Fields, that is, near Lamb’s Conduit Street. This, too, has a Greek
-inscription of which I can only make out the last word and a few other
-letters:
-
-                       .    .    .    .    .   ΟC
-                       .    .    .    .    .   ΟΥ
-                       .  .  Ε ΧΑΙΡΕ
-
-The last word is Farewell. I have felt some doubt as to this really
-pretty little work being a London antiquity. My sketch is given from
-Archer’s drawing. Although he may have restored it to some degree, it is
-probable that it has suffered from decay since he drew it. Other Greek
-inscriptions have been found in Britain.
-
-There is another stele at the Guildhall which is so similar in several
-respects to the one just described that it might have been carved in the
-same shop. It is described in the catalogue as a “Monumental slab,
-limestone, on which is represented a figure of a man and child; the
-former is clothed in a toga, the folds of which he is holding in his
-left hand; 26 × 13½ × 2¼ in.” That two slabs so much alike should be
-discovered in one city, is a strong argument in favour of their having
-originated there. Notice, further, how the little pediment over the
-British Museum slab resembles that of the slab of the soldier first
-described. Again, the wide, plain margins are like those of the
-Gladiator slab. The evidence seems to be in favour of our accepting all
-the four slabs described as truly London works.
-
-In the British Museum (the Roman corridor) is a tall inscribed slab of
-the headstone type, about 6½ ft. high (Fig. 44). We may see clearly that
-it is a descendant of the steles by noting a few little points. It has
-the side pilasters and a pediment on which some lumps carry on the
-tradition of acroteria. An inscription occupies the field where the
-steles have sculptured reliefs, and a lower space is occupied by a
-festoon. From the inscription, NA ATIENI, it seems that it commemorated
-a man born in Athens. This slab is especially like a large stele at
-Cirencester which had two panels, the upper one having a relief and the
-lower an inscription. Proportions, pilasters, pediment are all like our
-London slab. Haverfield assigned the Cirencester slab to the end of the
-first century, and the London one can only be a little later. The
-inscription terminates with the early formula: H[IC] S[ITUS] EST.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 44.
-]
-
-This slab is much weathered and it stands at the Museum in a bad light,
-where it is difficult to make out the details. Running stems, with
-flowers on the pilasters, are quite pretty (Fig. 45), and, indeed, the
-whole thing has dignity. The lettering was free and doubtless more
-elegant than the painted forms now suggest.
-
-Several larger memorial slabs have been found in London which had big
-reliefs of soldiers. One at the Guildhall and another at Oxford will be
-described under sculpture. There are two fragments in the British Museum
-which may stand for the type and be discussed here. One is a head a
-little less than life-size, part of a standing figure in a round-topped
-recess. Above is an inscription naming Celsus a _speculator_; it was
-found at Blackfriars in 1876 (_The Builder_). This much-injured fragment
-appears very rude, but the others of this class were competent works of
-sculpture. The second is only a head now in the upper gallery at the
-Museum; both were probably works of the first half of the second
-century. Four _known_ examples of this type must represent many—perhaps
-dozens which once existed.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 45.
-]
-
-At the Guildhall is a fragment of sepulchral sculpture, which may have
-been part of a larger monument rather than of a stele, but I will speak
-of it here. Just enough remains to allow of the restoration of the
-scheme. A winged Cupid at the end of a panel which doubtless bore an
-inscription, would have been one of a pair. The Cupid holds an ivy-leaf,
-symbol of the grave, and above is a festoon with a bird perched on it
-(Fig. 46). Two or three grave slabs at Chester with reliefs of
-sepulchral banquets have similar festoons and birds which must have had
-symbolic reference to an after-life.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 46.
-]
-
-A much-battered fragment of relief sculpture at the Guildhall may, I
-think, be a remnant of a sepulchral banquet; it shows the upper part of
-a man in a recess with the point of what looks like the arm of the usual
-sofa-like bench behind him.
-
-_Chests and Coffins._—In earlier Roman Britain bodies were cremated and
-the ashes disposed in urns, lead boxes, and in other ways. There is in
-the British Museum a truly magnificent urn of hard porphyry-like stone
-which was found in Warwick Square. At the Guildhall is part of a
-sarcophagus-like chest about 2 ft. by 2½ ft. (Fig. 47). Its discovery
-was recorded by Price thus: “A coped stone of a marble tomb has been
-discovered near to the west door of St. Helen’s Church, Bishopsgate;
-associated with it was a coin of Constantine Junior, A.D. 317-340”
-(_London and Middlesex Archæol. Soc. Trans._, vol. v. 413). The material
-has shining particles, and seems to be white marble. In this respect it
-should be compared with the gladiator relief already described, and the
-fine Clapton sarcophagus mentioned below. The association with the coin
-must have been accidental, for this chest cannot, I think, be later than
-the second century. It would have contained an urn holding burnt bones;
-compare a rude stone cist from Harpenden in the British Museum.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 47.
-]
-
-An excellent account of London graves is given in _V.C.H._ Stow
-described the finds in Spitalfields in his day thus: “Divers coffins of
-stone, and the bones of men without coffins, and great nails of iron
-were found a quarter of a yard long. I beheld the bones of a man lying,
-his head north, and round about some such nails, wherefore I considered
-them to be the nails of his coffin.” Many plain coffins of stone have
-been found in the City and suburbs. In an old MSS. collection which I
-have, is the note: “About Dec. 1717, was taken up out of ye ground near
-ye new church of Rotherhithe, a stone coffin of prodigious size in which
-was ye skeleton of a man 10 foot long” (!). A Minute of the Society of
-Antiquaries (July 28, 1725) reads: “An ancient glass vase of bell-shape
-found in a stone coffin, 14 ft. under the ground by the portico of St.
-Martin’s Church [in the Fields]; ’tis now in Sir Hans Sloan’s
-collection.” The “vase” was doubtless one of the little ⊥-shaped
-bottles. Price described a stone coffin found in Fleet Lane nearly 8 ft.
-long, containing a skeleton in lime.
-
-The wooden coffins must have been still more common. Conyers, about
-1670, recorded the finding of one in an excavation at Fleet ditch.
-“About ye middle of the new ditch as low as ye bottom of ye old wall
-there were found an oak coffin turned black, of boards with bands, a
-man’s length from ye old ditch wall, upon the old wharfing, or, as I
-suppose, natural ground wharfed upon. In this coffin was a glass vial in
-ye fashion ⊥ [an expanded base with long neck], and brass like a hinge,
-these lay amongst the bones, the glass I have by me” (Conyer’s MS.).
-This was evidently one of the chests described by Mr. Ward: “Wooden
-coffins or chests were in common use, as the presence of iron nails,
-iron or bronze bindings, hinges, and other mountings prove.” An oak
-coffin was found in Moorfields in 1873, the objects from which are now
-in the British Museum.
-
-Two stone coffins are preserved in the Guildhall collection. Two
-containing lead coffins were found at Pie Corner, St. Bartholomew’s, in
-1877 (_London and Middlesex Archæol. Soc. Trans._, vol. v.). Lead
-coffins were usually ornamented, and will be further considered. It is
-probable that some of the coffins of wood and of stone were Christian
-burials.
-
-The coffins of stone described were roughly wrought, and they were
-buried in the ground. Others, however, have been found which are
-handsome pieces of workmanship, and bear inscriptions.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 48.
-]
-
-Three well-decorated stone sarcophagi found in London are at the
-Guildhall, the British Museum and Westminster Abbey. The sarcophagus at
-the Abbey is the earliest in style. It was found under the green at the
-angle between the north transept and the nave in 1869, and now rests by
-the entry to the Chapter House. On the cover is a large cross which
-seems to have been cut on the old stone in the twelfth century. Yet the
-evidence seems to have been against reuse in Christian times. It was the
-opinion, however, of the discoverers that it had been moved from its
-original site, but it was found close to the presumed Roman road to the
-river bank. The front has a panel with an inscription in excellent
-lettering, giving the name of Valerius, a superventor in the army, and
-beginning MEMORIAE. This form is found in two or three other British
-inscriptions, and was frequently used on tombs at Lyons. The Westminster
-inscription and the panel in which it is placed are of comparatively
-early style, and it is difficult to think that such work can be later
-than about A.D. 200. On the other hand, it is said that the new mode of
-burial at full length in a sarcophagus was not adopted in Britain until
-about A.D. 250. I do not suppose that our example is so late as this.
-The front may be compared with a slab in Edinburgh Museum, _c._ A.D. 160
-(_J.R.S._, ii. p. 128). The Lyons inscriptions of a similar type are
-also of the age of the Antonines. Altogether, I cannot think that the
-Westminster tomb is later than A.D. 200. It is possible that it may
-first have contained cinerated remains and not have been a sarcophagus
-proper.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 49.
-]
-
-The sarcophagus at the British Museum was found in Haydon Square,
-Minories, the site of a part of a cemetery where in 1797 “many curious
-fragments of Roman pottery as well as glass vessels were discovered, and
-two complete urns with bone ashes, etc., were taken up.” This stone
-sarcophagus contained a lead coffin, now also in the British Museum. At
-the Society of Antiquaries is an accurate drawing of both made at the
-time of the discovery. The cover was securely clamped down with iron
-(Fig. 48). At the centre of the front is a simple medallion portrait
-head, the rest is filled with flutes (Fig. 49). The outer face of the
-cover, which slants up to a ridge, is carved with acanthus leaves (Fig.
-50), the inner slanting side is plain, and this shows that it stood in a
-building or against a wall. At the two ends are carved baskets of
-fruits, and these must be symbolical (Fig. 48). This tomb had no
-inscription; it belonged to a time when inscriptions were few. Whether
-itself the tomb of a Christian or not, it is of a Christian type, and I
-should date it about A.D. 340.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 50.
-]
-
-The sarcophagus now at the Guildhall was found at Clapton in 1867; it
-resembles that last described, and must be very nearly of the same date.
-It lay east and west, “the Christian orientation,” as Mr. Reginald Smith
-notes. The cover was attached to the lower part by strong iron straps
-(cf. Fig. 48). It is described as white marble or oolitic limestone, and
-there are many sparkling particles in the material. The front, which is
-80 in. long, has a portrait bust at the centre in a circle, above a
-panel in which is the inscription, and the rest is filled with vertical
-flutings (Fig. 51).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 51.
-]
-
-The cover is lost, the back and ends are plain, and it probably stood in
-a building. The portrait relief is curiously early Christian in
-character. The fluting is exceptionally refined and effective. This is a
-truly beautiful work, and doubtless if it were in an Italian museum it
-would be much better known to Englishmen than it is. A full and
-excellent account of it is given by Price (_London and Middlesex
-Archæol. Soc. Proceed._, vol. iii.), in which he compared it with some
-tombs in the Lateran Museum, showing that it is in the style of early
-Christian monuments _c._ 340-50. (The same paper contains descriptions
-of several plain stone coffins.)
-
-The inscription on the Clapton tomb was very short, hardly more than
-names, and it does not seem to have contained any expression of faith.
-The Haydon Square tomb had no inscription. This reticence is
-characteristic. “The historical inscriptions of this age can be counted
-on the fingers of one hand.... It is curious to find a noteworthy lack
-of ordinary sepulchral inscriptions of private persons in the fourth
-century; there are very few Christian tombs, but it is much more
-surprising to find a lack of those of the ordinary heathen type.
-Conceivably fourth-century tombs were handiest for the Saxon invader”
-(Sir C. Oman, _England before the Norman Conquest_). Christian
-inscriptions are very few in France also; there are not, I believe, half
-a dozen of the fourth century existing.
-
-This tomb and the other are good examples of the skilful way in which
-forms were obtained in a block of stone without cutting to waste;
-observe how the mouldings in Figs. 49 and 50 lie just on the surfaces.
-This is a lesson for our own days.
-
-I have felt that this able work in fine material could hardly have had
-its origin in Britain, but further consideration suggests that the
-balance of evidence is in our favour. We have seen that other works are
-in white marble; there are in the British Museum two or three fragments
-of white marble slabs, while in the London Museum there is a complete
-one. Several fragments of dado linings are also known. In the heyday of
-the mosaic pavements there must have been some “firm” of marble
-importers in London. The general resemblance of the Clapton sarcophagus
-to that found at Haydon Square is strongly in favour of their common
-origin. The cover was attached to the receptacle in a similar way with
-iron straps in both; in each case the flutes are separated by a sunk
-line. The man’s bust is very similar to the upper parts of the figures
-on the third and fourth steles above described. Altogether, I could
-suppose that both sarcophagi came from one shop, and that they were both
-the resting-places of Christians.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 52.
-]
-
-A number of tablets which have been found must have been fixed in
-buildings or against walls. At the British Museum is a small fragment
-with a part of an animal incised, probably one of a pair facing a
-central object. (Compare the griffins on the enamelled plate found in
-London, in the British Museum.) Some of these tablets are of Purbeck and
-other native marbles, and this shows that we had competent marble masons
-settled here—probably the same as the mosaic workers.
-
-A small tablet, found in Goodman’s Fields, about 12 in. by 15 in., now
-at the Society of Antiquaries, was described by Roach Smith as of native
-green marble; and a fragment in the British Museum, found in Philpot
-Lane, is of green marble. The former (Fig. 52), judging by the wording
-of the inscription and style of the lettering, may be dated about A.D.
-100.
-
-On the whole, these Roman tombs had dignity and beauty, and a study of
-picked examples throughout Britain would be worth making. The lettering
-is admirable, and the inscriptions often have a quite human sound which
-is touching. The portrait reliefs are competent common work. We should
-now have to go to an R.A. for such things, and come away again without
-getting them. Some of the symbolic decoration speaks a universal
-language; the flowering scroll border and festoon of the slab, and the
-baskets of fruits on the sarcophagus, both in the British Museum, are
-more than ornaments. A stele at Colchester having a relief of a seated
-woman putting away her spinning into her work-box is really poetical.
-The sculpture is crude, but the idea is as fresh and beautiful as any
-tomb in the world can show.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER V+
-
-                         SOME LARGER MONUMENTS
-
-    “The Cemetery had for years been overcrowded with burned and
-    unburned burials; rains had caused the mounds to settle and the
-    ground had resumed its even surface.... I beg you to see that the
-    earth is raised to a mound again, and to have a smooth slab placed
-    upon it.”
-
-                                                    —SIDONIUS, A.D. 467.
-
-
-                         JOVE AND GIANT COLUMNS
-
-A FEW of the more important sepulchral monuments have been reserved for
-special consideration. First among these I wish to discuss the fragments
-of what I suppose to have been examples of Jove and Giant columns, a
-class of monument frequently found on the Continent. These columns, it
-has been thought, were not naturalised in Britain. In _Archæologia_,
-lxix., Professor Haverfield, calling attention to an inscription at
-Cirencester, which seems to have formed part of a small column of the
-kind, said that except for this inscription no other evidence had been
-found in Britain for the existence of such columns. Again, in another
-place, after speaking of figures of the Mother Goddesses, he added, “We
-may ascribe to another immigrant the _Colonne au géant_ found at
-Cirencester” (_Romanization_). A large number of these monuments has
-been found in north-east Gaul. The main element was a decorated column
-the capital of which supported a sculptured group of “Juppiter and a
-fallen barbarian giant.” Such a column usually stood on a pedestal
-having an inscription to the god; around the pedestal were relief
-sculptures of several figures, and there were four busts on the capital.
-Professor Haverfield, whose description I have been condensing, agreed
-with a suggestion made by Mrs. Strong that a fine Corinthian capital at
-Cirencester, which has four busts set among the acanthus leafage, may
-have belonged to the Jove and Giant pillar. This, however, is negatived
-by the scale of the capital as compared with the inscribed stone, which
-is only about 1½ ft. square. Further, as he himself allowed, a second
-capital similar to the other exists, except for its upper part. Both the
-complete capital and the fragment were found on the site of the
-Basilica, and we may hardly doubt that both belonged to that building.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 53.
-]
-
-Jove and Giant pillars, as I have called them, have been exhaustively
-treated in a German work (_Hertlein_, 1910). Espèrandieu, in his volumes
-on Roman sculptures in Gaul, very fully illustrates two of these
-monuments, one at Cussy-la-Colonne, near Autun (2032), and another at
-Merten (4425), also a large number of fragments. He describes the Cussy
-column as having been about 44 ft. high (including the sculptured group)
-and 2 ft. in diameter; the bottom of the pillar was carved in a trellis
-pattern (Fig. 53). The column at Merten was about 48 ft. high with a
-diameter of 2¼ ft. Under the number 4130, Espèrandieu says of a square
-sculptured stone: “It is generally agreed that these ‘four-god stones’
-are not altars but pedestals. They supported a second stone, usually of
-octagonal form, with representations of the Gods of the Week upon it.
-From this rose a column and capital, and, crowning all, a god riding and
-crushing under the hoofs of his steed a giant who terminates in two
-snakes.” Such columns had a religious significance, and “their
-frequency, above all on the banks of the Rhine, is surprising” (No.
-4425). A good résumé of what had been said of these monuments was given
-by Mrs. Strong in 1911 (_J.R.S._); the general conclusion was that the
-Jove of the pillar was a sun and thunder divinity, “A Romanised
-sun-god”; the columns embodied “a whole allegory of times and seasons.”
-“Hertlein interprets the columns as Irmin-säulen, symbols of the
-universe; columns such as, according to Teutonic mythology, supported
-the heavens, here typified by Juppiter as lord of the skies.” Some
-writers had preferred to see a Roman emperor riding over a barbarian.
-
-In the British Museum there is a carved fragment of a highly decorated
-column which, I have little doubt, belonged to a Jove and Giant column.
-This stone was found built into the lower part of the City Wall along
-the river bank. Roach Smith, in whose collection it was, described it
-first in 1844 (_Archæol. Jour._, vol. i.) as: “A portion of a decorated
-stone which appears to have formed part of an altar.” Later he visited
-the Jove and Giant column near Autun, and in describing it in
-_Collectanea Antiqua_ (vol. vi.) he refers to our stone. Subsequently in
-the Catalogue of his collection he spoke of the stone as: “Fragment in
-green sandstone, with a trellis pattern with leaves and fruit. It
-appears to have formed part of a sepulchral monument, and was taken from
-the foundations of a Roman wall in Thames Street.” In saying this he
-doubtless had the Cussy monument in his mind, for that was understood to
-be a sepulchral monument. Our fragment is from a circular shaft which
-must have been about 2½ ft. in diameter. The surface is carved over with
-a pattern like a trellis of laths, in the interspaces of which appear
-leaves and bunches of grapes Fig. 54 is restored from the fragment).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 54.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 55.
-]
-
-There is another stone in the British Museum which also probably formed
-part of a Jove and Giant column (Fig. 55). This was found at Great
-Chesterford, an important Roman site in Essex. It is described as a
-“Basin with bas-reliefs of the Roman deities.” These figures have long
-ago been identified as four of the seven gods of the days of the week
-(Thos. Wright). The fragment was made into a basin in modern times; it
-is really half of an octagon, and on the top surface appear the sinkings
-for two big cramps which linked this to an adjoining similar stone (Fig.
-56). For what is known of it, see Roach Smith’s account in _Collectanea
-Antiqua_ and the _Journal of the Archæological Association_, vol. iii.
-In the latter it is said that it is irregular and not semi-octagonal;
-but the breaking down of the upper part into the recesses which contain
-the reliefs gives the appearance of irregularity—that is all. The
-octagon was 3¾ ft. in diameter. One of the sides was blank. One-half of
-this blank side remains, and also half of the opposite side, which
-retains enough of the sculpture to show that the figure carried a spear
-over the right shoulder. The next figure, going clockwise, was Mercury;
-he had a mantle over his left shoulder and carried his wand; points
-remaining by his hair show that his cap was winged. The third figure was
-Jove, a mature figure with broad breast, bearded head, and long hair.
-The fourth figure, who carried a hand-mirror, was Venus. These figures
-agree very closely with a set of the planets arranged in similar order
-on a mosaic floor found at Bramdean, and by this comparison it is
-evident that the one with a spear was Mars. The eighth, or blank, side
-followed the figure of Venus, so that the series must have begun with
-Saturn, in the Roman way. We may now say that the eight sides contained
-figures of the Deities of the Days in proper order: Saturn, Sol, Luna,
-Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 56.
-]
-
-Espèrandieu illustrates two stones from a very similar monument found in
-France at D’Yzeures (iv. p. 136). These are the halves of an octagon
-about 3 ft. 7 in. across which was built up in courses. One of the
-stones comes from a lower course, the other from an upper. The vertical
-joints ran from an angle to an angle so that they should not cut through
-the sculptures on the sides. These reliefs were “possibly the Divinities
-of the Days of the Week.” We have also in England remnants of a similar
-sculptured octagon which was built up in courses. These are in
-Northampton Museum, and are illustrated in _V.C.H._ One of two stones
-shows the tops of the heads of a series of figures, the other stone has
-their feet. They are described as “Two fragments of an octagonal
-monument having figures in shallow niches, possibly the Deities of the
-Days of the Week” (Haverfield, vol. i. p. 181). Both these stones were
-of little height, the upper one only contained the crowns of the heads
-of the figures and flat curves forming the tops of the niches (compare
-Fig. 56).
-
-We are now in a position to restore the Chesterford octagon (Fig. 56).
-The heads of the figures on the stone in the British Museum are not
-complete, for a bed joint runs just over the eyes, and the crowns of the
-heads must have been on another stone, as at Northampton. Two other
-courses, at least, beneath what is represented by the existing fragment,
-would have been required to complete the figures, and indeed their feet
-were possibly on a narrow base-course, as at Northampton. The
-Chesterford stone and the fragments at Northampton must represent
-important Jove and Giant pillars. The size of the former, it should be
-observed, seems most suitable for a column shaft of about 2½ ft. in
-diameter, the size of the lattice column represented by the fragment in
-the British Museum (Fig. 54), which probably, as said above, was itself
-part of a Jove and Giant column. There is thus high probability that
-there were important Jove and Giant columns, having pedestals sculptured
-with the Deities of the Days, at London, Chesterford and Northampton. If
-this is so, such columns must have been frequently erected in Britain,
-and we may look for evidences for the existence of others.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 57.
-]
-
-In vol. iii. of _Collectanea_ Roach Smith illustrated a small highly
-decorated column found at Wroxeter, 13 in. in diameter. It was similar
-to the Cussy column in having a lattice pattern below and a scale
-pattern above. Here and there were little relief subjects—a Cupid and a
-youthful Bacchus with grapes. This was probably part of another Jove and
-Giant column, or at least of a single sepulchral column; there would
-hardly have been more than one so decorated.
-
-Several pieces of small highly decorated columns have been found in
-London, which must, I think, have belonged to memorial pillars and not
-to edifices. One of these found in the Houndsditch bastion, only 9 in.
-in diameter, was decorated with a simple lattice pattern (Fig. 57).
-Another is in the London Museum, which, in the part preserved, has a
-scale pattern (Fig. 58). A third fragment, at the Guildhall, has again
-both lattice and scale patterns (Fig. 59).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 58.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 59.
-]
-
-Jove and Giant columns were doubtless sepulchral, but they were also
-religiously significant. They were intended to suggest ideas of the
-conquest of evil powers and of renewal. Dr. Haverfield was, I think,
-mistaken in the passage quoted above in speaking of the giant as a
-barbarian; he was rather a power of darkness, and this is brought out by
-a piece of British evidence. Figures of four such creatures, each
-terminating in two serpents, fill the corners of a mosaic floor found at
-Horkstow; they support a large circle divided into two rings and a
-centre; in the outer ring are Nereids and swimming creatures, in the
-inner one little genii with baskets of flowers, etc. The rings are
-divided into four parts by radial bands, and the general suggestion must
-be of the seasons and the cosmic order. The snake-legged creatures in
-the corners are the _Aloadæ_, the giants who attempted to scale Olympus
-by putting Pelion on Ossa. They are here in their proper places in the
-chaos outside the circle of the ordered world, “the wheel of nature.”
-This pavement helps to explain the general idea which led to the
-erection of Jove and Giant pillars, and shows that these ideas were
-current in Britain. The column is the world-axis set round by planets
-and seasons; above, the power of light and order hurls back the giant of
-gloom and strife (see Daremberg and Saglio, _Aloadæ_). In the foreign
-examples of the sculptured groups which rested on the capitals of the
-columns Jove sometimes had a wheel as his weapon, and wheels have been
-found carved in Roman altars in Britain. “The sides of two large altars
-to Jupiter at Walton House bear the thunderbolt for Jupiter and a wheel,
-which possibly equates the Jupiter of these altars with the Gaulish
-‘wheel-god’” (Ward). An altar at Housesteads invokes the sun-god. The
-Jove and Giant pillars are evidence of a time when the old mythological
-names had been refitted to express ideas of good and evil, cosmic
-forces, and supposed planetary influences. The mosaic floors, as we
-shall see, provide further evidence of what was “higher thought” in
-third-century Roman Britain.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 60.
-]
-
-_Mausolea._—When the bastion of the City Wall in Camomile Street was
-destroyed, many sculptured stones from small but very richly decorated
-edifices were found. Price recognised that some of them must have
-belonged to an important sepulchral monument comparable with the Igel
-monument near Trèves. I saw, in 1912, some stones at Trèves which had a
-scale pattern cut on a roof-like slope, and soon after my return I
-noticed a stone of the same sort in the Guildhall Museum. Without having
-Price’s words in my mind I came to the conclusion that in the cemeteries
-of Londinium there must have been mausoleum-like monuments of the kind
-which the Museum at Trèves had shown me were common in the neighbourhood
-of that city. Several of these mausolea are now illustrated in
-Espèrandieu’s great work on the Roman sculptures of Gaul. In 1913 I
-offered a tentative restoration of a London monument of this type in the
-_Architectural Review_.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 61.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 62.
-]
-
-In Fig. 60 I have roughly sketched two stones at the Guildhall which
-evidently came from a mausoleum of the Trèves type, also a course from a
-fluted angle pilaster, showing part of an inscription. Compare No. 5153
-in Espèrandieu’s work, where we find a similar scale pattern, angle
-pilasters bonded in courses with masonry, and the lettering of an
-inscription coming close up to the pilaster. Another stone at the
-Guildhall has a capital of a small angle pilaster on a similar course.
-This capital has heads set amongst the leaves almost exactly like the
-capitals of the Igel mausoleum at Trèves (see Fig. 61). Another stone at
-the Guildhall is part of a frieze in two bands, the upper one of
-festoons and the lower one of trees, and dogs coursing hares (Fig. 62).
-Similar hunting subjects are found on foreign monuments; the festoons
-and the scale of the work are also appropriate for a structure of the
-mausoleum kind, and these five stones may very well have belonged to the
-same monument (Fig. 63). On another stone at the Guildhall is part of an
-inscription in widely-spaced lines containing the letters ... R LXX,
-doubtless part of ANNOR LXX, which actually occurs on the tall headstone
-in the British Museum. At least two mausolea are probably represented by
-the stones at the Guildhall. Like the Igel monument, they were probably
-the tombs of rich merchants. There must have been a large number of
-tombs of this type in Britain. Bruce and Roach Smith illustrated and
-described foundations of three tombs by the Roman road near High
-Rochester, one circular and two square; the first was possibly big
-enough to have been a tomb-house. At Bath, some years ago, I noticed a
-stone which could only have been part of a square monument (Fig. 64).
-This had the tops of the niches cut like shells.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 63.
-]
-
-Another stone at the Guildhall, found like the others in the Camomile
-Street bastion, has a short length of a decorated angle column recessed
-as a “nook-shaft” and about a foot in diameter (Fig. 65). This, I think,
-must have formed part of a similar monument. (This stone is not, I
-think, given by Price, but it appears in an illustration in _J.B.A.A._)
-
-The mausolea of Londinium must have been very similar to the monuments
-at Trèves, and it may not be doubted that they would have been coloured
-as some of those were coloured. (I have a note that sculpture, as well
-as the decorative carving, was coloured.) The braided work of Early
-Saxon monuments would have been “picked out” in colour in a similar way,
-and I believe that fragments which have been found prove this.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 64.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 65.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 66.
-]
-
-
-                              ALTAR-TOMBS
-
-Another type of tomb, of which many examples exist in the Museum at
-Trèves, is an altar-like structure having a square body surmounted by a
-slab ending in two big bolster-like rolls covered with scale or leaf
-ornament (see Espèrandieu). Tombs of this type have been found in
-Pompeii. We have in the British Museum parts of a very fine monument of
-this class. One of two stones is a great roll, and another has an
-inscription in handsome letters. These were found together in the
-foundations of one of the bastions of the City Wall at Tower Hill, as
-described in _The Builder_, September 4, 1852. In the illustration which
-was reproduced before (Fig. 33), a pile of other stones is shown, one of
-which, a moulding with a return, may have been the base of the same
-monument. The inscribed stone in the British Museum shows that the body
-of the monument was made up of four stones arranged as in the plan (Fig.
-66), and cramped together; the size of this part was probably 7 by 5
-Roman feet. It was not a sarcophagus, as the form seems to suggest, but
-a chest in which an urn containing ashes was placed. The examples at
-Trèves show that it was lifted on a high base. The covering part of our
-monument was made up of three stones of which one of the two end-pieces
-is in the Museum. The two end-pieces had large volute-like rolls similar
-to those on altars—for example, the little altar of Diana at Goldsmiths’
-Hall. On these altars the central part usually rises again between the
-rolls into a gable-like shape, and that this type was followed in our
-tomb is shown by several examples at Trèves, as well as by the existing
-end stone which was evidently one of three; the little relief decoration
-on the remaining edge is suitable to have followed from relief carving
-in the central stone (Figs. 66 and 67). This tomb was a work of high
-quality, but it is badly shown; the two stones could be set up together
-so as to show the size and importance of the monument. If this were done
-and the Haydon Square and Clapton sarcophagi were shown with it, we
-should obtain a better understanding of the monuments of Londinium.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 67.
-]
-
-Other memorials had sculptured figures. The hexagonal base of one of
-these found at Ludgate in 1806 (see before p. 71), and now at the
-Guildhall, bears an inscription in memory of Claudia Martina, aged
-nineteen years. A much-injured female head found with it is accepted as
-having belonged to the same monument, and a dowel hole on the pedestal
-confirms the idea that it supported a figure which was probably a
-portrait statue. It may be observed that the capping of the pedestal is
-cut with rolls in the tradition of the altar-tombs. The good form of the
-letters, and the formula beginning D.M. and ending H.S.E., date this
-monument about A.D. 100. I give in Fig. 68 a sketch from a careful
-etching published by Thos. Fisher in 1807. The ornamentation of the
-altar-like top can hardly be made out now, and even the inscription
-cannot be read in the imperfect light of the Guildhall Museum. A careful
-copy based on a rubbing should be put on record, for the surfaces of
-such stones are all the time falling away in dust.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 68.
-]
-
-Several large half-round coping stones have from time to time been found
-in the bastions of the City Wall; they cannot have been taken from the
-wall itself, and so probably formed parts of monuments. Espèrandieu
-shows such a coping to a dwarf wall surrounding a statue, and in the
-little sketch (Fig. 69) I suggest such an arrangement. Many half-round
-copings from monuments have been found at Chester.
-
-Several small inscribed memorial tablets suggest that there were some
-buildings of the “Columbarium” type where the ashes of the dead might be
-placed. When after about A.D. 250 burial in coffins superseded the older
-way of burial, individual or family tomb-houses were erected to contain
-the sarcophagi, and several such would doubtless have been found outside
-the walls of Londinium. Tomb-houses were not uncommon in Britain; they
-were usually square or circular (T. Ward, _Roman Era_, p. 139). At
-Holmwood Hill, Kent, a circular buttressed building 30 ft. in diameter
-(_Archæol._ xxi., p. 336) seems to have been such a tomb-house. Of the
-stone sarcophagus from Haydon Square it has been observed that “as the
-back is quite plain it evidently stood against a wall, perhaps the back
-of a small tomb-house” (J. Ward). Even the back slope of the cover was
-left plain; and the back of the Clapton sarcophagus is also plain.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 69.
-]
-
-
-                              TOMB-HOUSES
-
-Some of the sculptured fragments found in the Camomile Street bastion,
-while doubtless parts of sepulchral monuments, as Price thought, are of
-too large a scale to have belonged to mausolea of the Igel type. Two of
-the stones evidently came from angle pilasters of considerable scale. As
-Price said: “The size and weight of the stones indicate that the edifice
-was of proportions to bear comparison with the sepulchres in the
-vicinity of Rome: such monuments were placed near the city gates.” One
-of the fragments just mentioned has a nude boy or Cupid carved against a
-background of foliage on one face, while the return of the same stone
-contains similar ornament without the boy. Probably on the front face
-there were several little figures one over the other. This treatment for
-a pilaster is found on the monuments of Trèves. The boy on the stone at
-the Guildhall carries an object which Price thought might be a trident,
-but it is rather a torch; amorini and torches had a sepulchral
-significance. These big stones must have formed part of the angle
-pilasters of a large square tomb-house. They are more than 1¾ ft. wide,
-and one is over 3 ft. high, and contains two units of the fine carved
-pattern of very similar character to the carving on the Haydon Square
-sarcophagus. I should doubt if it is much earlier, say, _c._ A.D. 300
-(Fig. 70). The pattern is evidently a simplification of the scheme shown
-in Fig. 61 from a tomb sculpture at Trèves, illustrated by Espèrandieu.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 70.
-]
-
-At the Guildhall is a niche-head cut out of one stone into an arch form
-(Fig. 71). It came from the Camomile Street bastion and very possibly
-formed part of a monument—perhaps a built-up niche surrounded a larger
-scale figure than the usual reliefs of the steles. Price associated this
-niche-head with the stele now at the Guildhall, but that was rather all
-in one stone (see my restoration in _Arch. Rev._, 1913). A man’s head of
-larger size than that of the stele and separate from any background was
-found at the same time as the niche fragments, and the figure to which
-it belonged may have stood in the niche. Possibly, however, the stone
-formed the head of a small doorway. Another monument at the Guildhall is
-a crude and late sculpture of a lion seizing some other animal. Many
-similar groups have been found in Britain and abroad. It would have had
-some symbolical significance. “Mythological” figures, such as Hercules
-and Atys, seem also to have been used for tombs.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 71.
-]
-
-This examination of the few broken remnants of monuments that have been
-accidentally preserved, which obviously represent but a small percentage
-of those once existing in the cemeteries of Londinium, brings out a new
-criterion for an estimate of the dignity and opulence of the Roman city.
-To this evidence we may add the extent of the walls and the importance
-of the port, and the fact that the city was the key of the road system
-of the country. It was probably a seat of the Governor; in the
-Constantinian age it became a bishopric and a mint town. Then we have
-the quantity and costly nature of the imports which are known to us from
-objects in our museums—an immense quantity of Samian pottery, decorated
-glassware, silver, fine bronzes, etc. We also see how closely the
-monuments of London resembled those of Trèves, the later capital of
-Western Europe. Altogether I get the impression that Londinium must have
-been one of the most important commercial cities in the West. In the
-rote education of our schools, the great facts of our history are too
-much buried under an avalanche of minor details, and mere dates and
-names. If we can get a story written about Roman London, one scene must
-be set among the Tombs.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER VI+
-
-                               SCULPTURE
-
-    “Fantastic and even grotesque, it possesses a wholly unclassical
-    fierceness and vigour, and not a few observers have remarked that it
-    recalls not the Roman world, but the Middle Ages.”
-
-                                      —HAVERFIELD on the Corbridge lion.
-
-
-                            IMPERIAL STATUES
-
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 72.
-]
-
-A FEW broken fragments only remain to us, but they are sufficient to
-suggest to our imaginations the sculptures of Londinium. The finest work
-of sculpture found in London is the magnificent head from a bronze
-statue of the Emperor Hadrian, which was taken from the river near
-London Bridge in 1834. The head, with the neck, is 16½ in. high. It is
-really a masterly work of art, of Hellenistic character, and may, I
-think, be Alexandrian. The treatment of the head and beard is
-surprisingly like that of the marble Hadrian from Cyrene in the British
-Museum. Here we have the close-clipped beard and moustache; also the
-double row of curly locks of hair over the forehead from ear to ear, and
-the hair close cut behind, an arrangement suitable for the support of a
-wreath. The beard is again similar on a bronze head of a man found at
-Cyrene, in the British Museum. The projecting ears of the head of
-Hadrian are like the ears of the bronze head of Augustus in the British
-Museum, found in Egypt. That the bronze head of Hadrian represents a
-statue and an erect figure is shown by the facts that one shoulder is
-higher than the other and the axis of the head and neck is bent. The
-figure must, I think, have had the left arm uplifted. The statue must
-have been a splendid object in some public place—possibly the square of
-the Forum, or on the bridge. In a cast, when seen close by, it looks
-lumpy and even dull, but the original bronze as set up in the Museum is
-not only powerful but vivid; notice the sharp eyebrows, the way the nose
-is set into the brow, the line on the forehead, and the strong
-expressive mouth (Fig. 72, from Roach Smith). There is also in the
-British Museum a bronze hand, found in Thames Street, which seems
-similar to the head in scale and excellence of workmanship; moreover,
-faults in the casting have been repaired in a similar way on the neck
-and the wrist. Roach Smith seems to have thought that the head and the
-hand did not belong to the same statue. Speaking of the head he said:
-“It belonged to a colossal statue, two of which we may probably reckon
-among the public embellishments of London, for excavations in Thames
-Street, near the Tower, brought to light a colossal bronze hand 13 in.
-in length, which has been broken from a statue of about the same
-magnitude, and, apparently, judging from the attitude, from a statue of
-Hadrian also. The posture is similar to that of the marble statue in the
-British Museum.” Dr. Haverfield says of the head: “It appears to have
-belonged to a colossal statue of the emperor; the forehead is too short;
-the ears set out too obliquely; and the back of the head projects too
-strongly; the beard, too, is more closely cut than Hadrian usually wore
-it.” In another place he speaks of it as “a life-size head of the
-emperor Hadrian; whether it belonged to a colossal statue of the emperor
-I do not know, nor does it much matter”(!). In one aspect, Dr.
-Haverfield was a champion of things Roman in Britain; in another, he, as
-will be seen in regard to the mosaics, generally spoke slightingly of
-their quality.
-
-I may now sum up my conclusions. The head belonged to a standing statue.
-The hand, found separately, may have belonged to the same statue; it
-probably drooped and held a roll. The head has the characteristics of
-Hellenistic art. The expression is alert and eagle-like; the
-close-cropped beard already appears on the head of Mausolus in the
-British Museum, and seems to have been maintained as an Alexandrian
-tradition. The statue was doubtless imported and may well have been
-brought from Alexandria, a chief centre of bronze casting. Notice that
-repairs are executed in an exactly similar way on the head of
-“Aphrodite,” brought from Armenia and probably an Alexandrian work, _c._
-200 B.C. A little silver image of Harpocrates, also found in the Thames,
-is, I think, certainly an Alexandrian work. The bronze statue would have
-been set up as a memorial of the Emperor’s visit to Britain in 121. A
-“big brass” was struck in honour of the same event, inscribed _Adventus
-Augusti Britanniæ_, and the profile portrait on the coin is very like
-our head. It has the clipped beard and bears a laurel wreath. Hadrian
-was the first of the emperors to wear a beard, and we may take our
-bronze as evidence that he began with the clipped fashion. Not much
-attention has been given to this head as an early portrait of the
-emperor, but it is important from that point of view. Compare it with a
-small bronze bust of a later time found at Winchester and also in the
-British Museum.
-
-Other remnants of large bronze statues have been found in London. Two
-fragments at the Guildhall are thus described: “(19) Arm of a bronze
-statue broken off below the elbow, 19 in. long; (21) Left hand of a
-statue, bronze, of heroic size, with traces of gilding, 9½ in. long.
-Found in a well to the east of Seething Lane.” From a notice in _The
-Builder_ (May 3, 1884), it appears that the latter was found with coins
-of Nero and Vespasian during the construction of the Metropolitan
-Railway. An article in the _Journal of the Archæological Association_
-(vol. xxiv.) discusses other fragments of bronze statues. There must be
-evidence for the existence of four or five large bronze statues in
-Londinium. A bronze leg of a horse at the Society of Antiquaries, found
-in Lincoln, shows that equestrian figures—probably of emperors—were also
-known in Britain (cf. the Marcus Aurelius in Rome).
-
-_Other Portraits._—In the Guildhall is a tomb with a relief of a
-soldier, larger and in higher relief than usual, which was found in the
-Camomile Street bastion, and probably occupied a place in the cemetery
-by Bishopsgate. This figure of a _signifer_ is a little battered, and
-this accentuates a certain grimness of expression, but it is really a
-masterly work of unflattered portraiture. There cannot be many existing
-presentments of a Roman man more real; this has the face of a
-functionary, and the details of the costume are made out with careful
-accuracy. The mantle, or cape, partly stitched together in front, was
-like a chasuble. It was the _pænula_ on which there is an excursus at
-the end of Becker’s _Gallus_. The sword had one of the ivory or bone
-hilts of which there is an example in the British Museum—every detail
-was evidently carefully studied from fact. Soldiers on the Trajan Column
-bear similar swords. It is probably an early second-century work. (The
-Colchester centurion (_c._ 100) has a similar sword-hilt.[1]) When we
-learn to value and make due use of our antiquities a copy of this relief
-should be set up to stand for the fact of Roman rule in Londinium. I
-gave a restoration of the whole slab in the _Architectural Review_,
-1913; it has been wrongly restored in Price’s volume on the Camomile
-Street bastion.
-
-Footnote 1:
-
-  Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, _Gladius_.
-
-The relief of the Colchester centurion, Favonius Facilis, is really a
-fine work, one of the most perfect representations of a centurion which
-exist (cf. Daremberg and Saglio). The niche in which the figure stood
-had a shell represented on its rounded top; only the hinge-end of the
-bivalve appears at the apex, and the rest may have been indicated by
-painting.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 73.
-]
-
-At Oxford there is a soldier’s memorial stone with a sculptured relief
-of a similar kind to the centurion of Colchester and the _signifer_ just
-described. It was found at Ludgate Hill when Wren rebuilt St. Martin’s
-Church (Fig. 73). According to _V.C.H._ the soldier carries a dagger in
-his right hand. This object is so long that Pennant called it “a sword
-of vast length like the claymore.” In fact, it is a rod held exactly as
-the Colchester centurion holds his stick, and I suppose it was a rod of
-office of some kind. The scroll the man carries in his left hand also
-suggests that he was more than a “private”; so also does the monument
-itself, which must have been costly. Roach Smith properly speaks of
-“stick and roll.” There is a good drawing of this monument in the Archer
-collection at the British Museum. I give here a sketch made from the
-original at Oxford. The figure is injured, but it was skilfully cut and
-gracefully posed. I should date it in the first half of the second
-century. At the Guildhall is a head larger than life-size found in the
-Camomile Street bastion, which, although battered, shows character (Fig.
-74). The discovery of a marble bust of a girl, near Walbrook, was
-recorded in _The Builder_ of March 12, 1887.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 74.
-]
-
-_Roman Gods and Impersonations._—It is hardly brought out in the history
-books that the inhabitants of Britain possessed a great classical
-inheritance. I would say possess, but we do not seem to have determined
-whether we are British or only English. For a thousand years before the
-Teutonic invasions of the fifth century A.D. Britain had been in touch
-with Greek and Roman cultures, and for centuries before that again some
-overflow from Mediterranean lands had reached this island, and the Celts
-themselves were a great European race. During five centuries from 100
-B.C. to A.D. 400 Britain became fully Romanised. After that time it was
-probably only some small balance of forces which gave us a Teutonic
-language, while France under somewhat similar circumstances retained a
-Latin tongue. Greek gods and, doubtless, Greek stories were known here
-long before the Roman occupation, as the British coins (the most
-beautiful money ever coined in these islands) show. Already when Ptolemy
-wrote his geography, Hartland Point, in Devonshire, was the promontory
-of Herakles, and this is evidence which, together with figures of
-Hercules on the British coins, strongly suggests that some Hercules
-story became localised in Britain. Possibly, as the seas beyond the
-Gibraltar Straits became better known, the “Pillars of Hercules” were
-shifted to the headland facing the Atlantic. Hercules rescuing Hesione
-appears as a subject on Castor pottery. “This, and the corresponding
-scene of Perseus and Andromeda, were popular in Britain and Gaul,” says
-Dr. Haverfield, and adds: “Whether the scenes conveyed any symbolic
-meaning in these lands I should greatly doubt.” I incline the other way.
-It is to be remarked that several altars dedicated to Hercules have been
-found in Britain: one at Corbridge is inscribed in Greek to the Syrian
-Hercules—that is, the same who had the famous temple at Gades.
-
-During the Roman rule, the Olympian gods and minor classical genii were,
-of course, fully adopted, and the monuments show interesting transitions
-of thought. Jove became a single supreme deity, while the most of the
-other chief gods were associated with the planets and the days of the
-week—1 Sol, 2 Luna, 3 Mars, 4 Mercury, 5 Jupiter, 6 Venus, 7 Saturn.
-This stage of thought is represented by the Jove and Giant Pillars
-before described.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 75.
-]
-
-On the fragment from Chesterford at the British Museum we have Mercury
-with his wand, Jupiter with bearded face, and Venus with a mirror. These
-figures can be completed by comparison with others. There is a relief of
-Mercury at Gloucester. Another, illustrated by Espèrandieu, is of the
-same sort; he seems always to have carried a pouch in his right hand
-(Fig. 75). At the Goldsmiths’ Hall is a little altar having a relief of
-Diana on the front, a group of sacrificial utensils on the back, and
-simple reliefs of two trees on the returns. The figure is charming,
-graceful and well proportioned. The pose and setting in the panel are
-very similar to the soldier relief at Colchester, and I should date it
-about the same time, A.D. 100-150. The figure is very like a small
-bronze found near St. Paul’s, of which Allen gave an illustration; that
-also held a bow, and with the lifted right hand took an arrow from the
-quiver behind her shoulder. The objects carved on the back of the altar
-are a table of offerings (compare the leg of a piece of furniture in
-Leicester Museum), a jug and probably a dipper (Fig. 76). Archer, who
-published etchings of the reliefs, thought he saw a hare here, but this
-was a misreading of the obscure forms. This altar must have belonged to
-some temple or shrine. As Dr. Haverfield says of a somewhat similar
-relief of Diana found near Bath: “We need not doubt that passers-by
-worshipped Diana of the Romans.”
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 76.
-]
-
-At the Guildhall is the upper part of a terra-cotta image of Ceres, and
-fragments of a Hercules, perhaps from a tomb, were found at Ludgate in
-1806. There are many small bronze figures in our museums—altogether
-quite a Pantheon could be made up of images found in Britain, and these,
-I feel, belong to us in a special way.
-
-In the form of impersonations of the days, the seven gods might still be
-available in a modern art language if we had sufficient sense to
-construct such an Esperanto.[2]
-
-Footnote 2:
-
-  I may say here that I have made some collections for a sort of
-  Art-language Dictionary, attempting to register such forms and symbols
-  as might be available for modern use, but I suppose nothing will come
-  of it.
-
-The Roman impersonations of places and ideas are nearer to us than the
-gods, and they indeed belong to universal poetry. Chief of these is
-_Britannia_, the “Sacred Britain” of the inscriptions. This
-impersonation was “revived” (we may truly say so in this case, for it
-had life and reality in it) for our coins in the seventeenth century. It
-is astonishing evidence of the paralysis of modern architectural thought
-how little use has been made of this noble imagination which ultimately
-derives from the gold and ivory Athene of Phidias, and yet is our very
-own. A seated variant of the standing Athene was made to represent the
-goddess Rome, and this in turn was the source of our _Britannia_. Next
-in importance were the impersonations of cities, and every city and
-station had a representative figure which stood for its spirit, its
-genius, itself. Our French friends, in their images of the City of Paris
-or of Strasbourg, still make use of the idea, but we have ceased to know
-that a city is more than a congested area where landlords hire out what
-they call houses. I wonder if London were given an image whether it
-might not acquire a new sense of soul.
-
-In the London Museum is a pretty and well-sculptured figure which is, I
-think, a city impersonation and may be _Londinium_. It is one of two
-sculptures in marble which seem to have been found about 1887, together
-with a Mithraic relief, on the bank of the Walbrook. It was at first
-identified as Fortune, but Dr. Haverfield objected that Fortune would
-have been a female figure, and he suggested “_Bonus Eventus_, or a
-genius”; at the London Museum it is entitled _Bonus Eventus_. It would
-be hardly possible to bring forward any nearly similar figure with such
-a designation; on the other hand, a genius of Rome having a striking
-resemblance to our figure is one of the commonest types of the later
-coinage. Our figure, a graceful youth, holds a great cornucopia against
-his left shoulder and pours with his right hand a libation on an altar
-from a patera; a serpent rising from the altar winds around his wrist;
-by his left leg is the prow of a ship. He has two wreaths or collars
-around his neck and is partially draped; his mantle seems to have fallen
-from his head like a veil, and this suggests that he wore a mural crown
-or a modius. Now the genius of the Roman people on the coins was
-represented with a modius on his head, a horn of abundance in his left
-hand, and a patera from which he pours, in his right. Such a figure
-occurs on several coins which bear the Mint mark of London and the
-legend _Genio Populi Romani_. It is quite possible that our statue may
-be the genius of Londinium itself. It is known that our British Roman
-towns had impersonations wearing mural crowns—a fragment of such a
-figure has been found at Silchester. Our figure is clearly of the nature
-of Fortune, and the impersonations of towns were their Fortunes. The
-ship and the horn of plenty, piled up with fruits, corn and articles of
-commerce, are especially appropriate for a busy port. I suggest that
-this figure might, and should be, adopted as the impersonation and image
-of the City of London.
-
-I had already written this when I found a figure illustrated in Bruce’s
-book on the Roman Wall, which is a close parallel to our figure. It was
-found at Netherby, and is described thus: “The best piece of sculpture
-belonging to this station represents the Genius of the Castrum wearing
-the mural crown and engaged in the grateful task of pouring an offering
-to the superior powers” (Fig. 77). The resemblance of this figure to
-that in the London Museum proves, I think, that that is the genius of a
-place, as does also the serpent which rises from the altar. An altar “To
-the Genius Loci,” found at Chester, represented the genius holding a
-cornucopia. Compare two altars figured by Lysons (_Reliq._, pl. lviii.)
-of similar figures apparently male, each with patera, altar, snake and
-cornucopia. Fig. 78 is one of those in the British Museum.)
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 77.
-]
-
-Wren, in an early design for the Monument, proposed that it should be
-surmounted by a civic impersonation.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 78.
-]
-
-In Roman days every place and almost every field had its _genius
-loci_—an idea which we still timidly preserve as a “figure of speech.”
-Many British inscriptions and sculptures relate to Silvanus, Rivers and
-Fountains; to the Deities of the Fields of Britain (think of that now!),
-to Nymphs of the Springs (think again of ours choked with tins and old
-shoes), and to the God of Ways and Paths (perhaps such an image would do
-some good at Liverpool Street and King’s Cross).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 79.
-]
-
-The other marble sculpture found with the Genius is the torso of a river
-god of a well-known type—and very well carved. The figure reclined
-supported by his left arm; the right hand carried a long water reed
-which rested against his right shoulder (Fig. 79). The head, with long
-curling hair and beard, is in a tradition which derives from the Zeus of
-Phidias, and the body had its prototype in the reclining figures of the
-Parthenon pediments. Some reliefs of similar river gods occupy the
-spandrels of the Arch of Constantine. Bruce illustrated a very similar
-figure which represented the North Tyne (Fig. 80). We have every right
-to assume that the torso in the London Museum may be called the Thames.
-There is some reason, from the conditions of discovery, to think that
-this figure and the Genius before described occupied places in a
-Mithraic cell by the Walbrook. That a river impersonation and a genius
-of locality should be so found together strengthens the evidence that
-they represented London and Father Thames. Modern figures of the Thames
-and other rivers existed in seventeenth-century London.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 80.
-]
-
-_Mithras, etc._—At the London Museum is a Mithraic relief, rough and
-small, but a valuable document. In the centre is Mithras and the bull,
-surrounded by the circle of the Zodiac. “Outside in one upper corner the
-Sun drives up his four-horse chariot, and in the other the Moon is
-driving her car downwards. Beneath are two winged heads, probably
-symbolising the Winds” (Haverfield). These heads are very well carved
-and quite pretty; so are the Zodiac signs. This is one of many cases of
-the similarity of monuments in London and at Trèves. On the celebrated
-Igel monument is found another Zodiac, the signs of which (so far as
-they exist) are practically identical with those on our stone. In the
-spandrels are “heads of wind-gods, emblematic of the four cardinal
-points.” These heads are winged like those on the London stone, and the
-comparison allows us to be sure of the interpretation of the latter: the
-rising Sun is East, the setting Moon is West, the bearded head is North,
-and the youthful one South.
-
-A small figure found in Bevis Marks, and now in the British Museum, is
-usually identified as Atys. I have some doubt whether it was not rather
-Silvanus; but it may be a grave monument, and for such a purpose a
-figure of Atys would be appropriate. A small figure of Hercules at the
-Guildhall was also probably, as before said, a tomb sculpture.
-
-In the London Museum is another small sculpture, this time in relief, of
-a figure seemingly in countryman’s costume, standing in a roughly-formed
-niche or rock recess. By his side is some implement like a yoke, but I
-cannot suggest any explanation. It has “character,” and I should like to
-know what it means. It was found in Drury Lane.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 81.
-]
-
-Bagford, in his letter to Hearne (1714), mentions a Janus head dug up at
-St. Thomas Watering on the Dover Road by Bermondsey, also a glass urn at
-Peckham, and several other Roman things at Blackheath. The Janus head
-was about a foot and a half high, and seemed to have been fixed to a
-square column or terminus. It was illustrated by Horsley. One of the two
-faces was Jupiter Ammon with ram’s horns, the other was female.
-
-I cannot here do more than mention the dozens of small bronzes, some of
-high excellence, which have been found in London; doubtless most or all
-of these were imported. Mr. Chaffers saw a beautiful bronze of an archer
-with inlaid eyes of silver taken out of the mud in Queen Street,
-Cheapside, in 1842. A pretty bronze relief of Hope was found in Thames
-Street in 1840 (_V.C.H._). I must just refer to a delightful little
-bronze Genius, found at Brandon, and now in the British Museum, which
-holds a double horn of plenty. This, again, is probably a locality
-genius. Many of the small clay lamps found in London have pretty reliefs
-on them, such as a figure of Victory, a head of Luna (Fig. 81), a bird,
-or an animal. Altogether we have quite a large gallery of classical
-imagery of our own.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 82.
-]
-
-_Ornament._—Carved decorations were for the most part rude and rapidly
-cut, but they show some fresh thought and are very different from the
-defunct details which now pass for “classic.” At the Guildhall is part
-of a frieze of small scale (Fig. 62) which has running animals
-alternating with trees. This suggestion of the forest was a popular
-motive of the time, and is found frequently on our native-made Castor
-pottery. Haverfield suggested that it might be a Celtic motive, but it
-is found on Samian pottery, and Espèrandieu illustrates a similar frieze
-of higher quality found at Mainz. All the Roman architectural carvings
-found in Britain, it may again be said, very closely resemble works
-found in Gaul, and especially at Trèves.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 83.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 84.
-]
-
-The wide pilaster at the Guildhall (Fig. 70), also mentioned before, has
-a boldly designed relief of foliage arranged in a series of oval forms,
-one over the other. The interior of each unit is filled by the leafage
-being bent downwards. The same scheme occurs on a mosaic floor found in
-Dorsetshire, now in the British Museum (Fig. 82). Fine Corinthian
-capitals have been found at Cirencester and Bath; even in these we find
-the spirit of experiment constantly at work. An example sketched at
-Angers in France is given in Fig. 83. The most elegant piece of
-architectural decoration executed in Britain, which is known to me, is a
-frieze found at Bath, which is somewhat singular in bold freshness of
-treatment (Fig. 84). Again, this can be explained by comparison with a
-mosaic pattern. At first sight it seems an ordinary piece of scroll
-work, but examination reveals that the alternate elements were complete
-circles. This frieze is broken at a point which might seem to leave room
-for a little doubt as to this, and my figure is slightly restored; but
-the border of a mosaic floor found at Frampton furnishes us with a
-complete example of the same treatment, and this excludes any doubt
-(Fig. 85). Fig. 86 represents a more ordinary scroll frieze from
-Chester, but even this is brightened by the little birds set in the
-corner spaces. Fig. 87 is the soffit of a corona member from Bath, also
-alive and inventive.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 85.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 86.
-]
-
-All this is very different from the “Roman style” of books and the
-commentaries on Vitruvius. We may see in such provincial Roman works an
-early stage of Romanesque art and even the beginnings of Gothic. Again,
-the fragment of a column at the British Museum, carved over with a
-lattice pattern having foliage in the interspaces, is particularly
-interesting as an example of an “all-over” diaper pattern, and a
-prototype of Romanesque carved shafts. At Trèves there are many examples
-of much more elaborate diaper patterns of the same type. Such continuous
-surface decorations speak rather of what was to be in the romance ages
-than of the past of classical art. Even the series of acanthus leaves
-arranged like tiles on the “roof” of the sarcophagus found at Haydon
-Square shows adaptive invention and pleasure (that is what it comes to)
-in the doing (Fig. 50).
-
-If ever we awake to make use of our inheritance and set about civilising
-London, we might yet gain something of value from the Roman sculptures
-which have been discussed. A replica of the splendid head of Hadrian
-might be joined on to a bronze cast from one of the figures of the
-emperor in the British Museum and re-erected, resurrected, as a visible
-symbol of the Roman age in Britain and London. Set on a tall pedestal,
-it would make a noble monument. Copies of the Ludgate Hill Soldier and
-of the “Signifer” at the Guildhall, we might place against each side,
-and the reclining River God—the Thames—in front, with an enlargement of
-the Genius Loci at the London Museum above it. Such a monument would be
-something to tell the children about, and it might even move the
-business men to occasional thoughts outside the fluctuations of stock.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 87.
-]
-
-_Symbolism._—Romano-British sculpture was certainly not over-refined;
-indeed, much of it was just the opposite. But ideas were embodied, and
-many of the things had simple and poetic meanings. The power of making
-impersonations is specially to be noted, whereby an image stood for a
-thing as definitely as its name—Sun, Moon and Planets, Seasons, Winds
-and Waters, Countries, Cities and localities, events and wishes.
-Fragments of a set of reliefs of seasons found at Bath, represented by
-nude boys carrying flowers, a reaping-hook, etc.; the winged heads of
-Winds; and the rising and setting Sun of the Mithraic panel at the
-London Museum talk a universal language.
-
-Some study of the sepulchral monuments of Roman Britain gives many
-indications of the thought of the time. The coming in of the coffin, and
-then of the double coffin of lead and stone, suggests some concern as to
-an awaking after the sleep of death. The lack of late funeral
-inscriptions is another indication of transition. The old mythology was
-softened and the characters were allegorised and reinterpreted in
-harmony with the mystery cults. We have seen that the Jove and Giant
-columns suggested triumph over evil. Mrs. Strong has dealt with this
-subject in regard to continental monuments (_J.R.S._, 1911): “There is
-frequent preoccupation as to survival on these tombstones.” The cult of
-Atys was revived under Mithraism, as appears from “countless gravestones
-... an expression of hope, of resurrection; so, too, his pine-cone must
-be symbolical of the belief; there are numerous examples in
-_Britannia_.” In the Roman corridor at the British Museum is a fragment
-from the North of England, described as the upper part of a niche, which
-can hardly be other than the top of a grave slab; on it are two peacocks
-between three pine-cones. Peacocks were symbols of immortality. The
-baskets of fruit carved on the Haydon Square tomb could only have one
-meaning. Compare a Gaulish tomb illustrated by Espèrandieu (iii., No.
-1789), on which is carved a peacock pecking at the fruit from such a
-basket, which is upset towards it. The sepulchral banquet symbolises
-some sort of paradise. In examples of these at Chester, we find birds
-perched on festoons above the main subject, and we have found an example
-of birds and festoons in London.
-
-The group before mentioned of a lion seizing another animal was in some
-way “apotropaic”—that is, it warded off evil influences like a horseshoe
-on a door. At Colchester is a group of a sphinx having a skull between
-its paws, which is much finer in style (compare Espèrandieu, No. 4675).
-Probably there were similar tombs in London; in the British Museum is a
-pretty little bone carving of such a sphinx.
-
-A grave slab at Cirencester has a sphinx and two lions carved on it as
-acroteria. A somewhat similar slab, found in the north by the Roman
-wall, has two lions with skulls. A lead coffin of specially fine
-workmanship, found at Sittingbourne, but doubtless made in London, now
-shown at the British Museum, has pairs of lions guarding a vase (compare
-Espèrandieu, 4715), and little medallions of the Gorgon’s head on it
-(Fig. 152). The most important example of apotropaic sculpture in
-Britain is the great Gorgon’s head in the pediment of the small
-Corinthian temple found at Bath.
-
-The apotropaic nature of this sculpture has not, I think, been brought
-out. It has been explained as a symbol of Minerva, and the building has
-been called the Temple of Minerva; but for this there is no evidence. (I
-may say here that Lysons assigned to this building a fragment of an
-inscription which mentions repairs, but I do not think that this
-fragment should be separated from another which clearly belonged to a
-second building. Since writing this, I find that Mr. Irvine had already
-made a similar observation. Wonder has been expressed that this head
-should be bearded, but this appears to be the Italian tradition.)
-
-In any story of life in Roman London, some of the atmosphere of mixed
-faiths and symbols suggested in Kingsley’s _Hypatia_ should appear.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                             +CHAPTER VII+
-
-                              THE MOSAICS
-
-    “Here is grandeur of form, dignity of character, and great breadth
-    of treatment which reminds me of the best Greek schools. Were I a
-    painter I should venture to enlarge upon the quality and
-    distribution of colour.”
-
-                                                            —WESTMACOTT.
-
-
-SOME screen appears to be set up between us and our Roman works of art.
-Even the mosaics, which we might have supposed would have been
-interesting—even fascinating—seem to be regarded as mere museum objects
-and subjects for antiquarian tracts. So far as I know there is only one
-book which considers them as a whole (Morgan’s _Romano-British
-Mosaics_), and this is rather a full index than a discussion of their
-artistic qualities. An excellent chapter in Ward’s _Roman Buildings_
-should be mentioned. Even professional scholars apologise for them. Dr.
-Haverfield wrote: “They have the look of work imitated from patterns
-rather than of designs sketched by artists.”... “We admire them mainly,
-I think, because they are old and expensive. Few Romano-British mosaics
-are real works of art.”
-
-Against such a judgment I will call three witnesses—Westmacott, the
-sculptor, as above, William Morris, the master pattern designer, and Mr.
-Alfred Powell. Morris says: “This splendid Roman scrollwork, though not
-very beautiful in itself, is the parent of very beautiful things. It is
-perhaps in the noble craft of mosaic that the foreshadowings of the new
-art are best seen. There is a sign in them of the coming wave of the
-great change which was to turn late Roman art, the last of the old, into
-Byzantine art, the first of the new.” Mr. Powell, who repaired the
-Orpheus Pavement at the Barton, Cirencester, and became thoroughly
-acquainted with the powerfully-drawn animals on it, says: “These
-creatures of the forest have been set out here in the tiny scraps of
-coloured stone with an ease and mastery that is remarkable. There is
-grace in their gesture that has seldom been reached in the art of even
-the highest period of the life of a nation.” The Woodchester Orpheus
-Pavement, which, judging from points of resemblance in design and
-details (a horned and bearded griffin, for instance), must have been by
-the same master, was a magnificent work, as, indeed, the fragment of its
-splendid border in the British Museum is enough to show.
-
-Completer lists of London mosaics than I can attempt here have been
-given in other places (see Morgan’s _Romano-British Mosaics_, C. Roach
-Smith’s _Roman London_, and _V.C.H._). Here and there all over the city
-at depths of from about 8 ft. to 20 ft. pavements have been found
-submerged by the rising levels of the ground. Scores have been noted,
-many must have been destroyed without a record, and doubtless some yet
-lie hidden to-day. In an old MS. Common-place Book I have is the
-following note: “On Wed., Aug. 15, 1733, some bricklayers digging
-foundations in Little St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate, discovered a Roman
-pavement, which by ye inscription [?] had been laid about 1700 years
-ago. It appeared a very beautiful prospect, being in mosaic working, the
-tiles not above an inch square.”
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 88.
-]
-
-My purpose is to record a few fresh observations, to bring out by
-grouping and comparison some general inferences and indications of date,
-to evoke, if I could, some clear idea of the buildings to which such
-things belonged, and to prepare the way for a full study of these
-remarkable works.
-
-_The Bacchus Mosaic._—The central panel and fragments of borders of this
-mosaic are in the British Museum. A careful original drawing of the
-whole is at the Society of Antiquaries, and an admirable engraving by
-Fisher was published in 1804 (Fig. 88). It was found in 1803 under East
-India House, Leadenhall Street. The patterned part of the pavement
-occupied a square of about 11 ft., “the whole was environed by a margin
-consisting of coarse red tesseræ an inch square traced to the extent of
-5½ ft. on the N.W. side—[note that it and the building it occupied was
-diagonal to the points of the compass]—but could not be followed
-further. The room could not have been less than 22 ft. square; but was
-_in all probability considerably larger_.”
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 89.
-]
-
-The central panel of Bacchus reclining on a Tiger, at the Museum, has
-been restored and repolished. It may not now seem very attractive, but
-it is most competent in the balance of the forms and the strong, even
-fierce, drawing of the tiger; its bold eye, gleaming teeth, powerful
-paws, and the baggy skin of the legs are wonderfully truthful (Fig. 89).
-Notice that Bacchus carries a wine cup; this is the essential part of
-the design of the mosaic which doubtless was the floor of the central
-hall of an important house. The brighter coloured tesseræ are of
-coloured glass.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 90.
-]
-
-_The Bacchante Mosaic._—One of the finest of the London mosaics was
-found under the old Excise Office, Broad Street. I have an original
-drawing of it by Fairholt, dated March 1, 1854 (Fig. 90). The best
-authorities are two large original coloured drawings, one by Archer in
-the British Museum and the other at the Society of Antiquaries. The
-central panel had a white ground and black border; the Nymph had reddish
-flesh and a light greenish scarf; the Panther seems to have been a
-grey-buff spotted black. There was much black and white in the pattern
-work, and some of the fillings were of black and white triangles.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 91.
-]
-
-It was described at the time of finding as having formed a square of 28
-ft.; it was diagonally about north and south and 15 ft. below the
-surface. The central subject was “Ariadne or a Bacchante reclining on a
-panther.” In _V.C.H._ it was said to be “Europa on the Bull,” but the
-drawings agree with the former description. The composition is very
-similar to the Bacchus, and doubtless a wine cup was held by the
-Bacchante also. Notice that vases appear elsewhere in the design. The
-panel was about 2½ ft. square. This fine floor was taken to the Crystal
-Palace, where it seems to have disappeared. From its size and subject we
-may suppose that it was the floor of the central dining-hall of some big
-house. The drawing and balanced design of the central group is
-wonderfully skilful as space filling. Fig. 91 is based on original
-drawings of the floor at the Society of Antiquaries and the British
-Museum and a sketch in the Wollaston Collection at South Kensington.
-This mosaic should be compared with a floor found at Bignor, which is
-very similar in its details, and probably, I think, by the same artist.
-There the centre is occupied by Jove’s eagle and Ganymede, the cupbearer
-to the gods.
-
-_Vase-Panel Mosaic._—In his account of discoveries at Bucklersbury,
-Price describes a floor found in St. Mildred’s Court which must have
-been one of the finer kind. “A square enclosed a circle containing a
-vase in brown, red and white with the addition of bright green glass.
-Around the vase there appeared portions of a tree with foliage; also an
-object resembling an archway with embattled figures and other objects,
-the meaning of which is difficult to describe without an illustration.
-Around the whole were two simple bands of black tesseræ separating the
-circle from an elaborate scroll of foliage and flowers, analogous to
-that on one of the pavements at Bignor. At each corner was a flower
-showing eight petals of varied colours. From the centre of each sprang
-two branches, which united in a leaf in form like that within the
-scroll. The entire design is bordered by the guilloche in seven
-intertwining bands of black, red, brown and white tesseræ. A drawing of
-this interesting floor was in the possession of Mr. G. Plucknett.” The
-central panel must have been a formal landscape—a large wine krater
-backed by a tree and an arcade with figures on the parapet. In another
-place Price names it again amongst mosaics which had glass tesseræ;
-probably the tree was of green glass. This pavement also doubtless
-occupied a dining-hall. In an earlier account (_London and Middlesex
-Archæol. Soc. Proceed._ iii.) Price says: “When perfect it was of some
-extent, resembling those discovered at East India House and the Excise
-Office. In the centre was a vase similar to those at the Excise Office,
-and around it a scroll of foliage beautifully arranged. The fragments
-were packed in cases and sent to the workshops of Messrs. Cubitt.”
-
-_An Orpheus Mosaic (?)._—Roach Smith reported the existence, below
-Paternoster Row, of what must have been an exceptionally fine pavement,
-which was broken up before any proper record of it could be made. This
-“superb pavement extended at least 40 ft.; towards the centre were
-compartments in which in variegated colours were birds and beasts
-surrounded by a rich guilloche border.” The wording suggests a square
-room, and the two former examples show that large square rooms existed
-in London. In the villa at Woodchester the chief central room was nearly
-50 ft. square; the pavement had “a central circular compartment; within
-the border was a wide circular band containing representations of
-animals, inside was a smaller band containing birds; on the southern
-side was a figure of Orpheus.” The description of the London mosaic
-suggests that it, too, had for subject Orpheus charming the beasts. It
-was found about 1840 at a depth of 12 ft. In 1843 part of a mosaic
-floor, “with birds and beasts within a guilloche border,” was found at a
-depth of 12½ ft. below the offices of the Religious Tract Society at the
-corner of Cannon Row (_V.C.H._). Is it not probable that this was
-another part of the pavement described by Roach Smith?
-
-_Inscribed Floor._—A mosaic pavement found in Pudding Lane as lately as
-1886, and bearing an important inscription, was destroyed before any
-sufficient record of it was made. A printed version of the lettering was
-given in the _Archæological Journal_ of the same year by Dr. Haverfield,
-with some comments. (Also see _S.A. Proceedings_, xiv. 6, and _V.C.H._)
-In the collections of the Society of Antiquaries I find a sketch of it
-by Henry Hodge, a careful draughtsman of the time. This drawing is said
-to have been made “from a sketch by I. W. Jolly and fragments,” so that
-its strict accuracy is questionable. It appears that it was complete on
-the right but imperfect on the left-hand side. On the right some parts
-of the pattern covering the rest of the floor and a border are shown and
-some dimensions are given. It looks as if the panel was about 5 ft.
-across and was the centre of a strip 7 ft. or 8 ft. wide. The letters
-were about 3 in. high, black on a white ground; the last four seem to
-have been D. S. P. D.—_de sua pecunia dedit_—and this would imply that
-the mosaic belonged to a temple. The destruction of these mosaics is a
-sad witness to the nineteenth-century type of intelligence. Of all of
-them only the fragments of the Bacchus pavement are now known to exist.
-I should like to find out what became of the Bacchante pavement sent to
-the Crystal Palace, and whether the vase mosaic is still in packing
-cases at Messrs. Cubitt’s. I wonder, too, what became of Mr. G.
-Plucknett’s drawing, and wish I could get tidings of it. The great
-pavement in Paternoster Row seems to have been destroyed without even a
-drawing being made; while the sketch taken by Mr. Jolly of the inscribed
-floor has, so far as I know, been burnt. And this was the high age of
-university education!
-
-_Bucklersbury._—The most perfect of the existing mosaics is the complete
-and restored pavement with an apsidal end found in Bucklersbury. A good
-account of it while yet in its place is given in _The Builder_ (1869):
-“It lies fresh and bright as when it was first put down.... It is to be
-hoped that some pains will be taken to trace the remaining walls of the
-building to which this speaking pavement belongs.” Here, again, although
-the apartment was not large and the ornamental mosaic was more than a
-central panel, there was a broad border of the coarse tesseræ. Besides
-having been a saving, the contrast of the plain red with the variegated
-central area seems to have been liked. The interlacing squares of this
-pavement resemble those of the Excise Office floor, and its central rose
-is like a panel in the same floor. An angle-filling is similar to a
-quarter of the central pattern filling the centre of the small India
-Office pavement, which, again, had interlacing squares. A single
-cross-like pattern filling a panel in the British Museum is again like
-that of the India House mosaic. Many such references could be carried
-much further, not only in regard to London pavements, but including the
-country ones also. I reach the conclusion that they are for the most
-part nearly of the same date, and that many were by the same artists.
-
-_Fenchurch Street._—A fragment of what must have been a fine floor was
-found in 1859 and is now in the British Museum. It is part of a panel
-which contained a vase and two birds. An illustration given in Price’s
-_Bucklersbury_ shows that there was a margin of coarse tesseræ beyond,
-and that the panel must have been one of a series making up a handsome
-border. A fragment of a floor with a wide border divided into panels has
-lately been found at Colchester. Roach Smith described the former as
-“what would seem to have been an extensive pavement,” and he calls the
-bird a peacock. A good coloured drawing, in the Archer collection, of
-the fragment shows the bird’s neck a bright blue; the blue tesseræ were
-of glass. Fig. 92 is from Price, but I have dotted in on the top
-right-hand corner the line of a more modern building from Roach Smith’s
-illustration. This is one example of many cases in which more recent
-walls have been carried up from the Roman level and square with a Roman
-building. (A in fig., and compare Fig. 90.)
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 92.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 93.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 94.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 95.
-]
-
-_Birchin Lane, etc._—In 1785 a small piece was discovered here of “a
-fine tesselated pavement of very small bricks and stones; of this, only
-one corner appeared, which is composed of black, green, and white stones
-and brick, forming a beautiful border.” Another account says that “the
-tesseræ measured about one-quarter of an inch and were of various
-colours.” I am particular about this, for the bright colours were
-doubtless of glass. I find a contemporary drawing of this fragment in
-the Guildhall Library, from which it appears that there was a fair blue
-besides the colours mentioned. (Fig. 93; compare Fig. 92 and a border
-illustrated by Mr. Ward.) Outside it were big red “brick” tesseræ. There
-is in the Guildhall Museum a fragment of another mosaic found in Birchin
-Lane. It is part of a star-shaped all-over pattern of a well-known type
-(the Barton Cirencester, etc.). Fig. 94 A shows the fragment, and Fig.
-95 is a diagram of the complete pattern. Another piece at the Guildhall
-has a sea-monster of small scale but most skilful execution. The place
-of finding is not noted, but it is probably a fragment discovered in
-Birchin Lane in 1857, described in _V.C.H._ as part of a pavement
-“representing a sea-horse.” Two other small pieces in the same museum
-are very similar in colour and quality, and may have come from the same
-source. One of these seems to have belonged to a pavement of square
-panels of knot-work framed in scroll bands (Fig. 94, B), or it may have
-been part of a panelled border similar to Fig. 92. Morsels of painted
-plaster were also found in Birchin Lane, where there must have been a
-good house.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 96.
-]
-
-A fragment of mosaic at the London Museum comes from another all-over
-star-pattern similar to that at the Guildhall, but this piece was next
-to the outer border of the pavement. This fragment is of particularly
-beautiful colouring—quite a purple floor. I give a sketch of the
-fragment in Fig. 96; it must have come next the border of a pattern like
-Fig. 95.
-
-_Threadneedle Street._—Several pieces of London mosaic are shown in the
-Roman corridor at the British Museum, but not very effectively. Two are
-exhibited as given by Mr. E. Moxhay, but it is not added that they were
-found in Threadneedle Street in 1841. One is part of a passage and the
-other is a square from the centre of a room. (See illustrations in Roach
-Smith’s _Roman London_, from which Fig. 97 is taken.) Another piece
-found at East India House, Leadenhall Street, is not set up rightly. The
-pattern is of two interlacing squares; the margin should not be parallel
-to either of these, but it should touch two of the points of the star
-form. (Fig. 98. See Sir W. Tite’s illustration in _Archæologia_; compare
-also the Bucklersbury pavement at the Guildhall.) This floor came from
-the same level as the Bacchus mosaic and not far away from its position;
-probably the small chamber to which it belonged was part of the building
-which contained the large square hall of the Bacchus mosaic.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FRAGMENT OF ROMAN TESSELLATED PAVEMENT DISCOVERED AT THE DEPTH OF 14
-    FEET UNDER THE FRENCH PROTESTANT CHURCH IN THREADNEEDLE STREET.
-    APRIL 1841.
-  FIG. 97.
-]
-
-_The Bank._—A fourth piece in the Museum is a square panel from
-Lothbury. Allen describes it as “An ornamental centre, measuring 4 ft.
-each way, of an apartment 11 ft. square; beyond this were tiles of an
-inch square extending to the sides of the room.” It is another example
-of the plan of having a comparatively small central panel liberally
-framed in much plain red work. The device in the centre is a cruciform
-pattern. I can hardly think that from, say, 250 A.D. it would not have
-been recognised as a cross indeed. Compare the small cruciform centres
-of two squares of mosaic exhibited close by.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 98.
-]
-
-The floor mosaics at the British Museum are dispersed in two galleries
-and a staircase, and even so each one is badly presented. Fragments of
-the Bacchus floor are shown without any key-plan of the whole. Of five
-on the north wall of the Roman gallery, the place where only one was
-found is told. The interesting little Orpheus mosaic discovered at
-Withington is shown by three single fragments, although an excellent
-restored engraving was published in _Archæologia_ when it was found. I
-wish space could be found for setting them in their due relation and
-completing the composition in outline. The surface requires careful
-cleaning and some repolishing. The floor from Thruxton on the north
-staircase has lost its centre since it was engraved. The engraving
-itself is shown in the gallery a hundred yards away, without any
-reference from one to the other. In this case, I think, the centre
-should be painted in on the plaster filling of the original.
-
-These mosaics must have been drawn out on the levelled beds prepared to
-receive them by the master artist and filled in by him and his
-assistants. The preparation for such a floor is made clear in the
-description of a London mosaic found in 1785: “This pavement, as well as
-most of the rest, was laid in three distinct beds; the lowest very
-coarse, about 3 in. thick, and mixed with large pebbles; the second of
-fine mortar, very hard and reddish in colour, from having been mixed
-with powdered brick; this was about 1 in. in thickness, and upon it the
-bricks [tesseræ] were embedded in fine white cement” (_Archæol._, vol.
-viii.). The Bacchus pavement described before “was bedded on a layer of
-brickdust and lime of about an inch.” Powdered brick (tile) and lime
-made a strong cement which would finish perfectly smoothly and provide
-an inviting surface to draw and work upon.
-
-Several mosaics while not quite plain were simpler in design and perhaps
-coarser in execution than those already described. A star-shaped
-fragment found in Bishopsgate Street, illustrated by Roach Smith, was of
-black and white tesseræ. It was probably the central panel of a floor,
-as Roach Smith said. A mosaic found at Lincoln had a similar star-shaped
-panel at the centre. About 1840 a tessellated pavement was found in
-Bishopsgate-Within “of black and white tesseræ in squares and diamonds”
-(_V.C.H._). In Bush Lane “a pavement of white tesseræ” is recorded. On
-the site of the Guildhall “irregular cubes of dark-grey slate and white
-marble” were found (_Journal B.A.A._ xix.).
-
-Another pavement, found in Lombard Street in 1785, was “composed of
-pieces of black and white stone one-third of an inch square, probably
-deposited in regular order” (_Archæol._ viii.). These black and white
-mosaics were doubtless like the counter-changed patterns found at
-Wroxeter, Silchester, etc. At the latter the Christian church had a
-square space for the altar paved in this way. Several years ago I drew a
-fragment of an identical design at Lincoln. This was probably a
-fourth-century fashion. The others may be a little earlier generally,
-but they overlapped into the Christian period.
-
-Many floors have been found in London which were wholly of coarse
-tesseræ of red, or of a few simple colours accidentally distributed. One
-of these is described as of irregular tesseræ about 2 in. by 1½ in.,
-mostly red, but some black and white. A room 17½ ft. by 14 ft., in
-Leadenhall Street, had coarse tesseræ red, black and white, 1¼ in.
-square, and a similar floor “of red bricks about an inch square with a
-few black ones and white stones” was found in Lombard Street. Some
-floors found at Silchester had circular and polygonal tiles used with
-mosaic cubes filling up the interspaces. At Bath, if I recollect aright,
-there are fragments of pleasant floors in which larger irregular pieces
-of marble are set here and there in a floor mainly of large red tesseræ.
-
-At Silchester a polishing tool is said to have been found, being a lump
-of marble with an iron socket for the attachment of a handle
-(Middleton’s _Rome_).
-
-A general comparison of the British mosaics brings out the resemblances
-between the members of certain groups. The similarity of the Cirencester
-and Woodchester Orpheus pavements has already been mentioned. The London
-floor found at the Excise Office was very like the mosaics at Bignor in
-both the patterns and figure work. The same pavements resemble others
-found at Silchester, and also the Cirencester and Woodchester mosaics. A
-pavement found at Stonesfield, near Woodstock, had a wreath of foliage
-springing from a head similar to that of Woodchester. It is obvious that
-elaborate works in isolated villas cannot have been home-made, and it is
-likely that this group at least was the work of craftsmen established in
-some central city. No centre is so likely as Londinium, a wealthy town,
-the most conveniently placed for the importation of materials. We think
-of these works as “decadent,” but really there was a new life in them.
-The centre of origin of the later type seems to have been Alexandria,
-and similar works to our own are found in Asia Minor, North Africa and
-Gaul. The use of glass in these mosaics is likely to have been an
-Alexandrian innovation. Price gives a list of five London mosaics in
-which glass was used, and I may add the fragment at Birchin Lane
-described above. Glass was also used at Cirencester and Woodchester: the
-purple tesseræ in the fine border of the latter in the British Museum
-must be glass.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 99.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 100.
-]
-
-Taking into consideration the great similarity of mosaics found in the
-East—those from Halicarnassus, for instance, now in the British
-Museum—to those found in the West, the character of the patterns, the
-mystical nature of some of the figure designs, and the swift ability of
-the workmanship, I am drawn to the conclusion that the craftsmen are
-likely to have been Greeks. Some confirmation of this is to be found in
-the fact noticed by Wright, that the Greek H sometimes appears for E in
-the few mosaic inscriptions which exist. Mosaics must, I think, have
-been works of the prosperous Constantinian age. The floor at Frampton
-had a XP monogram on it (Fig. 99); the Orpheus pavement at Horkstow,
-accepted as Christian by Cabrol, had crosses (Fig. 99); and a second one
-at Winterton has a red cross by one of the animals; the pavement at
-Thruxton, in the British Museum, has crosses set in the border in what
-seems to be a significant way (Fig. 100). The other details on this
-figure also have a Christian look; the top one is from Bignor, the
-bottom one from Frampton. Fig. 101 is from the Orpheus mosaic at
-Withington. If the Orpheus pavement at Frampton was Christian, the
-others are likely to have been so too. At least, they symbolise the
-Harmony of the Universe; they are not “mythological.” These pavements
-are evidence of the cosmopolitan nature of Romano-British culture.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 101.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 102.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 103.
-]
-
-Any idea of thought in decoration is difficult for us to apprehend. The
-records of the pavements which have been found in Britain deserve study
-from this point of view. The whole art of the time witnesses not only to
-the professional skill of artists, but to the thoughts and desires of
-the provincial Romans—and natives too, doubtless—who demanded such
-works. They speak of a time when the old beliefs had been for a large
-part allegorised and fitted into a sort of poetic cosmogony; the designs
-often dealt with the order of Nature. Many interesting details are to be
-found in these mosaics; Fig. 102 is a sundial which appears with a
-celestial sphere on the pavement at Bramdean. The fragment of
-inscription (Fig. 103) is from Thruxton. Large square mosaics which seem
-to have been the floors of central halls have been mentioned. In two
-cases, such floors found in Britain had sunk water basins at their
-centres. At Woodchester four columns were placed about the central
-space, and there was doubtless an opening in the roof above. Such a
-central hall would have been an _Atrium_, and this helps to explain the
-planning of Roman houses in Britain.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                             +CHAPTER VIII+
-
-                   WALL PAINTINGS AND MARBLE LININGS
-
-BY putting together, in our imagination, the mosaic floors, the
-fragments of wall paintings, and the marble linings, we can gain a
-fairly certain knowledge of what the finer Roman interiors in Londinium
-were like, and we may further add to the impression by remembering the
-many precious objects in silver, bronze, pottery and glass, which are in
-our museums. Broken remnants of wall paintings have been found in large
-quantities, and pieces are preserved at the British, the Guildhall, and
-the London Museums, also at the Society of Antiquaries. Some account of
-several of them was given by Roach Smith in his _Illustrations of Roman
-London_, from which Fig. 104 is reduced. The fragment (5, Fig. 104), now
-with the others in the British Museum, is part of a pilaster-like strip
-about 8 in. wide, of foliage springing symmetrically on each side of a
-central vertical stem; it is on a dark ground, and marginal lines divide
-it off from a red space which covered the main surfaces of the wall.
-This “pilaster” was doubtless one of several. The morsels (6 and 7, Fig.
-104) evidently belonged together; the one-sided nature of the design
-suggests that it was next the angle of a room; and the loop in the upper
-part of 7 looks like the end of a festoon; 9 is somewhat similar; and
-the others may all have belonged to “pilaster” strips.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 104.
-]
-
-The method of dividing up the wall space with strips of plain colour or
-with “pilasters” was very general. A simpler scheme was to have marginal
-borders only, and these were frequently of considerable width, made up
-of many bands and lines of colour. Dadoes were very general, sometimes
-only a plain band of colour or a horizontal bar running into the
-margins; at other times they were fully decorated: two examples lately
-illustrated in _Archæologia_, from Caerwent and Silchester, are really
-fine work. The latter had a row of “panels,” alternating square and
-round, set with leaves and ears of corn, on a red ground between dark
-top and bottom bands.
-
-_Stripes and Margins._—A piece of wall of considerable height was found
-at Bignor, having a quadrant skirting at the bottom, a plain dark band
-as a low dado, and the space above divided into panels. At Cirencester a
-fragment was found which showed a band of fair yellow, edged with
-margins of white separating spaces of a cool grey-green. At the Society
-of Antiquaries is a piece of plaster showing fine red and green spaces,
-divided by a white band and a black line—very simple, but beautiful
-colour (Fig. 105).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 105.
-]
-
-Of a great number of fragments in our museums one cannot determine if
-they only represent margins or whether they may have come from vertical
-strips. A piece of plaster from Silchester shows a broad band of red,
-then two white lines separated by one of black, and then a surface of
-grey, except for other thin black lines. A piece of plaster at the
-Guildhall had a dark green band, probably 3 in. or 4 in. wide, then a
-strip of rather transparent crimson 1½ in. wide, finished against a
-yellow line, then an interval of white 1 in. wide, followed by the green
-again 1¼ in. wide and a yellow line, then 2 in. of white and a single
-yellow line followed by a white area. This was certainly a margin, and
-here we get an example of a method of gradating the border into the
-general field. In 1785 “some large pieces of painted stucco” were found
-in Lombard Street (_Archæol._ viii.). Drawings made at the time are in
-the Guildhall library. A piece was banded green and black, with the
-addition of thin marginal lines. Two of the pieces were from borders
-having lines with additional touches. One had merely groups of
-comma-like hooks springing from the line [illustration], and the other,
-little fleur-de-lis forms on a white band edging a bright blue space.
-These were, I think, coarser variants of the treatment shown in 6, Fig.
-104. The margins were sometimes “shaded” like mouldings; there are one
-or two examples of this treatment at Silchester.
-
-_Pilasters._—In some cases the ornamental vertical strips may not have
-been contained within pilaster-like forms. A fragment in the British
-Museum, which has an umbrella-like calyx to a number of springing
-stalks, may be one of these (Fig. 106). It is on a brown-red ground, and
-there are some other small fragments with leaves on a similar colour.
-The cast-shadows make me think that it was independent of a pilaster.
-The colour and workmanship appear very similar to the festoon of foliage
-from Southwark, described below; probably such uprights usually upheld
-festoons. The head rising from a calyx illustrated by Roach Smith came
-from another similar vertical composition (8, Fig. 104). Two small
-pieces at the Guildhall represent a similar upright (Fig. 107). Again,
-in the British Museum is a very simple vertical upright, something like
-a prolonged ear of corn (9, Fig. 104).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 106.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 107.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 108.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 109.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 110.
-]
-
-Figs. 108, 109, 110, at the British Museum, are from pilasters. Fig. 110
-is a restoration of 3, Fig. 104. Fig. 111 is a small fragment at the
-Society of Antiquaries; this, too, probably came from a vertical stem or
-a pilaster. Sometimes the pilasters imitated marble.
-
-_Dadoes._—A sketch at the Society of Antiquaries shows the walls of a
-plain little room found in Leadenhall Street, which had pink margin
-bands along the skirting and up the angles, and another pink stripe
-about 2 ft. above the floor. The general surface was white.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 111.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 112.
-]
-
-Other dadoes seem to have been divided up into small plain “panels” or
-diagonal lattices. At Silchester there is a fragment with a green band,
-about 1¼ in. wide, crossing another at right angles, having a red line
-parallel with the green band with a “blob” at the angle. This seems to
-have represented a dado treatment (Fig. 112). At the British Museum are
-pieces of plaster painted with narrow red bands on a green ground,
-apparently parts of a plain lattice pattern. At the Guildhall is a small
-piece of plaster having a blue band edged by a white line and with a
-yellow line beyond the red ground, and another at right angles (Fig.
-113). This is probably part of a dado; there may have been little
-subjects or sprigs in the square spaces. This is a notable example of
-adding “pearling” to the edges of bands or the lines, a favourite method
-of the painters of Londinium, as several of the other sketches show.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 113.
-]
-
-A large fragment of decoration at the British Museum imitates marble. A
-circle of green speckled “porphyry” has a margin of red “porphyry,” with
-figured “marble” of pink-yellow beyond. The circle is defined by
-scratched lines drawn on the plaster by a compass as a guide for the
-decorator. This was doubtless part of a dado for which the size of the
-circle is entirely suitable. Further, fragments of a similar dado were
-found at Cirencester in position at the foot of a wall. This is
-described by Buckmann and Newmarch, but they did not recognise the
-marbling as such. One square panel contained a circle speckled “dark
-pink and black”; the panels on either band were yellow with wavy
-markings. Here, again, porphyry and marble were imitated. At Silchester,
-fragments of marbling have been found, and in the Rochester Museum are
-many other pieces. Most of these would have been from dadoes. A wall was
-discovered in January 1922, in the centre of Gracechurch Street, the
-plaster of which “still retained the lower part of square panels painted
-in black outline, with a simple ornamentation around, and the painted
-plaster gave the impression that it had been coloured in imitation of
-marble.”
-
-Two fragments at the British Museum, which were illustrated by Roach
-Smith and Wright, are covered with a diaper arranged thus,
-
-                                 × × ×
-                                 × × ×
-
-with little flowers and figures in the intervals. These must, I think,
-have come from a dado. The little figure on one of the pieces is now
-broken, but a sketch by Fairholt in the Victoria and Albert Museum shows
-it complete with a level band at the top. It is so engraved by Thomas
-Wright, and I think that part must have been broken off since it was
-drawn rather than that the drawing was restored. Wright says that these
-fragments were from a large building near Crosby Square. This pattern is
-on a fine red ground.
-
-At the Guildhall Museum is a piece which is fortunately larger than
-ordinary, and allows for the pattern to be restored (Fig. 114). The
-ground was covered with circles, small and great, the latter containing
-sprigs of flowers, all on a dark ground. This, I suppose, was also from
-a dado. The larger outer circle is made up of curious forms, which
-comparison shows were rose-petals. A fragment found in the Lombard
-Street excavations of 1785, of which there is a drawing in the Guildhall
-Library, shows segment of two circles, one within the other, red on
-bright blue, and apparently part of a powdering of small double circles.
-In the cloister of Lincoln Cathedral there used to be preserved, or at
-least kept, a large piece of a dado having a big rhombus with
-Amazon-shield forms at the ends, set within a long rectangular panel;
-this was of good workmanship and possibly of the second century.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 114.
-]
-
-_Foliage._—In the London Museum is a morsel of pilaster, about as big as
-an open hand, having small leafage painted on a brown-red ground. The
-leaves are sharp and struck in in a masterly way; it is really beautiful
-(Fig. 115). The leaves spread from a central stem or line, and it is a
-part of a suspended festoon, I think, rather than of a growth of
-foliage. This must be the fragment found in Southwark. “The débris of
-Roman villas, with pavements, ornamental bowls, and pieces of painted
-plaster have been found. One of these last, in Mr. Syers Cuming’s
-museum, has on it a slender stem with green leaves on a dull red field”
-(Mrs. E. Boger, _Southwark_, 1895. Mr. Cuming was a well-known
-antiquary).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 115.
-]
-
-In the British Museum are, as said above, two fragments of a scheme of
-decoration, which seems to have consisted of festoons hanging from
-slender uprights (6 and 7, Fig. 104). Fig. 116, from the Guildhall, is,
-I suppose, a variety of vertical stem, but it may be part of a festoon.
-
-_Figures._—Some walls had figures in panels or set singly on the general
-ground. At the Guildhall is a morsel of plaster containing parts of two
-small dancing figures, which occupied a panel not more than 8 or 9 in.
-high (Fig. 117). From the composition it appears that there would have
-been three figures altogether, filling a square panel (Fig. 118). The
-central figure is of a darker hue than the others, and apparently the
-face is male; probably it is a faun with two nymphs. The painting of
-this is of high competence, and in full Pompeian tradition. The little
-panel, one of a series, would have been set at the centre of a wall
-division. Roach Smith illustrated the head of a figure of Mercury on a
-red ground; this was probably a single figure painted on a general
-ground and not included in a panel. Evidences for figures of full size
-have also been found.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 116.
-]
-
-A good foot on a blue ground and a piece of drapery of large scale of
-fine execution are in the British Museum: these are said to have come
-from Leadenhall Street (The Basilica?). Wright describes some fragments
-found at Great Chesterford, Essex. “A considerable variety of rather
-elegant patterns, among which were some representing portions of the
-human figure. The most remarkable of the latter was the foot of a
-female, as large as life, with drapery flowing round it. In one of the
-larger rooms of the villa at Combe End, in Gloucestershire, the lower
-part of the wall remained covered with fresco painting, on which were a
-row of feet, also as large as life, which had belonged to some grand
-paintings.”
-
-Parts of inscriptions have also been discovered. A morsel was found on
-Tower Hill of “white wall painting with the letters [large capitals] S V
-P in reddish colour.” At Woodchester, some fragments “were painted with
-large capital letters which had formed part of inscriptions” (Wright, p.
-195).
-
-_Cast-Shadows._—It was the practice in figure and foliage painting to
-boldly reinforce the forms with cast-shadows (see a fragment of a figure
-in Roach Smith’s _Illustrations_, pl. 14). A piece of a foliage tendril
-or festoon in the Rochester Museum, from the villa at Darenth, has
-cast-shadows. This is of long, delicate, grey-green olive leaves on a
-red ground, and the sharp shadow below forces it into prominence.
-Several of the ornamental patterns found in London were reinforced by
-shadows. A striking example is the large scroll foliage pattern from
-Leadenhall Market, where separate shadow lines and touches are laid
-almost like a secondary pattern. This, I think, from the scale of the
-work, must have been part of the decorations of the Civil Basilica
-described in Chapter II.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 117.
-]
-
-Provincial Roman painting is not fine as compared with the great things
-in either Greek or Gothic art, but we must remember, in comparing it
-with anything we can obtain to-day, that it was the ordinary journeyman
-decorator’s work of the time. It is certainly far beyond the standard of
-common work which we reach to-day; and Roman London, on the testimony of
-the arts, must have been quite a civilised place. A full study of the
-fragments in country museums ought to make an interesting subject for a
-student who is prepared to take up a definite piece of research on the
-history of art in Britain. Further, suggestions for enlarging the scope
-of work undertaken by present-day “painters and decorators” might be
-gathered from these ancient paintings. Our workmen are capable of much
-better work than is ordinarily demanded of them. Their skill in graining
-was noticeable; it was the last field where any freedom was left the
-workmen, and it was probably for that very reason (unconsciously
-functioning) that architects have tried to kill it. It is our duty to
-demand free and interesting work. A point to be thought of in regard to
-the Roman decorations is the character of the designs. These are not
-laboriously set out, transferred from a full-sized drawing, and
-painfully “executed”; they are swiftly painted in masterly brush strokes
-and varied at will for the fun of the thing.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 118.
-]
-
-_Marble Wall-Linings._—In London, at Silchester, and elsewhere,
-fragments of coloured marbles, and even of porphyries, have been found,
-which suggest that they were parts of wall-linings, or rather of dadoes.
-Wright says, of the Great Villa at Woodchester: “Several slices of
-marble, of different sorts, but chiefly foreign, were also found. These
-had, perhaps, been employed to encrust the walls. Some of these pieces
-were not more than a quarter of an inch thick.” At Silchester pieces of
-porphyry have been found not more than three-sixteenths of an inch
-thick, and also pieces of fine white marble. At Colchester, fragments of
-Purbeck and white marble and porphyry have just been dug up. At the
-British Museum there are many small pieces of marble of various colours,
-and some of red and green porphyry. A piece of white marble at the
-British Museum has a shallow edge moulding such as I have frequently
-seen on dado-slabs in Rome. Such moulding is an excellent way of joining
-up continuous slab work. The pieces of green porphyry at the British
-Museum are from the site of East India House (where the Bacchus pavement
-was found), and they were given by Sir W. Tite in 1884, who, about that
-time, wrote on the mosaic pavement. These pieces are cut into forms—a
-part of a circular band and a triangle; they must have belonged to some
-handsome piece of work, like an Opus Alexandrinum pavement. It looks as
-if this building, close by the Forum and Basilica, was of special
-importance—perhaps the governor’s palace.
-
-There must have been skilled marble workers in London. This is proved by
-the fact that fragments of polished native marbles have been found.
-Roach Smith, as before said, speaks of “native green marble.” Fragments
-of Purbeck are common.
-
-At Silchester evidence has been found that mosaics were applied to the
-walls of a chamber in the Baths; and at Wroxeter a considerable fragment
-of wall mosaic was found in place many years ago.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER IX+
-
-                       LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS
-
-
-_LETTERS._—Fine lettering is the most perfect thing in the art of the
-Romans. For one thing, it was developed on a field where they were not
-obsessed with the idea of imitating Greek art; it was their very own,
-and it was swiftly carried to an apex of perfection in the first century
-A.D. It is a constant phenomenon on all the fields of Art that it is the
-_first_ great flow of development which chiefly matters; all things of
-life and growth are like this, and, as I once heard a fine old
-Devonshire farmer say, “You can’t have two forenoons in one day.” The
-Romans, not the Greeks, had the forenoon of the day of their manner of
-lettering. This manner is clear, sharp, confident; it is like Greek art
-only in being free.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 119.—Inscription from the front of a Roman Tomb found at
-    Westminster Abbey in 1869: now by the entrance to the Chapter House.
-  MEMORIAE·VALER·AMAN
-  DINI·VALERI·SVPERVEN
-  TOR·ET·MARCELLVS·PATRI·FECER·
-]
-
-Early inscriptions had for the most part been cut on stone. Then from
-about 300 B.C. came a time of writing with a pen. Rome took this over
-from Alexandria and Pergamon, and these _written_ characters became the
-foundation of a new style of monumental inscription. In pen-written
-characters the thick and thin strokes make themselves without there
-being any design in the matter. It seems equally natural in large clear
-writing to finish off the strokes with a thin touch of the pen to
-sharpen the forms. This procedure was taken over so exactly into
-inscriptions cut on stone that, for the most part, it seems these must
-first have been written on the stone with an implement like a wide brush
-and cut in afterwards by a mason. The chisel, like the pen, is thin and
-wide, and thus perfectly fitted to develop the habit of the pen. The cut
-letters were themselves usually finished by painting. Whoever wishes to
-design inscriptions must begin on the writing basis, and I should like
-to advise every student who may read these words to take up the practice
-of writing capital and small letters with single strokes of the pen, not
-“touching up” or “painting” the letters, and, above all, not “designing”
-them with high-waisted bars, swollen loops, little-headed S curves, and
-other horrors of ignorance and vulgarity, but learning once for all a
-central standard style. Half an hour a day for one week would teach much
-to any one who was ready to learn and did not want to do everything by
-genius.
-
-We have in England a great number of fine Roman inscriptions, and it
-would be an excellent piece of work to gather a selection into an
-example-book of illustrations based on corrected rubbings. Even the
-inscriptions of London carefully studied would be subject-matter for a
-delightful and valuable essay.
-
-1. The finest London inscription is that on a tomb front in the British
-Museum (Fig. 120). This must be a first-century work nearly contemporary
-with the famous inscription of the Trajan column. The letters are large,
-deep, clearly cut, and of quite perfect form. It is something of a
-puzzle that such an artist as the author of this tomb should have been
-working in London only a few years after the Claudian Conquest. The
-letters of this inscription are still wonderfully sharp; the thick
-strokes of the big letters are about an inch wide, and the “serifs” are
-light and free as the stroke of a pen. Notice especially the beautiful
-curve of S, the square touch at the apex of N and A, and the sharp
-little triangular division point after the second letter in the last
-line (Fig. 121. See also Figs. 66 and 67).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 120.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 121.
-]
-
-2. Another very fine inscription is on the tomb front of Valerius at
-Westminster Abbey. The letters are smaller, the stone is rather decayed
-on the surface, and it is not seen in a good light. The beauty of the
-lettering and spacing has consequently hardly been remarked. Here the
-lines are longer, and the letters seem to follow one another
-rhythmically, trippingly; it is an extraordinarily vivid and elegant
-piece of work, which, I think, should be dated in the second century
-A.D. The letters A M and N have cross touches at the apex of the angles,
-and the stops are little triangles as in the inscription before
-described. Here it can just be seen that lines were ruled (scored) on
-the stone as guides for ranging the letters (Figs. 119 and 122).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 122.
-]
-
-3. In the London Museum is a small tablet of white marble, which has
-similar lines, lettering and stops, and must be nearly of the same age.
-I give in Fig. 123 a very rough sketch of this excellent little slab. I
-have felt some doubt as to whether this was a London antiquity indeed,
-but the many resemblances to other inscriptions have fully convinced me
-that it is.
-
-4. At the Guildhall there is another small slab, having only a few
-letters, but these of fine early style (Fig. 124). Both these little
-tablets and others probably were set on the wall of some burial chamber
-of the Columbarium type.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 123.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 124.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 125.
-]
-
-5. Another inscription of much the same character, but in smaller
-letters, is that on the hexagonal pedestal in the Guildhall Museum, of
-which a sketch was given in an earlier part. This provides an example of
-a group of tied letters (Fig. 125). The writers of Roman inscriptions
-allowed themselves much freedom in contracting words, in setting a small
-letter within a big one, as in Fig. 119, and in combining two or three
-letters together. In Fig. 126 I have noted one or two other examples not
-all from London.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 126.
-]
-
-6. In a fragment of inscription from Greenwich Park at the British
-Museum, the letters were much compressed, and many of them were linked
-together (Fig. 127).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 127.
-]
-
-It is difficult to draw out any general rules of form and spacing;
-generally o and c were very round in form, N of square proportion, and M
-wider than a square. The round letters were usually thickened, not where
-the curves would touch vertical tangents, but a little under and over,
-just as is natural in writing the letters. The loops of D and R do not
-become horizontal at top and bottom, but bend freely. A, N and M usually
-have square terminations at the upper angles. Initial letters are not
-larger than the rest.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 128.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 129.
-]
-
-One or two examples of rapid cursive writing have been preserved on
-bricks and tiles. Fig. 128 gives some letters of interesting form from a
-tile at the Guildhall. The A, G and M are on the way to be transformed
-into—a, g and m; apparently the hook of the “a” had its origin in the
-overlapping termination at the apex in the monumental inscriptions. Fig.
-129 is from a still more rapid scribble; L, T and E here approach our
-modern handwriting forms. These examples are enough to show how the more
-cursive writing styles and our own handwriting have been developed from
-the Roman capitals.
-
-Roman books and correspondence were written in such hands, and Dr.
-Haverfield has pointed out, as such scribblings on tiles were obviously
-in many cases by labourers in the brickfields, it follows that the
-common people in British towns had come to talk Latin. Dr. Haverfield
-went on to question whether town workmen even _spoke_ Celtic. “Had they
-known Celtic well, it is hardly credible that they should not have
-sometimes written in that language. No such scrawl has been found in
-Britain. This total absence of Celtic cannot be mere accident”
-(_Romanization_). This argument overlooks a probability that Latin was a
-_written_ language, while Celtic was not. We hardly realise our direct
-and full classical inheritance, and the fact that Londinium was a Roman
-city for three and a half centuries. Here the Latin Pantheon must have
-been completely absorbed into the common texture of traditional thought;
-here boys would have carried texts of Virgil in their satchels, and
-here, again, the story of the Gospel must have been brought in its first
-westward expansion.
-
-_Inscriptions._—In the notes which follow, I am more than ever off my
-proper ground, and, moreover, they are likely to be very dreary to any
-one who does not feel the romance of early London and Britain through
-all the dryasdust detail in which we have to work.
-
-An important inscription was found in 1850 under St. Nicholas Lane. It
-was described in the same year (_Gent. Mag._ xi. p. 104): “A large slab
-with the following Roman inscription in well-cut letters 5 in. or 6 in.
-in length:
-
-                               N V M C
-                               P R O V
-                               B R I T A
-
-It is doubtful if the fourth letter in the first line be C or O. The
-stone is in fine preservation, and others ought to have been discovered,
-but the excavators were not permitted to turn either to the right or to
-the left, notwithstanding a gentleman offered to pay any expense.” This
-must have been Roach Smith, who, as the practical repetition of the
-phrases given below shows, must have been the author of the note. An MS.
-letter, which is in my possession, is as follows:
-
-                                          “STROOD, _Wednesday_, P.M.
-
-    “MY DEAR FAIRHOLT,—I have given Richards £10 for you.... In the
-    Guildhall is a fragment of a large inscription from Nicholas
-    Lane which we should give rather large. It lay just within the
-    lower door of the Library. The letters are deeply cut and should
-    be shown clear. Can you see if the stone be _broken_? [Sketch.]
-    Note if letter 4, line 1, be a C, and please measure it. It is
-    most important. I suppose it is half the original length.—Yours
-    sincerely,
-
-                                                      “C. R. SMITH.”
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 130.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 131.
-]
-
-The stone had disappeared and has never been heard of since. The size
-was recorded by Birch as 2 ft. 4 in. high, and 3 ft. wide on the face.
-_V.C.H._ says 6 ft. long, but this is a mistake. Fortunately a careful
-drawing of the stone was made by Archer, which is preserved in the
-British Museum (Fig. 130). Archer’s drawing confirms Roach Smith’s
-reading of C at the end of the first line next a vertical joint. My
-sketch by Roach Smith seems to be the only other record (Fig. 131). In
-_Illustrations of Roman London_, he says: “It was found close to a wall,
-and there is reason to think other stones having the remainder of the
-inscription were not far off from the one excavated. In the present year
-(1859), being desirous to compare it with my sketch, I ascertained it
-was not to be found. The stone was between 2 and 3 ft. in length. The
-fourth letter in the first line appeared to me when I made the sketch
-more like a C (which I considered it to be) than it seems to be in the
-woodcut. From the magnitude of the stone and the character of the
-letters it is clear that the inscription surmounted the entrance of some
-public edifice, apparently a temple. It is probably the commencement of
-a dedication which occupied two or four stones. The wider distance from
-the top than of the third line from the bottom weighs in favour of the
-belief that we have only the first quarter. There can be no doubt that
-NVM should read _Numini_, and that PROV BRITA should be read _Provincia
-Britannia_; the supposed equal length of the second stone and the number
-of letters required, render this reading obvious. Seneca and Tacitus
-concur as to a temple having been erected in Britain to the Emperor
-Claudius; the latter locates it at Camuludunum. This temple was probably
-erected soon after the subjugation of the Trinobantes. It may be readily
-conceived that Londinium possessed some edifice dedicated to that
-emperor. Although it is impossible to decide positively, we cannot avoid
-associating the historical evidence with an inscription which must have
-been of an early period, of a rare class, and almost unique in this
-country.” This idea that there were formerly four stones is now much
-strengthened by the fact that a curiously similar temple dedication is
-illustrated by Espèrandieu (iv. p. 126) from D’Yzeures. This inscription
-begins _Numinibus Augustorum_ and is on four equal stones with joints
-meeting at the centre, thus +. Hübner (_C.I.L._ vii. No. 22) gives the
-boundary to the right of the London stone as a fracture, and restored
-the inscription with _Num. Caes. et Genio_ in the top line. It is at
-once apparent that this would not space out properly with the single
-words of second and third lines. Haverfield leaves out _Genio_ and
-reads, “To the Divinity of the Emperor and to the Province of Britain.”
-This, I suppose, might be possible in a contracted inscription, but I am
-drawn back to Roach Smith’s view, and would venture to suggest the
-possibility of some such restoration as:
-
-                            NVM·C|L·AVG·
-                             PROV|INCIA
-                            BRITA|NNIAE
-                             etc.      etc.
-
-I am ignorant whether it would be possible to have a dedication from the
-Province of Britain to Claudius in such a form, but if so it would be a
-record of great significance. The fourth letter was certainly C, because
-an O would not have avoided the joint. The letters in the top line were
-about 6 in. high, and the whole was of fine style. As Hübner says, it is
-doubtless of the first century. It was certainly affixed to a temple
-dedicated to an Emperor-divinity. The complete inscription probably
-occupied four stones.
-
-2. Several brick inscriptions are of special interest, as most of them
-contain the name London. There are two varieties: (_a_) P.PR.BR. in a
-label; and (_b_) P.P.BR.LON (Figs. 132 and 133). The former (_a_) has
-large letters, and they are enclosed in a tablet: it seems of earlier
-style than the other. Wright says of the second: “The most probable
-interpretation is _Proprætor Britanniæ Londinii_; this has a peculiar
-interest as showing that London was the seat of government of the
-province.” When Wright wrote only a roof tile of variety (_a_) seems to
-have been known, but now there are several plain tiles at the Guildhall
-and one at the British Museum which have the same mark. All these are
-alike in having four notches in their long edges, and one flat side of
-each is scored over with lines to give better hold for plastering. It
-seems that these tiles must have been used for lining walls, nails being
-driven in at the notches; their size is 16 in. by 11 in.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 132.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 133.
-]
-
-The explanation of Hübner adopted in the new British Museum Guide is
-that P. in (_a_) and (_b_) both “represent the _publicani_ who farmed
-the taxes (the ‘publicans’ of the Gospels) of the province of Britain in
-London.”
-
-Nothing is so expert a matter as Latin inscriptions, and it would be
-absurd for one who is entirely ignorant to pretend to a difference of
-opinion. I may, however, venture to point out that Hübner himself does
-not seem very certain, and that the difference of the two forms seems to
-coincide with the historical fact that earlier Britain was one province
-and that later it was subdivided. Variety (_a_), I have little doubt, is
-a second-century inscription (similar labels are found on pigs of lead
-of the time); while form (_b_) is quite late (probably end of fourth
-century). The first variety I should like to suggest represents the
-governor of the undivided province, and the second the subdivided
-province with its centre at London. If I am not entirely outside the
-possibilities of the case there is some confirmation of Wright’s view in
-the fact that other tiles bear the stamps of high authorities; thus a
-tile at Silchester has the name of the Emperor Nero in a circle, and
-other tiles are known stamped with the marks of army and navy commands.
-
-3. At the British Museum is a silver ingot (found on the site of the
-Tower of London), stamped with an inscription given as
-
-                                EXOFFL
-                                HONORINI
-
-and described thus: “_Ex Of[ficina] Fl[avii ?] Honorini_: found with
-gold coins of the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius.” The reading FL at the
-end of the first line is probably adopted because the Emperor Honorius
-had also the name Flavius; but to my eyes the letters look more like FE.
-Other similar marks on silver show that we need not expect an emperor’s
-name. (One in the British Museum reads EX OF PATRICI.) Roach Smith read
-the London inscription, EX OFFI, and explained the whole “From the
-workshop of Honorinus.” I may suggest Felix Honorinus.
-
-4. Lying in the grass in front of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, is a
-large white stone, bearing only T II in what appears to be Roman work
-and style. It was found near its present site about forty years ago, and
-was accepted as Roman and explained as a boundary (_terminus_) mark. It
-may be noted that it lies close to the line of the presumed Roman road
-along Tothill Street to the river. The nearest parallel I have seen is a
-stone found near Falkirk, described in Haverfield’s addition to the
-_C.I.L._ (No. 1264): T III (_turma tertia_).
-
-5. An inscription at the Guildhall
-
-                                     MATR ...
-                       VICINIA-DESVO-RES ........
-
-is, as has been pointed out, a record of the restoration of some edifice
-or sculpture dedicated to the mother goddesses. The lettering is on the
-half of the crowning member of a cornice which may have been over a
-narrow door, and Roach Smith was probably right in assuming the
-existence of a small temple.
-
-6. A sketch of the inscription found on a mosaic floor near Pudding Lane
-is preserved at the Society of Antiquaries: it has indications not
-brought out by printing it in type, and an expert could probably gather
-more from it than has been made out.
-
-7. The sarcophagus from Clapton at the Guildhall has a much-defaced
-inscription on the front panel ending apparently, as the catalogue says,
-with the name MARITIMIVS. Here, again, it is possible that careful
-examination by experts would bring out further facts.
-
-These inadequate, indeed incompetent, notes on a few selected
-inscriptions are at least enough to show that the inscriptions of
-Londinium are worth the attention of properly equipped scholars. A
-carefully illustrated account of them might be made interesting to all
-intelligent citizens and help them to get really into their minds an
-idea of the Roman age in London.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FROM A RELIEF AT BATH.
-]
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER X+
-
-                               THE CRAFTS
-
-
-IN his account of Roman London, the late Dr. Haverfield writes
-(_J.R.S._, vol. i.): “The citizens appear to have been Roman or
-definitely Romanised. Of Roman speech in London we have an isolated but
-sufficient proof. A tile dug up in Warwick Lane, in 1886, bore an
-inscription, meaning, apparently, ‘Austalis (Augustalis) goes off on his
-own every day for a fortnight.’ It seems to follow that some of the
-bricklayers [makers] of Londinium could write Latin. In the lands ruled
-by Rome, education was better under the Empire than at any time since
-until about 1848. The occupations of these Roman or Romanised civilians
-are unknown to us. Articles manufactured on the Continent were certainly
-imported. There were also exports of grain, cloth (or wool), and lead,
-and so forth. We may believe that Roman London devoted its time to
-financial rather than industrial activity.”
-
-Evidence for the practice of arts in Londinium is really considerable.
-It was doubtless first of all a port, and probably originated as the
-seaport of the pre-Roman city of Verulamium; but it became the largest
-city in Britain, the chief distributing centre and the artistic capital.
-We are apt to think of Dover, or rather Richborough, as the chief port
-of the country, but London itself was the largest consumer, and the line
-of traffic was rather to the mouth of the Rhine than to Boulogne.
-Londinium was a little Alexandria in the West, and represented Britain
-as the other did Egypt. The building of such a city called together many
-able craftsmen—builders, sculptors, painters and mosaic workers. There
-must also have been shipbuilders and a due proportion of
-craftsmen-producers, potters, bone- and metal-workers, shoemakers,
-clothiers and the rest. An enormous quantity of pottery has been found,
-much of fine imported wares, but the most part varieties of native
-fabric, of which a large proportion was doubtless made of local clay.
-The site of St. Paul’s Cathedral was covered with “pot-earth,” and the
-town potteries seem to have been here.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 134.
-]
-
-_Native Pottery._—In the British Museum are some valuable MS. notes made
-in the years 1674-79, “by Mr. John Conyers, apothecary, at the ‘White
-Lion,’ in Fleet Street” (Sloane, 958, 816, 937). In mentioning St.
-Faith’s Chapel, at St. Paul’s, he says that his father and mother were
-there married forty-five years since (from 1677). Incidentally, he
-speaks of two brothers, and of being “at Epping Forest hunting ye hare,
-but ye frost prevented the scent.” This is a late example of the
-sporting customs of ancient London. His observations refer to
-excavations on the site of St. Paul’s and along the Fleet. In regard to
-the former it appears certain that there were a number of Roman rubbish
-pits on the site, similar to those recently excavated on the Post Office
-site. Here also were found pottery-kilns and glass furnaces with
-pottery, bone and other objects. This seems to have been a manufacturing
-quarter of the city unoccupied by dwellings. Some sketches show that the
-pottery kilns were circles of small diameter, having a raised floor
-supported on a central post, like a table, all of clay and broken stuff
-roughly formed; the lower stage or fire chamber was thus a ring around
-the central prop, and in the raised “floor” were several small holes.
-There must have been an external pit with a stoke-hole, and also a flue
-from the fire chamber. Four such kilns were found close together,
-forming a quatrefoil group. The dome of the kiln seems to have been
-roughly new formed over the pottery to be fired (Fig. 134). Conyers, in
-the account of finds on the site of St. Paul’s, gives sketches of the
-kilns found at St. Paul’s with several kinds of pots: “Figures of two
-kinds of kilns or furnaces of various pots, jugs, etc., of different
-kinds of earth and pottery. One kiln in loamy ground about 26 ft. deep,
-near the place where the Mercat-house stood in Oliver’s time. The
-discovery made in 1677 on digging the foundation of the north-east cross
-part of St. Paul’s amongst gravel-pits and loam-pits.... Coffins lay
-over this loamy kiln, the lowest coffins made of chalk, and this
-supposed to be about Domitian’s time. This kiln was full of ye worst
-sort of pots, lamps, urns, and not many were saved whole. Four of these
-[kilns] had been made in the sandy-loam in the fashion of a cross on the
-ground; the foundations of these left standing 5 ft. from top to bottom,
-and better, and as many feet in breadth, and had no other matter for its
-form or building but the outward loam crusted hardish by the heat
-burning the loam red like brick. The flooring in the middle, supported
-by and cut out of loam and helped with old-fashioned Roman tiles,
-sherds, but very few, and such as I have seen used for repositories for
-urns in ye fashion of little ovens, and they plastered within with a
-reddish mortar; but here was no mortar, but only ye sandy loam for
-cement.... A censer or lamp, whitish earth; one great earthen dish;
-earthen lamp gilded with electrum,” etc. etc.
-
-Again, Conyers says the labourers under part of the place where St.
-Paul’s Cross stood, 25 ft. or 30 ft. deep, as the earth ceased to be
-black and came to the yellow sand, found earthen potsherds as red and
-fine as sealing-wax, and upon some inscriptions, “_De Ovimini_,” “_De
-Parici_,” “_De Quintimani_,” “_Victor_,” “_Janus Ricino_.” [These were
-Samian, but he goes on to describe very accurately native pottery.] “And
-pots like broken urns, which were curiously laid on the outside with
-like thornpricks of rose trees, in the manner of raised work. Other were
-of cinnamon colour, urn fashion, and as if gilded with gold but faded.
-Some of strange fashion, jugs bent in so as to be six-square, raised
-work upon them pricked as curious raisers of paste may imitate; some
-like black earth for pudding pans, on ye outside indented and crossed
-quincunx fashion. They had some odd colours (not blue) in these times
-and a way of glazing different to what now; the red earth bare away the
-bell.”
-
-“Now, besides red pots,” says Conyers, “such as have inscriptions in the
-bottoms [_i.e._ Samian], there were black pots with inscriptions and
-part of white earth and the glazing black, and both these might be made
-in ye places, as well as a gilded sort of earthenware. There was a
-brownish sort inclining to yellow, and the gilding easily coming off.
-Now, whether this was a thin wash of gold colour or foliated, I know
-not, yet I think foliated [really mica]. Other pots and urns of a
-whitish yellow and a soft kind of earth and shells strewed at the bottom
-inside. Now, other pots as thin as glass with raised work, and these as
-of a silvered or bell-metal coloured glazing. The imagery, hounds,
-hares, stags, thorns, trees and branching, flourishings—all raised work.
-Then I have lamps of gilded British-work [local] and coarse
-whitish-yellow colours, and bottles and pots for dropping, of the same
-colours.” In one of his repetitions, Conyers mentions “great potsherds
-and ears of six-gallon pots.” He also gives sketches of many of the
-vessels. Doubtless those drawn were in most cases whole vessels and they
-are of the coarser wares, other than Samian. It is probable, therefore,
-that they were pottery made on the spot. Dr. Harwood, describing the
-excavations in the site of St. Mary Woolnoth in 1724, says that “Roman
-foundations were found made of offal of brick kilns and furnaces” (_Soc.
-Antiq. Minutes_).
-
-It would be an easy thing to identify in our collections vessels which
-conform to the types sketched by Conyers and then to form a group of
-actual pots which presumably were made in London. This coarse and
-ordinary ware is usually classed as “Roman,” but it was in a large
-degree a Celtic inheritance. The black wares of “carinated” profile
-(Figs. 135 and 136) and more or less “cordonned” decorations are very
-like Marne pottery of the Celtic period. It seems quite likely that the
-potteries of Londinium may have existed before the Roman Conquest.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 135.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 136.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 137.
-]
-
-Many of the decorated pots in our museums are so clearly described by
-Conyers that they, too, can be identified. It is evident, for instance,
-that Castor-ware vessels with hunting scenes in slip were as well
-represented in the finds as they are in our museums to-day. Hunting
-itself must have been much in the people’s minds, with chariot races and
-the gladiator “matches.”
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 138.
-]
-
-Sporting subjects, such as are mentioned by Conyers, are plentifully
-represented in our museums. In Fairholt’s sketch-book I find a drawing
-of a pot found in Cateaton Street (Fig. 137). There is also a sketch of
-a fragment of a similar urn found at Chesterford (Fig. 138). Compare the
-sculpture, Fig. 62. The piece engraved in Wright’s book as an example of
-a British hunting dog was also from a sketch by Fairholt of a London
-fragment. He also drew a piece found in Bishopsgate Street, which shows
-the heads of four horses, one over the other. This is explained by a
-complete pot at the British Museum, from Colchester, which has reliefs
-of racing chariots as mentioned before (p. 51). On another Colchester
-vase are Gladiators with their names scratched above. The eagle (Fig.
-139) is from a fragment at Silchester.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 139.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 140.
-]
-
-After having identified the pottery actually made in London, and the
-other native sources from which other wares were brought, we might go on
-to determine how far this native pottery is Celtic and how far Roman.
-Fig. 140, restored from a large fragment of very coarse make in the
-London Museum, and said to have been found at Mortlake, must have been
-made long before the Roman invasion. Figs. 135 and 136 are urns of
-Upchurch ware, carefully made and of lustrous black surface. The forms
-of these are not Roman. The “spirit” of all is of Bronze Age and
-Mycenæan character. The black pottery with “carinated” profiles found in
-London, and now in our museums, may be Upchurch ware, but from Conyers’
-account and sketches it seems probable that black and grey pottery was
-made locally. In the museums, there are a few examples which seem to be
-clearly Celtic, as, for example, a large fragment at the British Museum
-with white stripes over a grey fabric. There seems, however, to have
-been a curious disinclination to recognise Celtic art, and a desire to
-call all Roman.
-
-_Samian._—The early prosperity of London is well shown by the great
-quantity of Samian ware which has been found of the period about 60-85,
-and by the examples of the work of the best makers, such as Vitalis,
-Rubricius, Saturnus and Rufinus. Of the first-named there are some
-excellent vases in the collection at South Kensington; he distributed
-his pottery from Carthage to Carlisle, and from Pompeii to London.
-Saturnus has half a chapter to himself in a big book on the Roman
-pottery found in Trier. The Samian question is too vast for me to
-attempt to deal with it here, and I can merely note one or two details.
-In Fairholt’s sketch-books at the Victoria and Albert Museum there are
-several drawings of Samian fragments. One of these, which I have not
-seen elsewhere, is an excellent example of animals running under trees—a
-scheme taken over into our Castor-ware, which Dr. Haverfield thought
-might be a Celtic tradition (_Romanization_). (Fig. 141, and compare
-Fig. 138.) At the Guildhall are nearly a dozen fragments of a rare kind
-of Samian vase, in which the ornament of figures and foliage was applied
-in separate units, the leaves, etc., being linked up by stalks skilfully
-done by the “barbotine” method. Three larger and some smaller fragments
-come from a vase of rather globular shape which was very similar to a
-vase found at Cornhill, one of the chief treasures of the Roman Room at
-the British Museum. The latter is well described in Mr. Walter’s
-_Catalogue of Roman Pottery_, which is the best account available of
-pottery found in London. It is not observed that the Guildhall fragments
-contain a figure which is half lost in the restored vase at the British
-Museum. On the other hand, comparison with the latter would make it easy
-to restore the Guildhall example. The details of both were formed by the
-same stamps. I give in Figs. 142 and 143 the scheme of the decoration: B
-was the general shape of the pot.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 141.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 142.
-]
-
-Two or three other sherds at the Guildhall belonged to a somewhat
-similar but smaller urn which had Bacchic subjects—a satyr with goat
-legs, and a faun before whom is a wine jar into which he seems to be
-dropping grape juice. These figures were evidently also set between
-scrolls of vegetation, and this also can be restored. Again there is a
-sherd of a vine pattern similar to Fig. 142, but, I think, from a third
-pot. There is also a figure from a dark-grey pot, which must have been
-yet another of the same kind. (For the last word on Samian pottery, see
-Oswald and Price’s _Terra Sigillata_.)
-
-A volume on the pottery found in London by a specialist, like that on
-Silchester, would be certain to bring out valuable historical results on
-the existence and persistence of Celtic wares, on importations before
-the Claudian Conquest, and on the large quantity of imports in early
-Roman days.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 143.
-]
-
-_Glass._—Much broken glass is usually found on Roman sites, vessels,
-window-panes, etc., and it was probably wrought, in many centres, from
-imported material. Evidence of this has been found at Silchester and
-elsewhere (see Mr. T. May’s _Warrington_). Some window glass was
-described by Price as “plate polished on one side and ground on the
-other”; this probably means that it was cast and that the rough side
-came next the mould.
-
-Conyers, describing the finds on the side of St. Paul’s in 1675, says:
-“The labourers told me of some remains that were found up and down near
-the place of the other pot-kilns, and these had a funnel to convey the
-smoke, which might serve for glass furnaces. For though not any pots
-with glass in them whole in the furnaces were there found, yet broken
-crucibles, or tests for molting of glasses, together with boltered
-glasses such as are to be seen remaining at glass-houses amongst the
-broken glass, which were glasses spoilt in the making, were there found,
-but not plenty, and especially coloured and prepared for jewel-like
-ornament, but mostly such as for cruets or glasses with a lip to drop
-withal of a greenish light blue colour. Of any sort of glass there was
-but little; so that the glasswork might be scarce, for I think a hundred
-times more of pots was found to one of glass....
-
-“Now doth appear the Romans had excellent mechanics, pot makers,
-stampers of coins, and excellent workers in glass, for amongst those
-Roman pots were found glass beads as big as could be put on your little
-finger, and these hollow within and of blue glass wrought or enamelled
-with yellow glass, and blue beads of the colour of a Turkoise stone.
-Divided were these beads with threads as big as pack thread. Amongst the
-rest, great pins made of bone or ivory, etc., heads of many like the
-great brass-pins, and others vermicular or screw-head, others like the
-Pope’s triple crown; of these fell to my share as many as a pint-pot
-would hold.... Taken up a _speculum_ of metal to show the face, of fine
-bell-metal. There were also found brass embossments with glass set
-instead of better jewels, which I keep, and glass drops that were loose,
-and the bottom of an old-fashioned crucible which had glass melted in
-it, and there were also pieces of necks of glass cruets to pour out by.”
-
-Much of the large number of plainer glass vessels in our museums was
-doubtless made in the London glass works from imported metal, and
-probably some ornamental pieces were also manufactured. Thomas Wright
-thought that glass itself was made in Roman days on the coast near
-Brighton where “pebbles of glass” have been found; but from
-comparatively late records of glass making about Rye, etc., the Roman
-origin of the “pebbles” seems unlikely.
-
-In the British Museum are some fragments of glass vessels having moulded
-reliefs of chariot races and combats, with the names of the competitors
-above them. T. Wright illustrates “a fragment of a very remarkable cup
-in green glass found in the Roman Villa at Hartlip in Kent.... Roach
-Smith possessed two similar fragments found in London, one of which is
-identical with the Hartlip fragment in its design and appears to be from
-the same mould; the other is from a vessel of a different shape and has
-a quadriga in bas-relief. We have before had occasion to observe how
-popular gladiatorial contests and the games of the circus were among the
-Roman inhabitants of this island, and how often we find them represented
-on the pottery as on the glass.” If a glass vessel found in Kent is
-exactly like another found in London, it is probable that the former was
-itself obtained in London, where both may have been made. One of the
-fragments in the British Museum is from Colchester. We have seen before
-how that some of the Castor-ware pots were decorated with similar racing
-chariots, and one of these was found in London and the other in
-Colchester. Racing chariots also decorate a leaden box found in London
-and described below.
-
-Glass vessels having reliefs of racing chariots have been found on the
-Continent, and in the British Museum _Guide_ it is said that our
-examples “probably came from a Belgian workshop, as a glass of the same
-kind has been found at Couvin, in the province of Namur, bearing two of
-the same competitors’ names in a four-horse chariot race. Race cups of
-this kind date about A.D. 100, and have been found in France, Belgium
-and Germany. The six cups or fragments found in Britain were no doubt
-imported across the Channel.” There is, I think, room for some doubt. In
-any case there seems to be ample evidence that glassware was made in
-Britain and in Londinium.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 144.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 145.
-]
-
-Much glass of finer quality was imported. There is in the Guildhall
-Museum a fragment signed by a maker of Sidon, and fragments of several
-small plaques in the British Museum having patterns wrought in the
-substance are of a kind found in Egypt. At the Egyptian exhibition of
-the Burlington Club, 1921, similar plaques were shown, some having
-sprigs of flowers, and one a _single_ rose petal pattern in yellow,
-white and red on the dark ground (cf. Fig. 145). The three pieces at the
-British Museum are all different and all can be restored. Fig. 144 is
-from Roach Smith. Fig. 145 is a rough indication of the pattern of
-another, and the third is a variant of Fig. 144. These interesting and
-beautiful little fragments are obscure from age; they might with great
-advantage be partially repolished, laid out on restored drawings, and be
-made much of. The recent rearrangement of the contents of the Roman Room
-at the British Museum, and the admirable new _Guide_, have so greatly
-increased the interest of the objects that I want still more. I also
-wish that the London things in the collection could be shown together.
-Roach Smith never intended his objects to be separated.
-
-_Enamels_.—Conyers’ phrases about coloured glass “prepared for
-jewel-like ornament,” and “the brass embossments with glass set instead
-of jewels,” apparently refer to enamels and seem to imply that enamelled
-objects were made at the London glass works.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 146.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 147.
-]
-
-A large number of small enamelled objects, from little bowls to
-brooches, have been found in Britain. The art of enamelling was known
-here before the Roman age, but objects having several colours seem to be
-“Roman,” although there are Celtic characteristics in the patterns, and
-it is agreed that there was a native manufacture (_British Museum
-Guide_, p. 95) of such enamels. The finest piece is a “casket” in the
-form of a little vase with a handle. This handle has turned-up ends of a
-kind frequently found in Alexandrian silverwork. One of the bands of
-enamel is a meandering stem and vine leaves. This beautiful object was
-found in Essex, and there is in the British Museum another little
-enamelled bowl also found not far from London, at Braughing,
-Hertfordshire. The details in these two pieces are very similar, so are
-those of a little enamelled cock found near the Royal Exchange. Notice
-the use of long triangular forms and narrow saw-edged fillets. It seems
-probable that all were made in London, and further evidence is found in
-a remarkable enamelled plate taken out of the Thames (Fig. 146). This
-“being an unfinished piece, was probably made in this country”—and city,
-I would add. In colouring and technique this plate (probably part of a
-memorial) is very like the objects already mentioned. A leaf form on it
-which ends in a tendril is found also on the Braughing bowl; both these
-pieces might have come from one shop. The type of ornament is remarkably
-Celtic. In the _Guide_ it is said that “debased Amazon shields can be
-recognised, and Riegel has pointed out that the panel is not a unit, but
-belongs to a larger all-over pattern which could be repeated
-indefinitely, and reveals an artistic tendency of the later Roman
-Empire.” I do not agree with either of these statements. The pattern
-seems to me to have been designed as a reversed scroll pattern,
-subdivided by setting down oval forms in the spaces to counterchange the
-colour in a typically Celtic manner. In the diagram (Fig. 147), A is the
-pattern type; B is the application to the space; C is the subdivision of
-the spaces completing the design. In D and E, I have made an original
-design on the same principle. Other details in the filling of the space
-at the top are Celtic. Notice again a heart-shaped form at X. This form
-is frequent in small seal-boxes, several of which have been found in
-London, of which F is from one lately added to the Guildhall collection.
-It is probable, I think, that such enamels were made in London by Celtic
-artists. An enamelled harness plate found in London and illustrated by
-Roach Smith is like others found in Somersetshire (see G). A small
-brooch in the form of a fish at the London Museum may be early
-Christian.
-
-_Leadwork._—Britain was the chief source for lead in the later Roman
-era. Of about a hundred and twenty Roman pigs of lead in the museums of
-Europe, about half were of British origin, as appears from the
-inscriptions. Cast sheet lead was used for coverings. Some actually in
-position was found lining the bottom of the hot bath at Bath in 1864. It
-was afterwards sold for £70! Mr. Irvine, in an article on the Corinthian
-temple at Bath, assumes that the roof was covered with lead. He says
-that the sheet lead found in Bath was about three-eighths of an inch
-thick and showed that it was cast on a sand-bed. Melted lead was found
-at St. Albans under conditions which suggested that it had come from the
-roof of the Basilica. We may be satisfied that lead was used for
-important roofs. Lead pipes are also found.
-
-Many lead coffins have been found in and about London—about a dozen in
-all—and they were doubtless made in the city. The fashion of using lead
-coffins seems to have originated in the Romanised East about the time of
-the recognition of Christianity, and those found in London follow the
-general type very closely. I give in Fig. 148 a rough sketch made in
-Constantinople twenty-five years ago of a lead coffin found at Sidon.
-Another coffin from Sidon has recently been acquired by the British
-Museum. Figs. 149, 150 and 151 are from coffins found in London.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 148.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 149.
-]
-
-One discovered many years ago in South London, illustrated in
-_Archæologia_, vol. xvii., had on it two little figures like
-Minerva—probably Britannia. Another found at Sittingbourne, recently set
-out for exhibition at the British Museum, has little Medusa heads and
-pairs of lions watching a vase (Fig. 152).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 150.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 151
-]
-
-A round lead box, for the reception of burnt bones, found in London and
-now in the British Museum, has repeated on it a relief of a four-horse
-chariot. This is described in the _Guide_ as the chariot of the Sun; but
-comparison with other chariot-racing groups on the pottery and glass
-vessels shows that these reliefs must also represent a chariot race
-(Fig. 153). This fact adds to the probability that the glass vessels
-with reliefs of racing chariots were also made in Londinium. Fig. 154 is
-from a simpler lead box found in London; compare the rings with the
-painted pattern described at the bottom of p. 169.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 152.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 153.               FIG. 154.
-]
-
-_Pewter._—A large quantity of pewter ware, vessels and dishes, has been
-discovered in Britain. Many ingots of the metal were found in the last
-century at Battersea in the river. Lysons figured a fragment of “lead”
-found at Lydney stamped with a name, and this may have been pewter. The
-ingots of pewter were doubtless of British origin, and it is very
-probable that the finished objects of this metal were manufactured here.
-Many of the dishes have engraved centres of a type of design which can
-hardly be earlier than the fourth century. This engraving was filled
-with black composition imitating _niello_. The ingots bear marks which
-show that they belong to a time when Christianity was recognised.
-
-In the London Museum is a dish with an engraved centre, and at the
-British Museum are some plain dishes signed with the name of the owner
-or maker, Martinus, which were found in Southwark. Most of the finds of
-pewter ware have been made in south-east England, and London is the most
-likely place of origin. Lysons illustrates a dish found at Manchester
-(it is now in the British Museum) with an engraved centre so like those
-found in the south of England that it is probable it also was made in
-the south. These dishes were finished in a lathe; at the back they have
-traces of three projections by which they were held in turning but
-afterwards cut away.
-
-_Bone, Leatherwork, etc._—We have seen above that Conyers speaks of the
-large quantity of bone objects found in excavations. Of the St. Paul’s
-site he says: “And amongst ye heap or mixture of rubbish, hartshorn
-sawed into pieces, old heifers’ horns, and abundance of boars’
-tusks—some in their jaw bones which shows that they did often hunt ye
-wild boar.... It is very remarkable that ivory-work and great pins made
-of bone and bodkins of great numbers was found buried together with
-store of boars’ teeth, of oysters and other shells, Roman coins and
-ornamental beads, of blue like enamel and the fibulæ they used to fasten
-their garments, earthenware with inscriptions and glass was found in
-gravel pits near St. Paul’s School.” Several carved pieces of similar
-style in the London Museum—notably little reliefs of gladiators—suggest
-that there were expert bone carvers in London. A bone pin with a figure
-of Fortuna found in London, and a carving of a sphinx from
-Colchester—both in the British Museum—are really beautiful work. The
-admirable fragments of an ivory scabbard found in Greenwich Park in 1906
-can hardly be London work.
-
-A considerable number of beautifully-made leather shoes having
-elaborately pierced patterns are doubtless of local work. One found at
-South-fleet, now at the British Museum, was coloured purple and
-decorated with gilding, as is recorded on a drawing at the Society of
-Antiquaries, made when it was newly found.
-
-The site of London is still unexhausted; even while I am writing this I
-see in the morning’s paper, “Recent excavations in Lothbury have brought
-to light relics of Roman occupation—bone bodkins, oyster shells and
-broken pottery. The bodkins are large, and it is thought that they were
-probably used in mat-making.” London must have been an art-producing
-centre for two thousand years.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  LOCALLY MADE POTTERY.
-]
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                              +CHAPTER XI+
-
-                         EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON
-
-    “It was no longer thought to be Britain but a Roman island; and all
-    their money was stamped with Cæsar’s image. Meanwhile these islands,
-    stiff with frost, received the beams of light, the holy precepts of
-    Christ, the true Sun, at the later part of the reign of Tiberius
-    Cæsar.”
-
-                                                                —GILDAS.
-
-
-_CHRISTIAN BRITAIN._—The whole subject of Christian antiquities in
-Britain was for a long time clouded by mere doubt of testimony, until
-the comparatively recent discovery of the foundations of an early
-Christian basilican church at Silchester, in 1892, gradually changed the
-temperature and atmosphere in which facts are seen. Thomas Wright had
-swept the thing aside, Gildas and all. This difference of attitude is
-well brought out in the earlier and more recent writings of Dr.
-Haverfield. Compare, for instance, his over-cautious article in the
-_English Historical Review_ about twenty years ago with another in
-_Archæologia Æliana_, 1917, which is written in quite a different
-temper. It is now clear that Britain marched with Gaul in the acceptance
-of Christianity, although one step behind.
-
-In Cabrol’s great _French Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_ we may
-obtain a valuable unbiased account of British Christian antiquities. The
-best general introduction known to me is a chapter in Sir C. Oman’s
-excellent _England before the Norman Conquest_, from which I will
-condense a paragraph.
-
-“There is no doubt that individual Christians, perhaps even small
-communities, were to be found in Britain as early as the second century.
-There is no reason to doubt Tertullian writing in about A.D. 208, or
-Origen writing about A.D. 230, that the Christian religion had converts
-in the province of the extreme north-west.... In the long peace which
-followed the persecution of Severus the new religion pushed northward
-and westward with greater power. There seems no reason to doubt the
-small number of British martyrs whose names appear in the earliest
-martyrologies. The very early martyrology gives three names drawn from
-Britain—the latest St. Patrick (_obiit c._ 461), the other two are
-Augulus, bishop of Augusta (London), and Alban. We know nothing of
-Augulus, but the fact that his See is called Augusta shows that the name
-was taken down between 340 and 410, for London was only known as Augusta
-in the second half of the fourth century. Of Alban’s existence our
-knowledge is more certain, since Germanus visited his grave in 429; his
-cult, therefore, was well established in the early fifth century.... As
-early as 314, three bishops from Britain appeared at the Council of
-Arles—Eborius of York, Restitutus of London and Adelphius of Lincoln.
-There seems reason to think that the bulk of the population remained
-pagan till a later date than was the case elsewhere. If the Christians
-of Calleva found the diminutive church lately discovered sufficient for
-their needs they must have been but a few hundreds. In that same town a
-temple to Mars was found, which must have been used down to the end. If
-Calleva had become completely Christian before its evacuation the image
-of Mars would not have been left. The small number of Christian
-sepulchral inscriptions is notable, though such have been found at
-Carlisle, Lincoln and elsewhere. It is very strange that a religion
-which was first publicly tolerated, and later encouraged for nearly a
-hundred years before A.D. 410, should have left so few records. The
-existence of a vigorous British Christendom in the fourth century is
-sufficiently proved by literary evidence. Without that evidence we
-should have gathered little from archæological research. Secular
-inscriptions and buildings of the fourth century are rare, no less than
-ecclesiastical ones. The British Church produced, in the last days of
-the Romans, a heresiarch, the celebrated Pelagius, a monk. Born about
-370-80, he taught in Rome itself. The earliest recorded works written by
-Britons are those of the heresiarch and of a British bishop named
-Fastidius.”
-
-In an excellent short account of British Christian antiquities in the
-new _Guide to the Christian Collection at the British Museum_ (1921),
-Mr. Dalton remarks that “the statement of the sixth-century British
-historian, Gildas, that in Roman times Britain had many churches was
-always credible, but positive proof was not forthcoming until the
-excavations on the site of Calleva (Silchester) brought to light the
-foundations of a church, the Roman origin of which is beyond dispute.”
-Gildas, again, is confirmed by Bede’s account of ruined Christian
-churches existing in the sixth century. According to Cabrol’s
-_Dictionary_ even some of the greater country villas, like Chedworth,
-were occupied by Christian proprietors. On a mosaic pavement at Frampton
-the monogram of Christ appears in the central space of a border. It has
-been argued that the monogram might be later than the pavement, but the
-design of the border itself shows that it had a central feature from the
-first. It seems probable to me, as before said, that several other
-mosaic pavements were Christian.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 155.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 156.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 157.
-]
-
-_A British Church._—The little church at Silchester is extraordinarily
-interesting in many ways. It was probably built not later than the
-middle of the fourth century and is thus one of the earliest churches
-known. It occupied an important position in the city close to the Forum,
-and it is probable from this and from the importance of the city that it
-was a bishop’s church. Moreover, it is evident that if there was such a
-church at Silchester there must have been others in Canterbury, Verulam,
-London and other cities. This church was only about 30 ft. square,
-exclusive of the narthex (Fig. 155). Some day, when we reverence our
-antiquities more, it might be excavated once again and, having a decent
-roof erected over it, be made a place of pilgrimage. I should like to
-see a copy of it put up somewhere for use—it might cost half as much as
-a poor stained-glass window. As I have just said, the plan, exclusive of
-the narthex, was square, so also is the plan of an early church in Asia
-Minor which I give for comparison (Fig. 156). This _squareness_ was, I
-believe, intended as a symbol of the Ark. I also give the altar end of
-an early church in Greece, Fig. 157 (Nichopoleos: see Athenian
-_Ephemeris_, 1916).
-
-The plan of the Silchester church seems to be of an Eastern rather than
-Roman type; and small as it is, it has slight transeptal projections
-which, when compared with the other plans, show that the form of the
-cross was intended to be suggested. The altar was not regarded as being
-in the apse, but rather in front of it (compare Fig. 157). The apse was
-to the _west_ and the entrance at the _east_, following the early
-custom. In front was a court with a water basin in the centre. In regard
-to the non-Roman character of the plan, it may be noted that the late
-Mr. Edmund Bishop, a great liturgical authority, showed that early Irish
-Christianity was of an Iberian type.
-
-_London Saints._—Bishop Augulus and Restitutus of London ought to be
-commemorated in some way in the City. We are singularly wasteful of the
-power there is in the antiquities of a nation when sympathetically
-understood. If, for instance, Patrick had been recognised for the great
-British personage he was—the son and grandson of Christian parents
-captured to be a slave in Ireland—the magnanimous missionary might have
-been a mediator between the Irish and ourselves, a mixed race, part
-English, part British and part Roman. St. Augulus is included in the
-Roman Catholic Menology of the British Church. “Feb. 7.—In London the
-Passion of St. Augulus, Bishop and Martyr (A.D. 300 _c._). Named on this
-day in the Roman Martyrology and in all the ancient calendars as a
-bishop who suffered martyrdom in London. The conjecture of historians is
-that he suffered in the persecution of Diocletian about the same time as
-St. Alban.” He is given a place in the paintings of the English College,
-Rome. It is curious that of two contemporary martyrs, St. Alban should
-have been taken up by fame and the other left. Confirmation of the point
-made by Sir C. Oman in regard to the name Augusta applied to London has
-appeared in the recent identification by Sir A. Evans of a late
-fourth-century coin with the Mint mark AVG.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 158.
-]
-
-_Early Christian Objects._—The earliest existing “monument” of Christian
-Londinium is dated only a little later than the year in which Restitutus
-attended the Council of Arles. This is the reverse of a coin of
-Constantine, recently discovered (1909) at Poltross Burn, on the great
-Roman Wall, and thus described: “Mint mark PLN; of the London Mint and
-bearing the Christian emblem; A.D. 317-324; variety of Cohen 638. Two
-Victories placing on an altar a shield inscribed VOT. PR.; on the face
-of the altar a cross within a wreath. This is a London-minted coin
-bearing upon its reverse the Christian emblem of such rarity that the
-use of Christian emblems in the London Mint has been called in question.
-The only recorded specimens are a coin of Constantine II. in the British
-Museum, one of Crispus, found in 1909 at Corstopitum, and the present
-example. All have the same reverse” (Fig. 158). This is in every way a
-very remarkable coin; the Victories placing the shield on a Christian
-altar is obviously a record of the official recognition of Christianity.
-From this moment when the Cross appeared on what Sir C. Oman calls “the
-public gazette of the Roman Empire,” every one in Londinium must have
-known what the Cross stood for. “In an issue of money between 317 and
-324, Constantine used Christian signs in such a way as to solemnly
-affirm his Christian faith, and thus by universal custom made known the
-imperial will. The coins of London hardly make the same affirmation of
-Christianity by the Emperor as that of Siscia, but they testify to the
-intentions of certain officers of the Mint” (Maurice, _Numis.
-Constant._). On the coin of Crispus mentioned above, the _Classical Year
-Book_, 1911, remarked: “This is a novelty, as hitherto it has been
-supposed that Christian symbols did not occur on London coins of the
-Constantinian epoch.” “It is curious that the London Mint put Christian
-emblems on its coins before those of Trier, Lyons or Arles” (Oman).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 159.
-]
-
-With the coins may be associated a small silver disc mounted as the head
-of a pin, now in the Roach Smith collection at the British Museum. My
-figure is from a drawing by Fairholt, according to whom it was found in
-Lothbury with several other small Roman objects. It seems quite
-certainly to represent, as Roach Smith supposed, Constantine’s vision of
-the Cross in the heavens (Fig. 159).
-
-A small equal-armed cross forms the clasp of a Roman bronze
-chain-bracelet found in London, now in the British Museum, which can
-hardly be other than Christian (Fig. 160). There has been some
-reluctance in accepting crosses of Roman date as Christian, but the
-evidence of the coins should modify this.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 160.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 161.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 162.
-]
-
-In 1862 several ingots of pewter were dredged up from the Thames near
-Battersea Bridge, and in 1890 more were discovered. Two are in the York
-Museum and the rest are in the British Museum (_Archæol. Journal_, 48).
-They are stamped with the monogram of Christ in two forms, with one of
-which is associated the words, “_Spes in Deo_” (Fig. 161), and the name
-“_Syagrius_” also appears. Silver and copper ingots discovered in this
-country have official stamps (non-Christian), and it may not be doubted
-that the pewter marks were also official. A lead seal in the Reading
-Museum, found in the Civil Basilica at Silchester, has an XP monogram,
-which is very similar (Fig. 162), and this, too, was probably official.
-The most interesting parallel known to me of the stamps on the pewter
-ingots is a seal from a wine jar found at Naucratis, in Egypt (_Nau._
-ii. pl. 22), where we find “_Spes in Deo_” in a circle around a cross
-(Fig. 163). The circular form had long been used for official stamps
-(cf. a brick stamp with the name of Nero in Reading Museum). Pewter ware
-was popular at the end of the fourth century, and this is probably the
-date of our ingots. The name which appears on them was in use at a late
-time. One Syagrius, “last of the Romans,” was driven from his kingdom of
-Soissons by the Franks in A.D. 480.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 163.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 164.
-]
-
-At the Guildhall Museum are two small terra-cotta lamps (Nos. 17 and
-18), each having the Christian monogram in the centre (Fig. 164). These
-are not of British make, but they may have been imported in the Roman
-age. (A lamp which Sir L. Gomme made much of, with a little view of a
-city on it, was also of foreign origin, and there is no reason to think
-that the view had any connection with London.) Two other lamps in the
-Guildhall collection (Nos. 54 and 117) are described as having “limbs of
-cross on body, perhaps early Christian,” but I have not found these and
-some other objects which it is said may possibly be Christian.
-
-In the description of Wren’s finds on the site of St. Paul’s, given in
-_Parentalia_, is mentioned “a sepulchral earthen lamp figured with two
-branches of palms, supposed Christian.” Comparing the description with
-Figs. 165 and 166 there cannot be any doubt that Wren’s lamp was
-Christian. In the British Museum is a little rough lamp found at
-Tidworth, Wilts, which has a pair of palm branches, and I think that
-there is another in Canterbury Museum; the former is so like others from
-Syria in the Early Christian Room at the British Museum that there
-cannot be a doubt that it is not a native work; possibly it was brought
-back by a pilgrim from the Holy Land. Fig. 165 illustrates the seal of a
-ring found at Fifehead Neville, Dorset, now in the British Museum; on it
-we find the sign of Christ in the later form (in which the X has become
-a cross) surmounted by a dove, and between two palms. It means something
-like “the Believer resting on the victorious Cross of Christ.” The
-earlier form of the monogram was made of the first two letters of the
-name Christ, XP; the later form was formed by a cross and XP or P, and
-this seems to have meant the Crucifixion.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 165.
-]
-
-These comparisons will help to interpret a fascinating fragment of a
-symbolical design engraved on a glass cup found at Silchester. Here,
-instead of the sign for Christ, we find the upper part of a letter,
-which can hardly have been anything else than T, for nothing else would
-be central in the design, and in place of the dove we have a fish. T was
-the early form of the sign of the cross, and is found several times in
-the Catacombs; the fish is a rebus for the words Jesus Christ, God’s Son
-Saviour (ΙΧΘΎΣ); the palms are again signs of victory. It seems to be an
-early symbolical representation of Christ on the cross, and one of the
-most interesting which exists (compare Figs. 46 and 47 in the British
-Museum _Guide to Christian Antiquities_). Another tiny fragment of the
-same glass has the letter O on it, and there must have been some short
-inscription as well as the fish symbol and palms (Fig. 166).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 166.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIGS. 167, 168, 169.
-]
-
-In the London Museum is an enamelled brooch in the form of a fish (Fig.
-167). As the fish was a well-known Christian symbol, we may hardly doubt
-that this brooch must be counted among our Christian antiquities. It is
-exactly similar to a brooch illustrated by Mr. Ward (_Roman Era_, Fig.
-75) as having been found in Rotherley. They are duplicates, and must
-have come from the same “shop.” In _V.C.H._ it is recorded that a
-fish-shaped enamelled fibula was found in excavations at London Wall in
-1901-5 (compare _Builder_, December 13, 1902). This may be the same
-piece. At Silchester a plain bronze brooch in fish form was found (Fig.
-168). The fish symbol in an almost identical form is found engraved on a
-pewter dish, one of a set found at Appleshaw (Hants) and now in the
-British Museum (Fig. 169); the dish itself on which it appears is
-sometimes described as fish-shaped, but it was rather a long oval with
-projections at the ends. Another of the same set of pewter pieces has
-the XP monogram engraved on it (Fig. 170). As a third of the pieces is
-of the form of a chalice, there seems to be every reason to regard the
-whole set as church plate, and I find this definitely asserted in an
-article in the _Athenæum_ (August 11, 1906): “In 1890 a body was found
-at Reading lying east and west, together with Roman British relics, and
-a lead plate bearing three crosses; near by was another skeleton with a
-small pewter chalice. This may be accepted as the grave of a Christian
-priest. This chalice should be compared with that of a Roman altar set
-of pewter recently found at Appleshaw.”
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 170.
-]
-
-As said before, when tombs and coffins were discussed, it is probable
-that some of these represent Christian burials. A coin of the Emperor
-Gratian bearing the monogram of Christ was found at Smithfield, together
-with some wooden coffins, and it was probably buried as a sign of faith
-(_V.C.H._). Two or three rough stone coffins found in Kent seem to have
-been Christian. The first bishops of the Saxon church at Canterbury were
-interred in stone coffins of a Roman type.
-
-_St. Peters, Cornhill._—Ancient tradition, which may be traced back to
-the twelfth century, claimed that the Church of St. Peter on Cornhill
-was older than St. Paul’s Cathedral, and a church of Roman foundation.
-The site is important, being close to (as I suppose) or within the
-boundary of the Forum and Civil Basilica of Londinium. The main walls of
-the present church are neither parallel with Cornhill nor square with
-Gracechurch Street, and Roman foundations have recently been found in
-the neighbourhood of the church. Until all the lines of the walls which
-have been discovered have been carefully laid down on a large-scale
-plan, it would be rash to offer any opinion as to a possible Roman
-foundation of the church; but if the church should prove to have been
-near, but outside the Forum, the position of the church at Silchester
-would be significant evidence. If, on the other hand, the church site
-proves to have been within the boundary of the Forum, its Roman
-foundation would be improbable.
-
-Recent records of finds near the church mention “an old piece of Roman
-wall passing through the present wall of the church at a slight angle
-under demolished buildings [along the north front].... This may possibly
-belong to the original church” (March 2, 1922). From an article in _The
-Times_ of September 29, 1922, I condense the following account of
-discoveries made at the end of the year 1921 on the north side of St.
-Peter’s Church: “A magnificent wall went down about 20 ft., but at 15
-ft. were the footings. The wall was here 5 ft. wide; above the footings
-were three courses of tiles four abreast, each 13 in. wide, making 52
-in. wide. This wall had been plastered on the south side, and at some
-subsequent date [?] rooms had been made by other walls, on the
-plastering of which was still to be seen a pattern of imitation marble
-or alabaster. There were two layers of plaster and then a layer of white
-cement almost as thin as paper, on which designs had been painted by a
-skilful artist. This wall had been broken down, and at a level 5½ ft.
-higher, a tessellated pavement had been laid. Later, at 56 and 57
-Cornhill, a similar wall was uncovered. The mortar joints between the
-tiles were wide. The wall was found on the south [afterwards corrected
-to _north_] side of the church wall, so that the ancient Church of St.
-Peter was probably built inside what was a Roman fortress.” For fortress
-I would read the Forum. The church can hardly have been founded in such
-a position until the Forum had gone out of use and the Roman age in
-Londinium had passed, but it might then very well have been constructed
-within old Roman walls or on their foundations. We saw before that wall
-tiles of exceptional size had been used in the Civil Basilica of the
-Forum, and the tiles, 13 in. wide, mentioned above would seem to be of
-the same size. Twenty-five years ago a Roman wall was found, described
-as “very close to St. Peter’s upon Cornhill, of immense thickness,
-proceeding in a westerly direction from Leadenhall Market, under the
-Woolpack Tavern in Gracechurch Street, along St. Peter’s Alley, a few
-feet on the south side of St. Peter’s, continuing under the
-banking-house of Messrs. Prescott, Dimsdale & Co. (50 Cornhill),
-_supposed_ to continue under the roadway of Cornhill, and appearing
-again in the foundations of the new building now being erected on the
-_north_ side of Cornhill (No. 70) for the Union Bank of Australia.”
-(Middlesex and Herts _Notes and Queries_, 1897.) This wall, if one may
-guess, appears to have been parallel to the 5 ft. wall on the north of
-the church, and between them seem to have been important chambers of the
-Forum buildings.
-
-Dr. Bury has lately given reasons for thinking that the Romans did not
-finally evacuate Britain until 442 (_J.R.S._, vol. x.).
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                             +CHAPTER XII+
-
-                        THE ORIGIN OF LONDON[3]
-
-                “There Thames runs by beneath the wall,
-                 Where pass the merchant vessels all,
-                 From every land, both high and low,
-                 Where Christian merchants come and go.”
-                                    TRISTRAM, _c._ 1175.
-
-
-Footnote 3:
-
-  The substance of this chapter was read at the Society of Antiquaries
-  about 1917, but it has not been printed before.
-
-_FIRST BRITISH CITIES._—Ancient cities were not planted down by an act
-of will, they sprang up on lines of communication as centres of control
-and commerce. On a geological map it appears that a chalk belt passes
-from Kent to Hampshire towards the south bank of the Thames. From the
-north bank another wide belt diverges to the north-east. The backbones
-of these chalk regions are the North Downs of Kent and the Chiltern
-Hills; they contain between them a long triangle of gravel drift and
-marsh flats through which the Thames flows to the sea. These downs, as
-we know to-day, when we find ourselves on them, are pre-eminently
-walking grounds, and they must have been the prehistoric ways of
-communication. “Primitive man traversed the ranges lengthways: in the
-valleys were forests almost impenetrable, whereas the backbone of each
-ridge would stand bald above the ocean of trees.” The oldest roads were
-“Ridge-ways.” On the high Wiltshire downs at, or near, a point where the
-southern system of downs converge, stands Stonehenge, and I cannot doubt
-that it was in some way conceived as being a centre and “capital” of the
-country. The Gauls recognised such a centre, or “omphalos,” near
-Chartres. Since writing this, I find that Sir C. Oman has said, “Britain
-must have had some focus corresponding to that for Gaul; possibly among
-the prehistoric monuments of Salisbury Plain.” Stonehenge, I may say in
-passing, is a monument of wrought stone set out with precision, and I
-cannot see how it can be earlier than about 500-700 B.C.
-
-The ancient trackway along the Chilterns, known as the Ickneld Way,
-reached the Thames near Wallingford. Travellers going south and east
-from this point struck across the narrow space of low broken ground
-between the two chalk ranges by a short linking road. Silchester, the
-capital of an important Brito-Belgic tribe, lies on or near the course
-of such a road in a corn-bearing region. Silchester was the key of the
-old road system over the Thames fords. It is known to have been one of
-three most important pre-Roman British centres, and we may, I think,
-look on it as the first British city.
-
-The British city of Verulamium lay to the south of the Ickneld Way, in
-the same great triangle between the two chalk regions which is here much
-wider. The rise of this centre suggests that a road linking the two
-chalk ranges had been found across the river valley much lower than
-Silchester. The later Roman Watling Street, directed straight on
-Verulam, formed such a link, and there are many reasons which suggests
-that some underlying British trackway must have been the cause why
-Verulam became important. Later, again, Colchester came to be the chief
-city. Possibly it was favoured as being more remote when the Romans
-should make an attack. It seems to have been named after the Celtic
-war-god, and this may be significant. (In Roman days as in mediæval,
-there was probably a ferry from Gravesend to Tilbury for direct access
-to Colchester from Kent. This seems to be suggested by the Peutinger
-roadmap.)
-
-_Origin of London._—By origin I mean the beginning of a development
-which led to the establishment of a port and commercial town. Doubtless
-the site may have been occupied by some dwellers in the Stone Age. For
-many centuries before the Roman conquest Britain had been in commercial
-relations with the Continent. Just before the conquest Verulam was the
-capital of the leading Celtic kingdom. This Brito-Belgic kingdom had its
-southern boundary along the Thames and its eastern at the Lea, and these
-are still boundaries of Middlesex. If this kingdom, with its capital
-some twenty miles inland, had any sea-borne trade, its port must have
-been on or near the site of London. It is even probable that this port
-was the cause of the pre-eminence of the little kingdom to which it
-belonged. The port was to Verulam what the Piræus was to Athens, Ostia
-to Rome, Dover to Canterbury, and Southampton to Winchester. London was
-doubtless the source of the wealth of King Cymbeline, and we might very
-well look on him as the founder.
-
-Dr. Guest argued that London was founded as a Roman camp at the time of
-the Claudian conquest; but it is now agreed that the name is Celtic; and
-it must not be forgotten that London is and always was a port. When we
-first hear of London only seventeen years after the Claudian conquest,
-it was already, as Tacitus says, famous for the number of its merchants,
-and this must imply that it was a principal port. Dr. Haverfield, while
-admitting that the name is Celtic, went on to say: “The name Londinium,
-the place of Londinos, witnesses at most to nothing more than one wigwam
-or one barn.” This “at most” can only mean that every town presumably
-begins with one building; in London, however, the building is not likely
-to have been a barn amid the bare gravels, but rather a boatman’s house.
-Further evidence for the existence of a pre-Roman town is brought out by
-the large number of Celtic objects found on the site and in the
-neighbourhood, but they have never been properly catalogued as a group.
-Dr. Haverfield allowed that three pieces of imported Samian ware in the
-British Museum might belong to the period A.D. 10-40. “We might then
-conclude that through the influx of Roman traders London had been noted
-as a suitable trading centre a few years previous to the Roman conquest;
-but the minute dating of these potsherds is not easy, and we must leave
-the question of pre-Roman London unsettled. Either there was no
-pre-Roman London, or it was an undeveloped settlement, which may have
-been on the south bank of the Thames” (_Journ. Rom. Studies_, vol. i. p.
-146). The evidence of such early imports is greatly strengthened by
-other discoveries at Silchester. Mr. May, speaking of the early “Samian”
-ware, says: “The Silchester examples are of much significance. Together
-with the contemporary Belgic imitations they prove that the inhabitants
-of the capital of the Atrebati were importing costly luxuries in
-considerable quantities from Italy and Northern Gaul at the beginning of
-the Christian era.” Early Belgic pottery has been found in London as
-well as “Samian,” and there is in the British Museum a wine jar of an
-early type found in Southwark. Some British pottery was doubtless made
-in Londinium itself before the Roman conquest. Mr. Lambert has described
-specimens of coarse wares in _Archæologia_. Of one of these he writes:
-“Bead-rimmed pot, coarse grey ware, irregularly burnt. A pre-Roman type,
-surviving into the Roman period.” He dates it A.D. 50-80, I suppose
-thinking that it cannot have really been pre-Roman.
-
-London above bridge is an inland city, the English capital; below bridge
-it is a great seaport. In a description of England, published in 1753, I
-find this: “That part of the Thames, which is properly the harbour, is
-called the Pool, and begins at the turning out of Limehouse Reach and
-extends to the Custom House quays. In this compass I had the curiosity
-to count the ships, and I have found about 2000 sail of all sorts of
-vessels that really go to sea.” In a twelfth-century rhyme on English
-towns are the words, “London for ships most.” Bede describes London as a
-great ship port. The city is placed just where the Thames widened into
-an estuary. At Battersea the river was little wider two thousand years
-ago than at present; it overflowed wide spaces of marsh about
-Westminster and again contracted by London. Her high ground came close
-to the water on the north, and on the Southwark side there was only a
-narrow margin of low ground. Directly to the east of London was the low
-land called in the Middle Ages “Wapping Marsh” (_Middlesex Feet of
-Fines_). In the Pepys collection at Cambridge I have seen an engraved
-plan of “Lands by Wall or Wapping Marsh, 1683: seven acres of land in
-which the millponds and ditches did all over dispersedly lie.” Stow
-tells of Limehouse marshes being “drowned.” Before the lower Thames was
-embanked the river must have been two or three miles wide, at every
-tide, a little below London, where the considerable little river, the
-Lea, runs into it. The higher ground of the site of London is in the
-angle formed by the Thames and Lea, and is the extremity of the northern
-hills, Highgate and Islington. From the hills several streams flowed
-through deeply excavated beds into the Thames. The most considerable of
-these was the Fleet; the smaller Walbrook intersected the site of the
-city. Conyers in his MS. at the British Museum noted how the Fleet was
-embanked in 1675 with material taken from old St. Paul’s, “to narrow-in
-the spreading breadth of Fleet River.... The waters overflowed these
-parts in the old times.” The general topographical conditions were well
-observed by Drayton in _Polyolbion_—The city was built on a rising bank
-of gravel and sand, surrounded by lower ground: the tide flowing up the
-Lea and Fleet prevented the town from growing too long: to the north and
-south of the Thames were ranges of hills: “And such a road for ships
-scarce all the world commands.”
-
-_Way to the Port._—The men who first came to the site of London must
-have come from the higher ground of Islington and Highgate; they did not
-cross the Lea or the Fleet. Before some engineering was done the natural
-way was from the direction of Verulam. Now, an ancient road lies along
-this course from St. Albans to Aldersgate. As it approaches London it
-passes between the Walbrook and the Fleet, pointing towards what the old
-tablet near St. Paul’s says is the highest land in the city. The
-Walbrook where it fell into the Thames must have had steep clean gravel
-banks containing a tidal inlet—a perfect landing-place where small
-ancient ships could be brought alongside. This creek, afterwards known
-as Dowgate, must have been the original port of London. Along the old
-road wine, pottery and bronzes were carried into the interior, and corn
-was brought for export. Dowgate is known as a port for foreign ships
-from Saxon days (Round’s _Commune of London_). It is especially
-interesting to find from Stow that in the fifteenth century the Abbot of
-St. Albans had a quay by Dowgate. (Old writers supposed that “Dow”
-represented the British word for water; recent scholars equate it with
-_Dove_; but even so there is the curious analogy with Dover and such
-like place-names.) The Roman gates of London, of course, opened on
-important routes, and “the street from Aldersgate to Islington” is
-mentioned in the twelfth century (_Middlesex Feet of Fines_). Stow says:
-“From the further end of Aldersgate Street straight north to the Bar is
-called Goswell Street. Beyond leaving the Charterhouse on the left hand
-the way stretcheth up towards Iseldon.” Again on the old woodcut,
-usually called Aggas’s map, the street out of Aldersgate is inscribed
-“the way to St. Albans.” That excellent old book, John Nelson’s _History
-of Islington_, carries the account of this road forward, and he thought
-that it was Roman. He quotes a passage from Norden, to the effect that
-it passed east of Highgate through Tollington Lane to Crouch End,
-Hornsey Park, Muswell Hill, etc. “Tolentone,” he points out, is
-mentioned in _Domesday_. This road is laid down on old maps. Recent
-modifications at Islington may be made out by comparing maps given by
-Nelson and by Lewis in 1842.
-
-I now quote the passage relating to this old ridgeway road to Verulam
-from Norden’s MS. (British Museum, 570). He begins at Clerkenwell
-instead of from the City: “It is not to be omitted to declare the old
-and ancient highways heretofore used by our fathers though the new be of
-greater regard and account for that they yield more ease unto the
-travellers. There was an old way that passed from Clerkenwell as also
-from Portpoole [Gray’s Inn] towards Barnet and so to St. Albans. From
-Clerkenwell it extended as the way now is unto a bridge or brooke
-between Gray’s Inn Lane and Pancras Church, near which brooke it entered
-into an old lane leaving Pancras Church on the west. It is called
-Longwich Lane, through which lane it passed along leaving also Highgate
-on the west and passed through Tollington Lane, whence it extended to
-Crouch End and thence through the Park to Muswell Hill near by Colney
-Hatch and so to Friern Barnet, from thence to Whetstone and there
-meeteth the new way. The cause why travellers left this old and ancient
-way was the deep and dirty passage in the winter.”
-
-The road is well described in Pennant’s Tour (1782): “On quitting St.
-Albans I passed the wall of Sopwell Nunnery mixed with quantities of
-Roman tiles. After London Colney on the Colne I reached Ridgehill (!), a
-most extensive view. At South Mimms enter Middlesex and about a mile
-farther made Barnet; in Saxon times a vast wood filled this tract. From
-this town is a quick descent. Just beyond Whetstone the road passes over
-Finchley Common, infamous for robberies, and often planted with gibbets.
-About a mile beyond stands Highgate, a large village seated on a lofty
-eminence overlooking the smoky extent beneath. Here, in my memory, stood
-a gateway at which in old time a toll was paid to the Bishop of London
-for liberty, granted between four and five hundred years ago, for
-passing from Whetstone along the present road instead of the old miry
-way by Friern Barnet, Colnie Hatch, Muswell Hill, Crouch End, and
-leaving Highgate to the west by the Church of St. Pancras. After resting
-for a small space over the busy prospect, I descended into the plain,
-reached the metropolis, and disappeared in the crowd.”
-
-The old miry way by Crouch End is, I cannot doubt, the original British
-road from Verulam to Londinium. (St. Pancras, it may be mentioned here,
-must be a very old settlement; near by was a bridge over the Fleet
-River, at a later time called “Battle Bridge,” on which name theories
-have been founded, but I think the bridge may have taken the place of
-“Bradford in the Parish of St. Pancras,” mentioned in the _Feet of
-Fines_, 23 H. viii.)
-
-A summer’s day journey to London, such as Matthew Paris would have known
-it, must have been of beauty unimaginable when the miry lane was not too
-wet. Mention is made in the time of Henry VIII. of “a capital messuage
-called Muswell Farm in the parish of Clerkenwell and Hornsey, and the
-site of a certain chapel in the said parish, now dissolved, lately
-called Muswell Chapel” (_Middlesex Feet of Fines_, 35 H. viii.). A
-memory of the view of St. Paul’s rising from the midst of the walled
-city is given in a little sketch by Matthew Paris himself. I find this
-of Highgate in 1753: “On the summit of the hill a view over the whole
-vale to the city, and that so eminently that they see the ships passing
-up and down the river for twelve or fifteen miles below London.” Of
-Hampstead: “The Heath affords a most beautiful prospect, for we see
-within eight miles of Northampton, and the prospect to London and beyond
-it to Banstead Downs, Shooter’s Hill, Red Hill, and Windsor Castle is
-uninterrupted.”
-
-A note of Camden speaks of another old road striking across to Edgware.
-“Hampstead Heath, from which you have a most pleasant prospect of the
-most beautiful city of London and the lovely country about it, over
-which the ancient Roman military way led to Verulam by Edgworth and not
-by Highgate as now, which new way was opened by the Bishop of London
-about 300 years since.”
-
-Drayton showed remarkable perception when, describing the hills about
-London, he wrote of Highgate:
-
-          “Appointed for a gate of London to have been
-           When first the mighty Brute that city did begin;
-           Its holts to the east stand to look
-           Upon the winding course of Lea’s delightful Brook.”
-
-When Walbrook Creek was a landing-place having a road connecting it with
-the interior, we may be sure that boating passages across the Thames
-would be common, and very soon a link with the road to Dover would be
-formed on this line. Thus, the road through Southwark must have followed
-the foundation of London immediately. As is well known, Ptolemy put
-Londinium in Kent, but he—as Dr. Bradley pointed out—was frequently very
-wrong in regard to inland places.
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 171.
-]
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 172.
-]
-
-An ancient bronze mace-head was discovered in the gravel taken from
-under old London Bridge, which, I believe, has never been illustrated
-(Fig. 171). It was one of the mace-heads which are classed in the
-British Museum as of the Bronze Age, but they are, I think, early
-British. I have found a drawing of the mace-head in question in some
-interesting volumes of sketches by Fairholt at the South Kensington
-Museum. Fairholt’s note reads: “Bronze mace found at Barnes, November
-10, 1841, amongst the gravel taken from old London Bridge.” Fig. 172 is
-an early bronze mace-head from Italy, in the British Museum, given for
-comparison.
-
-The conditions were favourable for establishing a way in the line of
-London Bridge, for hard ground here approaches near to the south bank of
-the river. That the Roman city spread from Walbrook Creek as a centre is
-now generally agreed. Mr. Lambert’s plan of the finding-places of
-Claudian and pre-Claudian coins shows them distributed near the
-primitive port. Again, the city Watling Street is probably the beginning
-of the old road from the port. Wren found traces of an old street
-running aslant under the end of old St. Paul’s, and this probably formed
-part of the way towards Aldersgate. The acceptance of such a route as
-the main street of the oldest London would solve the difficulty of the
-“fault” in the lines of Newgate Street and Cheapside. I suppose that the
-Roman street through Newgate (which all would agree was formed at a late
-time when the walls and gates were built) branched westward from the old
-Verulam road I have been describing. In a similar way, the Roman road on
-the course of Old Street probably branched to the east out of the same
-ancient Verulam road. Mr. Codrington and others have supposed that the
-road to the east was continued also westward, but no evidence of this
-has been found. Stow, in his account of Aldersgate Street, says: “On the
-east side at a Red Cross turneth the Ealde Street, so called for that it
-was the old highway from Aldersgate Street for the north-east parts of
-England before Bishopsgate was builded.”
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 173.
-]
-
-_The Westminster Crossing._—It was remarked above that the emergence of
-Verulam into importance probably followed on the use of a river crossing
-at Westminster and a trackway in the course of Edgware Road, which is
-known to have been part of a later Roman highway—the Great Watling
-Street. It is generally allowed, as by Dr. Rice Holmes, that a British
-trackway underlies the general course of this great Roman highway from
-Dover to St. Albans and beyond. The monk Higden, writing about 1360,
-said that Watling Street passed to the west of Westminster, but it has
-been objected that what the monk thought was not evidence. However, in
-his time and until about two centuries ago, an important river crossing
-was maintained at the Horse-Ferry. The Horse-Ferry Road appears to have
-been made to divert a direct passage at Westminster when the great hall
-of the new Palace was built, about 1100. Sighting the line of Tothill
-Street, we see that it would have passed by the old Palace, but that the
-Hall blocks the way. The Abbey lies at the side of this line, which
-seems to mark the boundary of St. Margaret’s churchyard. Here, too, were
-found the Roman tomb and what appears to be a terminus mark (T II). The
-Horse-ferry is mentioned in an order of 1246: “The Bailiff of Kennington
-is to cause a barge to be made to carry people and horses over the
-Thames” (Hudson Turner’s _Domestic Architecture_, vol. i.). Canterbury
-documents show that the ferry was later in the charge of the Archbishop
-of Canterbury, and doubtless Lambeth Palace exists here as being on the
-great road. In the more direct line there still exists a short street
-called Stangate, which is an old name for a paved way. When Elizabeth,
-daughter of Henry VII., died at Eltham, “her body was conveyed to
-Stangate over against Westminster” (Sandford). A way to the river also
-was long maintained through New Palace Yard to a landing-place (see Fig.
-173), from Norden’s map, _c._ 1600). Matthew Paris, in his route map of
-the way to Jerusalem, shows London Bridge and also the Westminster and
-Lambeth route, because these were alternative crossings. Tothill Street
-is mentioned in mediæval documents. It is possible that in early days
-there was a ford at Westminster, for Mr. Lambert has given reasons for
-thinking that formerly the tide did not rise so high as at present by 6
-ft. Testimony on the course of the way from Westminster to Edgware Road
-is given in Ogilvie’s _Road Book_, 1675: “Piccadilly ... on the left
-falls in the way from Westminster by Tuttle Street; four poles from this
-corner, you have a way on the right by the side of Hyde Park into the
-other road at Tyburn.” The ancient road from Westminster would have
-crossed what is now Green Park in the direction of Tyburn Lane, now Park
-Lane. Here, in Tyburn Lane, was “Osulstone,” which gave its name to the
-Hundred in which London city is situated (see map recently reproduced by
-London Topographical Society). Tyburn, close by, was the place of
-execution, and doubtless the place of meeting of the old folk-mote of
-the Hundred, because it was at the cross roads. I have more detail
-establishing the continuity of this route (on which Dr. Haverfield
-expressed doubt), but I will pass to a few general final considerations.
-
-The primitive road in Kent as far as Greenwich was on high ground, but
-beyond was the wide river valley. By bending to the left on the edge of
-higher ground, through Camberwell where Roman objects have been found,
-the river might be more nearly approached opposite Westminster, and
-there was solid land on the opposite bank also. Beyond, at Park Lane,
-the higher firm ground pushed down towards Westminster, between two
-little streams—the road here, indeed, was a low ridgeway. All evidence
-suggests that a British road to Verulam passed the Thames at
-Westminster. In Allen’s _Lambeth_, it is said that three “Celts” were
-found in digging the foundations of Westminster Bridge. Now, in
-Fairholt’s _Albums of Sketches_, at South Kensington, are drawings of
-three bronze weapons thus described: “Swords and spear found August
-1847, under Westminster Bridge by a ballast heaver.” The swords (Fig.
-174) were 28½ in. and 23½ in. long, the spear-head or dagger was 16½ in.
-long. Other pieces of British bronze work have been found in the river
-in the neighbourhood of the Westminster crossing. Westminster Bridge
-itself still carries on the tradition by crossing the river at this
-point, and it is interesting to find recorded that the building of the
-bridge in the line of the Horse-ferry was the first intention. The
-importance of the Horse-ferry about 1700 is shown by the list of charges
-given in Hatton’s _New View_ (1708).
-
-[Illustration:
-
-  FIG. 174.
-]
-
-My general results in regard to the British and Roman road systems may
-be summarised thus:
-
-1. A primitive trackway along the North Downs near the south bank of the
-river.
-
-2. An ancient river-crossing by a ford at Westminster and thence
-north-west through Britain.
-
-3. The growth of Verulam on this road, and the rise of London as a port
-in connection with it.
-
-4. A direct London-Verulam road made over Islington—a ridgeway.
-
-5. Hardly two or three persons possessing a boat could have been settled
-on the site of London before a direct path across Southwark would be
-taken to reach the Kentish road; thus the route marked by London Bridge
-must be of pre-Roman origin.
-
-6. Other ways were thrown out; along the Strand to the Westminster
-crossing; along the comparatively high ground of Piccadilly to the west,
-and by Old Street and Old Ford to the east.
-
-7. The British road system was rectified by Roman engineers. The chief
-route was now over London Bridge; the Roman road along Oxford Street was
-made in connection with the enlarged Londinium issuing from it at
-Newgate; it was continued to Brentford, where it met the older road by
-Piccadilly; the old track from Westminster to Verulam was improved only
-from this new road, and the link across the river became of secondary
-importance; Mile End Road superseded the route by Old Ford. There were
-thus older and newer roads—British ways following the higher and harder
-ground; and Roman roads laid down in straight lines.
-
-In saying that London had its origin as the port of Verulam, I would not
-necessarily imply more than this: each may so have reacted on the other
-that it would be impossible to say which was the first cause. It is
-possible, indeed, that the Belgic kingdoms of south-east England were
-founded by invasions striking up the river, and that a landing at the
-site of London was earlier than settling down about St. Albans. It is
-remarkable that the Cattivellauni and Atrabates occupied much the same
-relative places in Britain as they did in their continental homes about
-Chalons and Arras. In this case, however, London would be none the less
-the port of Verulam.
-
-Camden clearly saw that London began as a port. Discussing its name, he
-suggested as one possibility that “It might have had its name from the
-same original that it had its growth and glory; I mean ships, called by
-the British Lhong; so that London is a Harbour or City of Ships. For
-several cities have had their name from shipping, none of which can lay
-better claim to the name of harbour than our London. For ’tis admirably
-accommodated with both elements, and the river Thames brings it in the
-riches of the world. Moreover, it is such a sure and complete station
-for ships that one may liken it to a groved wood, so shaded it is with
-masts and sails.”
-
-Conyers, the old antiquary apothecary, two centuries and a half ago,
-said: “Verulam was a kingly seat of the Britons, and the principal trade
-they had was between Verulam and London. So that on Watling or Verulam
-road there was a communication backward and forward.”
-
-
-
-
-                                THE END
-
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
-                                +INDEX+
-
-
- Alexandria, 8.
-
- Alignment, 46, 53, 145, 152.
-
- Altar, 128.
-
- Ante-fix, 29.
-
- Apotropaic sculpture, 140.
-
- Apse, 33, 35, 42, 44, 47.
-
- Arches, 12, 17, 18.
-
- Atys, 139.
-
- Augusta (Londinium), 219.
-
-
- Bacchus, 144.
-
- Barbican, 80.
-
- Basilica, 16, 33.
-
- Bastions, 62.
-
- Baths, 49.
-
- Bone objects, 203, 212.
-
- Bricks, 10, 15, 37.
-
- Bridge, 41, 44, 54, 80.
-
- Britannia, 129.
-
- Bronzes, 121, 139.
-
- Buildings, 32, 33.
-
-
- Capitals, 11.
-
- Carpentry, 21, 30, 43.
-
- Cemeteries, 84.
-
- Chariot races, 51, 199, 204, 210.
-
- Chimney, 24.
-
- Christianity, 94, 96, 158, 160, 208, 212, 214, 217, 225.
-
- City (the), 55, 83, 119, 129, 184.
-
- Coffins, 92, 208.
-
- Coins, 220.
-
- Colour, 85, 112.
-
- Columns, 11, 16, 28, 34, 35, 39, 135.
-
- Commerce, 193, 202, 215, 230, 234.
-
- Concrete, 10, 12, 27, 37.
-
- Constantine, 220.
-
- Copings, 11, 116.
-
- Crosses, 156, 219.
-
- Cymbeline, 230.
-
-
- Dadoes, 167.
-
- Decoration, 161.
-
- Diana, 128.
-
- Ditches, 79.
-
-
- Education, 191.
-
- Enamels, 206, 224.
-
-
- Figure painting, 171.
-
- Floors, 27, 158.
-
- Flues, 15, 23, 43.
-
- Foot-rule, 8.
-
- Ford, 241.
-
- Forum, 33.
-
- Friezes, 136.
-
-
- Gates, 76.
-
- Gladiators, 199, 204.
-
- Glass, 31, 148, 159, 194, 202.
-
- Gods, 103, 127, 132.
-
- Greek workmen, 160.
-
-
- Hadrian, 121.
-
- Hercules, 127.
-
- Hinges, locks, etc., 30.
-
- Houses, 23, 42, 44.
-
- Hunting, 198.
-
- Hypocausts, 23.
-
-
- Imperial statues, 121.
-
- Impersonations, 126.
-
- Inscriptions, 42, 110, 115, 149, 161, 176.
-
-
- Jove and giant columns, 101, 139.
-
-
- Lamps, 222.
-
- Latin, 20, 184, 193.
-
- Leadwork, 32, 140, 208.
-
- Leather work, 212.
-
- Lettering, 176.
-
- Lions, 140.
-
- Londinium (origin of), 228.
-
-
- Mace (bronze), 238.
-
- Marbles, 42, 99, 174, 194.
-
- Masonry, 9.
-
- Mausolea, 109.
-
- Mirror, 203.
-
- Mithras, 133.
-
- Monograms, 221, 225.
-
- Mortar, 12.
-
- Mosaics, 42, 142, 175.
-
- Mouldings, 11.
-
-
- _Opus signinum_, 17, 27.
-
- Ornament, 135.
-
- Orpheus, 149, 160.
-
- Osulstone, 242.
-
-
- Painting, 29, 33, 35, 42, 162.
-
- Peacocks, 139, 151.
-
- Pewter, 211, 225.
-
- Piling, 14, 21, 43.
-
- Pine-cones, 139.
-
- Plastering, 23, 28, 35, 226.
-
- Porphyry, 174.
-
- Port, 28, 80, 193, 230.
-
- Portraits, 124.
-
- Pottery, 194, 200, 232.
-
-
- Roads, 243.
-
- Romanesque art, 30, 137, 143, 159.
-
- Roofs, 10, 16, 25, 29, 39.
-
-
- Saints of London, 218.
-
- Sarcophagi, 94.
-
- Sculpture, 85, 100, 114, 119.
-
- Sewers and drains, 21, 37.
-
- Site and soil, 84.
-
- Skirtings, 29.
-
- Statues, 42.
-
- Streets, 33, 40, 43, 52.
-
- Style, 7, 11.
-
- Sun-dial, 161.
-
- Symbolism, 138.
-
-
- Tablets, 99.
-
- Temples, 49, 150, 187, 191.
-
- Thames impersonation, 132.
-
- Thatch, 23.
-
- Theatre, 51.
-
- Tomb-houses, 116.
-
- Tombs, 84, 100, 112.
-
- Tools, 8, 30.
-
- Turning, 30.
-
-
- Vaults, 17, 35.
-
-
- Walbrook, 61.
-
- Wall (the City), 16, 57.
-
- Wall tiles, 25.
-
- Walling, 9, 13, 22, 33, 37.
-
- Water-pipes, 21, 32.
-
- Wattle and daub, 10, 22.
-
- Wells, 44.
-
- Westminster, 19, 240.
-
- Windows, 29, 31.
-
- Winds, 133.
-
-
- Zodiac, 133.
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-
- ● Transcriber’s Notes:
-    ○ This book uses the mid dot “·” to separate the integer part of a
-      number from the decimal fraction.
-    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
-    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
-    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
-      when a predominant form was found in this book.
-    ○ Text that:
-      was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_);
-      had extra character spacing by “plus” signs (+stretched+).
-
-
-
-*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LONDINIUM ARCHITECTURE AND THE
-CRAFTS ***
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
-be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the
-United States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
-the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
-of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
-copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
-easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
-of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
-Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
-do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
-by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
-license, especially commercial redistribution.
-
-START: FULL LICENSE
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.
-
-Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
-person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
-1.E.8.
-
-1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
-Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
-you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country other than the United States.
-
-1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
-on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
-
-  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
-  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
-  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
-  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
-  you are located before using this eBook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
-other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
-Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-provided that:
-
-* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
-  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-  Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
-  works.
-
-* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-  receipt of the work.
-
-* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
-the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
-forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.
-
-1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.
-
-Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
-www.gutenberg.org
-
-Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
-Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
-to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website
-and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
-
-Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without
-widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
-state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.
-
-Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
-facility: www.gutenberg.org
-
-This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/66260-0.zip b/old/66260-0.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index 7c4a0bf..0000000
--- a/old/66260-0.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h.zip b/old/66260-h.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index ba90a70..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/66260-h.htm b/old/66260-h/66260-h.htm
deleted file mode 100644
index 6bcb359..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/66260-h.htm
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,9773 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
-    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
-  <head>
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
-    <title>Londinium, Architecture and the Crafts, by W. R. Lethaby—A Project Gutenberg eBook</title>
-    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
-    <style type="text/css">
-       body { margin-left: 8%; margin-right: 10%; }
-       h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.4em; }
-       h2 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; }
-       h3 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; }
-       .pageno { right: 1%; font-size: x-small; background-color: inherit; color: silver; 
-               text-indent: 0em; text-align: right; position: absolute; 
-               border: thin solid silver; padding: .1em .2em; font-style: normal; 
-               font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; }
-       p { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: justify; }
-       sup { vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.6em; }
-       .fss { font-size: 75%; }
-       .sc { font-variant: small-caps; }
-       .large { font-size: large; }
-       .xlarge { font-size: x-large; }
-       .small { font-size: small; }
-       .xsmall { font-size: x-small; }
-       .under { text-decoration: underline; }
-       .lg-container-b { text-align: center; }
-       @media handheld { .lg-container-b { clear: both; } }
-       .linegroup { display: inline-block; text-align: left; }
-       @media handheld { .linegroup { display: block; margin-left: 1.5em; } }
-       .linegroup .group { margin: 1em auto; }
-       .linegroup .line { text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em; }
-       div.linegroup > :first-child { margin-top: 0; }
-       .linegroup .in1 { padding-left: 3.5em; }
-       .linegroup .in14 { padding-left: 10.0em; }
-       .linegroup .in2 { padding-left: 4.0em; }
-       .index li {text-indent: -1em; padding-left: 1em; }
-       .index ul {list-style-type: none;  padding-left: 0; }
-       ul.index  {list-style-type: none;  padding-left: 0; }
-       ul.ul_1 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 2.78%; margin-top: .5em;
-               margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: disc; }
-       ul.ul_2 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 6.94%; margin-top: .5em;
-               margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: circle; }
-       em.gesperrt { font-style: normal; letter-spacing: 0.2em; margin-right: -0.2em; }
-       @media handheld { em.gesperrt { font-style: italic; letter-spacing: 0;
-               margin-right: 0;} }
-       div.footnote {margin-left: 2.5em; }
-       div.footnote > :first-child { margin-top: 1em; }
-       div.footnote .label { display: inline-block; width: 0em; text-indent: -2.5em;
-               text-align: right; }
-       div.pbb { page-break-before: always; }
-       hr.pb { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-bottom: 1em; }
-       @media handheld { hr.pb { display: none; } }
-       .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; }
-       .figcenter { clear: both; max-width: 100%; margin: 2em auto; text-align: center; }
-       .figleft { clear: left; float: left; max-width: 100%; margin: 0.5em 1em 1em 0;
-               text-align: left; }
-       .figright { clear: right; float: right; max-width: 100%; margin: 0.5em 0 1em 1em;
-               text-align: right; }
-       div.figcenter p { text-align: center; text-indent: 0; }
-       div.figleft p { text-align: center; text-indent: 0; }
-       div.figright p { text-align: center; text-indent: 0; }
-       @media handheld { .figleft { float: left; } }
-       @media handheld { .figright { float: right; } }
-       .figcenter img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; }
-       .figleft img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; }
-       .figright img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; }
-       .id001 { width:800px; }
-       .id002 { width:100px; }
-       .id003 { width:125px; }
-       .id004 { width:200px; }
-       .id005 { width:250px; }
-       .id006 { width:300px; }
-       .id007 { width:250px; }
-       .id008 { width:200px; }
-       .id009 { width:300px; }
-       .id010 { width:400px; }
-       .id011 { width:350px; }
-       .id012 { width:150px; }
-       .id013 { width:500px; }
-       .id014 { width:100px; }
-       .id015 { width:150px; }
-       .id016 { width:75px; }
-       .id017 { width:600px; }
-       .id018 { width:50px; }
-       .id019 { width:125px; }
-       .id020 { width:175px; }
-       @media handheld { .id001 { margin-left:0%; width:100%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id002 { margin-left:44%; width:12%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id003 { width:15%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id004 { width:25%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id005 { width:31%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id006 { margin-left:31%; width:37%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id007 { margin-left:34%; width:31%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id008 { margin-left:37%; width:25%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id009 { width:37%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id010 { margin-left:25%; width:50%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id011 { margin-left:28%; width:43%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id012 { width:18%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id013 { margin-left:19%; width:62%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id014 { width:12%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id015 { margin-left:41%; width:18%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id016 { width:9%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id017 { margin-left:12%; width:75%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id018 { width:6%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id019 { margin-left:42%; width:15%; } }
-       @media handheld { .id020 { margin-left:39%; width:21%; } }
-       .ic001 { width:100%; } 
-       .ig001 { width:100%; } 
-       .table0 { margin: auto; margin-top: 2em; margin-left: 16%; margin-right: 16%;
-               width: 68%; }
-       .nf-center { text-align: center; }
-       .nf-center-c0 { text-align: left; margin: 0.5em 0; }
-       p.drop-capa0_25_0_7 { text-indent: -0.25em; }
-       p.drop-capa0_25_0_7:first-letter { float: left; margin: 0.071em 0.071em 0em 0em;
-               font-size: 350%; line-height: 0.7em; text-indent: 0; }
-       @media handheld {
-         p.drop-capa0_25_0_7 { text-indent: 0; }
-         p.drop-capa0_25_0_7:first-letter { float: none; margin: 0; font-size: 100%; }
-       }
-       .c000 { margin-top: 1em; }
-       .c001 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 4em; }
-       .c002 { margin-top: 4em; }
-       .c003 { margin-top: 2em; }
-       .c004 { font-size: 3em; }
-       .c005 { font-size: 2.75em; }
-       .c006 { margin-top: 3em; }
-       .c007 { font-size: 2em; }
-       .c008 { font-size: 1.25em; }
-       .c009 { page-break-before:auto; margin-top: 4em; }
-       .c010 { vertical-align: top; text-align: right; padding-right: 1em; }
-       .c011 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; }
-       .c012 { vertical-align: top; text-align: right; }
-       .c013 { margin-left: 20.83%; margin-right: 20.83%; margin-top: 4em;
-               text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c014 { font-size: 2.5em; }
-       .c015 { margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c016 { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c017 { font-size: 1.4em; }
-       .c018 { margin-left: 1.39%; margin-top: 2em; font-size: 85%; }
-       .c019 { text-align: right; }
-       .c020 { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c021 { margin-left: 1.39%; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 85%; }
-       .c022 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-top: 2em; font-size: 85%; text-indent: 1em;
-               margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c023 { margin-left: 5.56%; font-size: 85%; text-align: right; }
-       .c024 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 2em; }
-       .c025 { margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c026 { margin-top: 1em; text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c027 { text-decoration: none; }
-       .c028 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-right: 5.56%; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 85%;
-               text-align: right; }
-       .c029 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-right: 5.56%; font-size: 85%; text-indent: 1em;
-               margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
-       .c030 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-right: 5.56%; font-size: 85%; text-align: right;
-               }
-       .c031 { margin-top: .5em; }
-       body {width:80%; margin:auto; }
-       .tnbox {background-color:#E3E4FA;border:1px solid silver;padding: 0.5em;
-              margin:2em 10% 0 10%; }
-       .fn   {font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 125%; }
-        h1   {font-size: 2em; text-align: center; }
-        h2   {font-size: 1.50em; }
-       .sans {font-family: "Ariel", sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; }
-    </style>
-  </head>
-  <body>   
-
-<div style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Londinium Architecture and the Crafts, by W. R. Lethaby</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
-whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
-of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
-at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you
-are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
-country where you are located before using this eBook.
-</div>
-
-<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: Londinium Architecture and the Crafts</p>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: W. R. Lethaby</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: September 10, 2021 [eBook #66260]</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Character set encoding: UTF-8</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Produced by: Charlene Taylor, Barry Abrahamsen, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) Last Edit of Project Info</div>
-
-<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LONDINIUM ARCHITECTURE AND THE CRAFTS ***</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id001'>
-<img src='images/cover.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'>The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.</span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c000' />
-</div>
-<div>
-  <h1 class='c001'>LONDINIUM<br />ARCHITECTURE AND THE CRAFTS</h1>
-</div>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c002' />
-</div>
-
-<div class='nf-center-c0'>
-<div class='nf-center c003'>
-    <div><span class='c004'><em class='gesperrt'>LONDINIUM</em></span></div>
-    <div><span class='c005'>ARCHITECTURE</span></div>
-    <div><span class='c005'>AND THE CRAFTS</span></div>
-    <div class='c006'>BY</div>
-    <div class='c000'><span class='c007'>W. R. LETHABY</span></div>
-    <div class='c006'>WITH 175 FIGURES</div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id002'>
-<img src='images/publogo.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-</div>
-
-<div class='nf-center-c0'>
-<div class='nf-center c006'>
-    <div>LONDON</div>
-    <div><em class='gesperrt'><span class='c008'>DUCKWORTH &amp; CO.</span></em></div>
-    <div>3 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN</div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-
-<div class='nf-center-c0'>
-<div class='nf-center c002'>
-    <div><i>First Published in 1923</i></div>
-    <div class='c000'><i>All Rights Reserved</i></div>
-    <div class='c002'>PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY</div>
-    <div>MORRISON AND GIBB LTD., TANFIELD, EDINBURGH</div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c002' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_5'>5</span>
-  <h2 class='c009'>CONTENTS</h2>
-</div>
-<table class='table0' summary=''>
-<colgroup>
-<col width='14%' />
-<col width='73%' />
-<col width='12%' />
-</colgroup>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'><span class='xsmall'>CHAP.</span></td>
-    <td class='c011'>&nbsp;</td>
-    <td class='c012'><span class='xsmall'>PAGE</span></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>I.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Building Materials and Methods</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch01'>7</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>II.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Buildings and Streets</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch02'>33</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>III.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Walls, Gates and Bridge</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch03'>57</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>IV.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Cemeteries and Tombs</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch04'>84</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>V.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Some Larger Monuments</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch05'>101</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>VI.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Sculpture</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch06'>120</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>VII.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>The Mosaics</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch07'>142</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>VIII.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Wall Paintings and Marble Linings</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch08'>162</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>IX.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Lettering and Inscriptions</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch09'>176</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>X.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>The Crafts</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch10'>193</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>XI.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Early Christian London</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch11'>214</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>XII.</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>The Origin of London</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#ch12'>228</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class='c010'>&nbsp;</td>
-    <td class='c011'><span class='sc'>Index</span></td>
-    <td class='c012'><a href='#idx'>247</a></td>
-  </tr>
-</table>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<p class='c013'><span class='pageno' id='Page_6'>6</span><i><span class='sc'>These</span> chapters were first printed in “The Builder”
-during the year 1921. For that reason, and because
-the earlier records of Roman discoveries in London
-given in this Journal seemed to have been less worked
-over than other sources, a large number of references
-are given to its pages. The account of Roman London
-in the “Victoria County History,” C. Roach Smith’s
-“Illustrations of Roman London,” and Mr. T. Ward’s
-“Roman Era in Britain,” and “Roman British
-Buildings,” may be specially mentioned among the
-works consulted. The first named is cited as V.C.H.
-Mr. A. H. Lyell’s “Bibliographical List of Romano-British
-Remains” (1912) is indispensable to the
-student.</i></p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c002' />
-</div>
-
-<div class='nf-center-c0'>
-<div class='nf-center c003'>
-    <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_7'>7</span><span class='c014'><em class='gesperrt'>LONDINIUM</em></span></div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <h2 id='ch01' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER I</em><br /> <br />BUILDING MATERIALS AND METHODS</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'>IT is curious that Roman buildings and crafts
-in Britain have hardly been studied as part
-of the story of our national art. The subject
-has been neglected by architects and left aside for
-antiquaries. Yet when this story is fully written,
-it will appear how important it is as history, and
-how suggestive in the fields of practice. This
-provincial Roman art was, in fact, very different
-from the “classical style” of ordinary architectural
-treatises. M. Louis Gillet in the latest history of
-French art considers this phenomenon. “It is
-very difficult to measure exactly the part of the
-Gauls in the works of the Roman epoch which cover
-the land, such, for instance, as the <i>Maison Carrée</i>
-and the Mausoleum at St. Remy. There is in these
-<i>chefs d’œuvre</i> something not of Rome. The elements
-are used with liberty and delicacy more like the
-work of the Renaissance than of Vitruvius. In
-three centuries Gaul had become educated: these
-Gallo-Roman works, like certain verses of Ausonius,
-show little of Rome, they are already French.”
-We should hesitate to say just this in Britain,
-although the Brito-Roman arts were intimately allied
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_8'>8</span>to those of Gaul. In fuller truth and wider fact,
-they were closely related to the provincial Roman
-art as practised in Spain, North Africa, Syria, and
-Asia Minor. Alexandria was probably the chief
-centre from which the new experimenting spirit
-radiated. We may agree, however, that in the
-centuries of the Roman occupation, Britain like
-Gaul became educated and absorbed the foreign
-culture with some national difference. In attempting
-to give some account of Roman building and
-minor arts in London, I wish to bring out and
-deepen our sense of the antiquity and dignity of
-the City, so as to suggest an historical background
-against which we may see our modern ways and
-works in proper perspective and proportion.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Tools, etc.</i>—Roman building methods were remarkably
-like our own of a century ago. The large
-number of tools which have been found and brought
-together in our museums are one proof of this.
-We have adzes and axes, hammers, chisels and
-gouges, saws, drills and files; also foot-rules, plumb-bobs
-and a plane. The plane found at Silchester
-was an instrument of precision; the plumb-bob
-of bronze, from Wroxeter, in the British Museum,
-is quite a beautiful thing, and exactly like one
-figured by Daremberg and Saglio under the word
-<i>Perpendicularum</i>. At the Guildhall are masons’
-chisels and trowels; the latter with long leaf-shaped
-blades. At the British Museum is the
-model of a frame saw. Only last year (1922) many
-tools were found at Colchester. (For the history
-of tools in antiquity, see Prof. Flinders Petrie’s
-volume.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A foot-rule found at Warrington gave a length
-of 11·54 in. The normal Roman foot is said to be
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_9'>9</span>11·6496 in. (also 0·2957 m.). This agrees closely
-with the Greek foot and the Chaldean. (What is
-the history of the English foot?) The length of
-the Roman foot, a little over 11½ of our inches,
-is worth remembering, for measurements would
-have been set out by this standard. For example,
-we may examine the ordinary building “tile” used
-in Londinium. In the Lombard Street excavations
-of 1785 many Roman bricks were found which are
-said to have measured about 18 in. by 12 in. I have
-found this measurement many times repeated, and
-also three more precise estimates. Dr. Woodward
-said that bricks from London Wall were 17-4/10 in.
-by 11-6/10 in., and he observed that this would be
-1½ by 1 Roman foot. Mr. Loftus Brock gave the
-size of one found in London Wall as 17 in. by 11⅝
-in. Dr. P. Norman gave the size of another tile
-as about 17½ in. by nearly 12 in. At the Guildhall
-are several flue and roof tiles about 17½ in. long,
-and a large tile 23¼ in. long. We shall see when we
-come to examine buildings that the dimensions
-in many cases are likely to have been round numbers
-of Roman feet.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Masonry.</i>—Walling had three main origins in
-mud, timber and stone. Walling stones were at
-first, and for long, packed together without mortar.
-Mud and stone were then combined; later, lime
-mortar took the place of mud, being a sort of mud
-which will set harder. In concrete, again, the
-mortar became the principal element. Stone
-walling was at first formed of irregular lumps.
-When hewn blocks came to be used a practice arose
-of linking them with wood or metal cramps. There
-are also three main types of wall construction—aggregation
-of mud, framing of timber, and association
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_10'>10</span>of blocks of stone. A later development of
-mud walling was to break up the material, by analogy
-with hewn stone, into regular lumps separately
-dried before they were used; thus crude bricks,
-the commonest building material in antiquity,
-were formed. Roofing tiles were developed from
-pottery, and such tiles came to be used for covering
-the tops of crude brick walls. Then, later, whole
-walls were formed of baked material, and thus the
-tile or brick wall was obtained. An alternative
-method of using mud was to daub it over timber or
-wattle (basket work) of sticks; and this seems to
-have been a common procedure in Celtic Britain.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Interesting varieties of concrete walling were
-developed by Roman builders. One of these
-was the use of little stones for the faces of a wall,
-tailing back into the concrete mass and forming a
-hard skin or mail on the surfaces, very like modern
-paving. Triangular tiles with their points toothed
-into the concrete mass were also used. Then tile
-courses were set in stone and concrete walls at every
-few feet of height.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>I have been speaking of general principles and
-history, not limiting myself to Britain and Londinium,
-but the evolution of the wall is an interesting
-introduction to our proper subject.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-001'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i011a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 1.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In Londinium wrought stonework must have
-been very sparingly used because of the difficulty
-and cost of transit. There were columns, pilasters,
-plinths, cornices, etc., but it may be doubted
-whether there were any buildings other than small
-monuments wholly of such masonry. Even in the
-first century the “details” of masonry were far
-from being “correctly classical,” and ornaments
-were very redundant and inventive. Provincial
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_11'>11</span>Roman building was something very different from
-the grammars propounded by architects. As we
-may study it in the fine museums of Trèves, Lyons,
-and London, it seems more like
-proto-Romanesque than a late
-form of “classic.” The Corinthian
-capitals of Cirencester are
-very fine works indeed; the
-acanthus is treated freshly, the
-points of the leaves being sharp
-and arranged as in Byzantine
-work; a sculptured pediment and
-ornamental frieze at Bath are
-also free and fine. On the other
-hand, moulded work is usually
-coarse and poor. An interesting
-architectural fragment found
-in London was the upper drum of a column which
-had several bands of leafage around the shaft and
-was a remote descendant of the
-acanthus column at Delphi (Fig. <a href='#fig-001'>1</a>). Parts of small columns and
-their bases have been found, the
-latter with crude mouldings. I
-mention them because small circular
-work was usually turned in
-a lathe like Saxon baluster-shafts.
-A small capital from Silchester in
-the Reading Museum is of the
-bowl form so characteristic of
-Romanesque art.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-002'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i011b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 2.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>A few fragments of mouldings and other stones
-are in our museums (Fig. <a href='#fig-002'>2</a>), and a considerable
-number of semicircular stones have been found
-which must have been copings. Large wrought
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_12'>12</span>stones were usually cramped together; lewis holes
-show how they were hoisted; smaller wall-facings
-were, I think, cut with an axe instead of a
-chisel. We find mention of one stone arch (a small
-niche?) in a Minute of the Society of Antiquaries:
-“Mar. 8, 1732: Mr. Sam Gale acquainted the
-Society, yt in digging up some old foundations
-near ye new Fabric erected Anno 1732 for ye
-Bank of England Mr. Sampson ye architect discovered
-a large old wall, eight foot under ye surface
-of ye ground, consisting of chalk stone and rubble,
-next to Threadneedle Street, in which was an arch
-of stone and a Busto of a man placed in it standing
-upon ye plinth, which he carefully covered up
-again: there was no inscription but he believed it
-to be Roman.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Mortar and Concrete.</i>—Roman builders early
-learnt how to make good mortar and concrete,
-being careful to use clean coarse gravel and finely
-divided lime. They also found that an addition
-of crushed tiles and pottery was an improvement,
-and for their good work used so much of this that
-the mortar became quite red. “Roman mortar
-was generally composed of lime, pounded tiles,
-sand and gravel, more or less coarse, and even
-small pebbles. At Richborough the mortar used
-in the interior of the walls is composed of lime and
-sand and pebbles or sea-beach, but the facing stones
-throughout are cemented with a much finer mortar
-in which powdered tile is introduced” (T. Wright).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>One of the advantages of coarsely-crushed tiles
-is that it absorbs and holds water so that the mortar
-made with it dries very slowly and thus hardens
-perfectly. In <i>Archæologia</i> (lx.) an analysis is given
-of “mortar made with crushed tiles as grit in place
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_13'>13</span>of, or in conjunction with, sand.” In Rochester
-Museum a dishful of the crushed tile is shown which
-was taken from a heap found ready for use at the
-Roman villa at Darenth. I may say here that I
-have found mortar prepared in this way wonderfully
-tenacious, and suitable for special purposes like
-stopping holes in ancient walls. A strong cement
-made of finely powdered tiles, lime and oil was used
-by Byzantine and mediæval builders and probably
-by the Romans also. Villars de Honnecourt (thirteenth
-century) gives a recipe: “Take lime and
-pounded pagan tile in equal quantities until its
-colour predominates; moisten this with oil and
-with it you can make a tank hold water.” The use
-of crushed pottery in cement goes back to Minoan
-days in Crete.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In London a long, thick wall of concrete formed
-between timbering was recently found between
-Knightrider and Friday Streets; it showed prints
-of half-round upright posts and horizontal planking;
-it bent in its course and may have been the boundary
-of a stream. On the site of the old Post Office a
-Roman rubbish pit was found, about 50 ft. by 35 ft.
-in size. “In late Roman times the whole pit had
-been covered with concrete about a foot thick and
-a building had been erected on the spot” (<i>Archæol.</i>
-lxvi.). At Newgate the Roman structure was
-erected on a “raft” of rubble in clay finished with
-a layer of concrete. Rubble in clay formed the
-foundation of the City Wall.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-003'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i014.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 3.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Many walls, described as of chalk, rubble or
-rag-masonry, have been found in London—one
-instance at the Bank has been quoted above. Chalk
-and flints were the most accessible material after
-local gravel, clay and wood. Mr. F. W. Troup
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_14'>14</span>tells me that “in the foundations for the Blackfriars
-House, New Bridge Street, we exposed a remarkable
-foundation (possibly not Roman). It consisted of
-rammed chalk, fine white material about 4 ft.
-wide and high, laid on great planks of elm 6 in.
-thick, which appeared to be sawn. These were laid
-side by side in the direction of the length of the
-wall, which ran along the west bank of the Fleet
-River.” I mention this, although it was probably
-a mediæval wall, as an example of a record; we
-ought to have every excavation registered. The
-walls of a room found in Leadenhall Street in
-1830 were of rubble forming a hard concretion,
-with a single row of
-bond tiles through the
-thickness of the wall at
-about every 2 ft. in
-height. A sketch of
-this wall at the Society
-of Antiquaries shows
-it plastered outside and in. This was one of the
-common types of walling. Better stone walls were
-formed with face casings of roughly-squared little
-stones—what the French call <i>petit appareil</i>—as
-described above. An immense amount of piling
-was used in wet ground under streets and wharves,
-as well as walls. Foundations have been discovered
-of three rows of piles close together with a wall
-coming directly on their heads (Fig. <a href='#fig-003'>3</a>). A wall
-found on the site of the Mansion House seems to
-have had only one row of piles; it was plastered
-outside.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Tile Walling.</i>—The brick commonly used in
-Rome was a crude or unbaked block; the burnt
-walling tile was, as said above, developed from
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_15'>15</span>pottery, and it always remained pottery-like in
-texture and thin in substance. As Mr. T. May has
-said of bricks: “They were made of heavy clay,
-well tempered and long exposed; the modern
-practice is to use the lightest possible clay right off
-without tempering.” Walling tiles were used in
-Londinium not only as bonding courses, but for
-the entire substance of walls. It is usual to write
-“Roman tiles or bricks” interchangeably, but in
-origin and character the thing was a tile, and,
-indeed, roofing tiles with flanged edges were used
-as a walling material occasionally. Tiles were of
-various sizes and shapes, but an oblong, 1½ ft. by
-1 ft. and about 1½ in. thick, was most usual. In
-the Guildhall Museum are several triangular tiles
-which must, I think, have been used for facing walls
-with concrete cores. Solid tile walling was used
-in Londinium so extensively that it was evidently
-a common material for better buildings. The
-Lombard Street excavations of 1785 exposed “a
-wall which consisted of the smaller-sized Roman
-bricks, in which were two perpendicular flues, one
-semicircular and the other rectangular; the height
-of the wall was 10 ft. and the depth to the top from
-the surface was also 10 ft.” Here we have evidence
-of a brick wall rising the full height of one story
-at least (<i>Archæol.</i> viii.). Roach Smith noticed a
-wall in Scott’s Yard “8 ft. thick, entirely composed
-of oblong tiles in mortar.” Mr. Lambert has
-recently described some walls of brick 3¼ ft. thick
-found at Miles Lane. A building in Lower Thames
-Street had walls of <i>red</i> and <i>yellow</i> tiles in alternate
-layers. This fact I learn from a sketch by Fairholt
-at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and such use of
-bricks of two colours was a common practice. In
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_16'>16</span>Hodge’s sketches of the tile walls of a great building
-discovered at Leadenhall Market it is noted that
-some of the courses were red and buff. Price
-recorded of walls, 2½ ft. thick, found in the Bucklersbury
-excavations, that “the tiles were the usual
-kind of red and yellow brick.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>More recently a bath chamber has been found
-in Cannon Street built of tiles which on the illustration
-are indicated in alternate courses of red and
-yellow. In the description in <i>Archæologia</i>, it is
-remarked: “It would appear that the yellow was
-preferred, the red being employed where they were
-not visible.” Years ago Charles Knight observed
-that the tiles used in the City Wall at America
-Square varied from “bright red to palish yellow.”
-This has been confirmed by more recent accounts
-in <i>Archæologia</i>. Finally, Roach Smith, describing
-the discovery of a part of the South or River Wall
-of the City (<i>Archæological Journal</i>, vol. i.), says
-that the tiles used as bonding bands were straight
-and curved-edged (that is, flanged roof tiles), red
-and yellow in colour. At the Guildhall there are a
-roof tile and a flue tile of yellow colour. Building
-with tiles may for long have been customary, but
-the use of red and yellow tiles in the way described
-would probably have been a fashion during
-a limited time only, and in that case it follows that
-the buildings erected with red and yellow tiles are
-likely to be nearly contemporary; the date would,
-I suppose, be the fourth century. Specially made
-tiles were used for columns. At the Guildhall are
-several round tiles 8 in. diameter, suitable for the
-piers of a hypocaust. Also some semicircular tiles
-12 in. in diameter. In Rochester Museum are
-some quadrants making up a circle about 1½ ft. in
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_17'>17</span>diameter. Tiles, eight of which made up a circle,
-have lately been found at Colchester, and in the
-Guildhall Museum is a course of a round column
-made up of twelve tiles around a small central
-circle. A large number of columns were evidently
-of such bricks plastered.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-004'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i018a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 4.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Arches and Vaults.</i>—The arches in the City
-Wall, where it passed across the Walbrook, described
-by Roach Smith, were of no great span
-(3¼ ft.). They were constructed of ordinary tiles
-and were of a roughly-pointed shape. Arches of
-this form were not infrequently used in Roman
-works; they were not the result of inaccurate
-building. About a dozen years ago a well-built
-pointed arch of alternate tile and tufa, found at
-Naples, was described in <i>Archæologia</i>. The tiles,
-although thin, were sometimes made slightly wedge-shaped,
-and the city gates at Silchester seem to have
-had arches of such bricks.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The only London vault which I can find mentioned
-is one found exactly two hundred years
-since at St. Martin-in-the-Fields. A Minute of
-the Society of Antiquaries reads: “May 2, 1722:
-Mr. Stukely related that the Roman building in
-St. Martin’s Church was an arch built of Roman
-brick and at the bottom laid with a most strong
-cement of an unusual composition, of which he
-has got a lump. There was a square duct in each
-wall its whole length, of 9 in. breadth; there were
-several of these side by side: this building is below
-the springs on the gravel.” This building that was
-an arch, with its many flues, and cement floor—doubtless
-<i>opus signinum</i>—was obviously a Roman
-bath chamber, but probably it was quite small.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-005'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i018b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 5.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Evidence of the existence of fairly large vaults
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_18'>18</span>has been found at the Baths of Silchester, Wroxeter
-and Bath. These were all constructed in a most
-interesting and suggestive way of voussoirs made
-as hollow boxes in the tile material.
-Similar box voussoirs have been discovered
-at Chedworth and elsewhere.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-006'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i019a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 6.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-007'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i019b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 7.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-008'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i019c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 8.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>I have found two such box
-voussoirs in the Rochester Museum,
-each about 9 in. by 6 in. on
-the face and 5 in. on the soffit
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-004'>4</a>). The surfaces are roughly
-scored across with parallel lines forming an
-<span class='sans'>Χ</span>.
-These two tiles together
-show an obvious curvature; they came from a villa
-at Darenth. In the Guildhall Museum I have
-also found a box voussoir which is almost identical
-with those at Rochester. It is thus described:
-“74, Flue (?) tile, red brick, the front decorated
-with incised cross lines; in the centre both front
-and back is a circular perforation: 9½ in. long,
-6¾ in. high, 6½ in. wide.” The longest dimension
-is not in the direction of the tube, and the height is
-greater at one end than the other, so that the wedge
-form is quite apparent.
-The small holes in both
-the larger sides were
-doubtless to give better
-hold to the mortar in
-which they were set (Fig. <a href='#fig-005'>5</a>). Roach Smith recorded
-what must have been broken parts of similar
-voussoirs as found in Thames Street in 1848
-(<i>Journ. Brit. Archæol. Assoc.</i>, vol. iv.), but here
-they seem to have been used as waste material
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_19'>19</span>in building the little piers of hypocausts. Roman
-builders also constructed vaults of pipes and
-pots set in mortar concrete as were our box
-voussoirs, but I know of no British examples.
-Vaults of wide span seem to have covered large
-chambers in the Basilica at Verulam (see <i>Victoria
-County History</i>). The method of using the box
-voussoirs has been well explained from the Silchester
-examples by the late Mr. Fox in <i>Archæologia</i> (cf.
-Fig. <a href='#fig-006'>6</a>). A fragment at Westminster Abbey is either
-part of a voussoir or of a short flue tile (Fig.<a href='#fig-007'>7</a>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Some notes made at Bath further explain the
-interesting methods of building vaults with box
-voussoirs. There are several such voussoirs in the
-ruins of the Great Bath, 12 in. to 13 in. deep by 6 in.
-and 6½ in.; 6¾ in. and 7½ in.; 8¼ in. and 10 in.;
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_20'>20</span>8 in. and 11 in. at the top and bottom. Fig. <a href='#fig-009'>9</a>
-is a sketch of the third; it is scored on the face.
-The notches cut in the sides take the place of the
-holes in the London examples, and doubtless were
-for the mortar to get a better key; Fig. <a href='#fig-010'>10</a> is from
-a vault of this construction which was further
-strengthened by a series of curved tiles set in the
-outer concrete mass, which was 6 in. thick; Fig. <a href='#fig-011'>11</a>
-shows the ridge of such a vault—this may be an
-imagination of my own. One of the fragments
-showed six or eight flat tiles set longitudinally
-crossing the lines of the box-tiles (Fig. <a href='#fig-012'>12</a>). The
-ridge termination (Fig. <a href='#fig-016'>16</a>) is also from Bath.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i020a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 9.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i020b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 10.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Some large voussoir box-tiles from Gaul are
-shown in the British Museum, No. 394, in the
-section of Greek and Roman life.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id007'>
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_21'>21</span>
-<img src='images/i020c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 11.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-012'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i020d.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 12.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Well-constructed arched sewers have been found
-in the City (see <i>Victoria County History</i>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Many socketed water-pipes are in our museums.
-Such pipes were occasionally used in Rome as down-pipes,
-and we might do worse than revert to the
-custom and get rid of the iron rust nuisance. In
-the British Museum there are some larger socketed
-pipes with small holes cut in them along a line.
-These must, I think, have been for draining surface
-water, for which purpose flue tiles were also used.
-Larger sewers were of brick or stone.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Carpentry.</i>—In mediæval days the carpenter
-was the chief house builder, and much timber
-would have been used in Roman London. In
-1901-2 remains of piling was found in the bed of
-the Walbrook at London Wall. These piles had
-served as supports for dwellings. “The large
-quantities of loose nails indicated that the superimposed
-dwellings were of timber” (<i>Builder</i>,
-December 13, 1902). Timber piling has also been
-found at St. Martin’s le Grand and other sites.
-There was clearly much soft wet ground in the
-City. The better-class dwelling in Bucklersbury,
-to which belonged the fine mosaic floor now at the
-Guildhall, seems to have been largely of timber.
-In December last (1921) Mr. Lambert described at
-the Society of Antiquaries a remarkable piece of
-wharfing on the river bank at Miles Lane. This
-was a solid wall of squared balks of timber about
-2 ft. square, laid one over the other and having ties
-into the ground behind. The construction showed
-an interesting set of tenons, halvings and housings.
-A bored wood pipe was also found. In Thames
-Street a house found in 1848 had a well-made
-drain made with 2 in. planks forming bottom and
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_22'>22</span>sides, which is said to have been covered in with
-tiles.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Wattle and Daub.</i>—It was ever a problem in
-London how to build without stone. Wood,
-gravel and mud were plentiful, and these were
-the common walling materials during the Middle
-Ages. As lately as the eighteenth century some
-of the suburban churches were described by Hatton
-as being of “boulder work,” that is, a concrete of
-coarse gravel; and the walls of the Temple Church,
-before the falsifying restorations, were of some sort
-of concreted rubble skinned over with plaster on the
-face. Hearne reports that Wren said that there
-were few masons in London when he was young.
-Mud walls are mentioned in mediæval records, and
-“daubers” were, I suppose, primarily those who
-did the filling in of post and pan work. The
-smaller houses of Londinium were largely of wattle
-and daub, and doubtless others were of crude
-brick. For the use of wattle and daub we have
-plentiful direct evidence. In the account of the
-excavations in and about Lombard Street in 1785
-(<i>Archæol.</i> viii.) curious fragments were found which
-are thus described: “About this spot and in
-many other places large pieces of porous brick were
-met with of a very loose texture, seeming as if
-mixed with straw before they were burnt. They
-are commonly channelled on the surface; their
-size is quite uncertain, being mere fragments, their
-thickness about 1½ in. or 2 in.” Again, chalk-stone
-foundations and “channelled brick” are mentioned
-together. The “brick” fragments were
-of daubing, and the channels were the marks of
-laths, as has been shown by other finds. Similar
-remnants have recently been discovered on the Post
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_23'>23</span>Office site and in King William Street. “Débris
-of a wood and daub house which had been destroyed
-by fire.... In several cases the plaster was still
-adhering to the daub” (<i>Archæol.</i> lxvi.). Other
-fragments are preserved in the Silchester collection
-at Reading. The London fragments were
-found under conditions which showed that they had
-belonged to first-century dwellings. This method
-of building had been practised by the Celts, and
-we may imagine that the “populace” of Londinium
-was housed in small huts of wattle and clay roofed
-with reed thatch. In the country, old garden walls
-are occasionally found, I believe, built of mud
-daubing on both sides of wattle work, and sheep
-shelters of wattle-hurdles and dry fern are, I suppose,
-direct descendants of the old British manner of
-building.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Mr. Bushe-Fox has remarked that one of the
-earliest houses at Silchester and the earliest houses
-at Wroxeter were of wattle and daub construction.
-See also Mr. Lambert’s paper in <i>Archæologia</i>,
-December 1921.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Hypocausts and Flue Tiles and Wall Linings.</i>—Several
-examples have been found in London of the
-Roman system of heating buildings by hypocausts.
-These were low under-floor spaces a foot or two
-high connected with an external stoke-hole in one
-direction and having a flue or flues in the other.
-When the hypocaust, as was frequently the case,
-occupied the whole space below a chamber the
-floor was supported on a large number of roughly-built
-little piers with a row or two of flat tiles above
-spanning the intervals, and over them a layer of
-concrete and a mosaic or other floor. The flues
-were usually box-tiles, and in the case of the hot
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_24'>24</span>chambers of a bath one side of a wall or even more
-might be lined with them. A hypocaust with its
-stoke-hole and flue or flues was really a kiln of low
-power, in which people were warmed on a similar
-principle to the baking of pottery. The box-tiles
-were much the shape of a modern brick, and about
-twice as big; they were hollow and usually had
-scorings or impressed patterns on the surface to
-make mortar or plaster adhere (Figs. <a href='#fig-006'>6</a> and <a href='#fig-007'>7</a>).
-Frequently they had a hole or two holes in their
-narrow sides, so that the mortar might better hold
-them in place. In the British Museum there is a
-long and large pipe with ornamental scratchings
-on the surface which may possibly be a chimney.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The system of central heating by the hypocaust
-seems to have been an admirable contrivance.
-Lysons illustrated an example at Littlecote where
-flue tiles ran up in the angles of a room like Tobin
-tubes, being cased round only by the plaster. The
-two best known London hypocausts were found in
-Lower Thames Street and in Bucklersbury. The
-former extended under the floors of two adjoining
-apartments. The Bucklersbury example had
-channels under the floor spreading to several wall
-flues, each being of two box-tiles placed side by side.
-(See Price’s account and <i>V.C.H.</i>) Occasionally
-flue tiles had two smaller channels; there is a
-broken example of such a tile in the British Museum.
-Flue tiles were sometimes of a rounded form <span class='c017'>∩</span>,
-and in this case the wall itself must have served to
-enclose the flue. In the excavations in Lombard
-Street in 1785 (<i>Archæol.</i> viii.) a brick wall is described
-which had two flues, one being “semicircular.”
-A long and well-made <span class='c017'>∩</span>-shaped flue
-in the British Museum, with an impressed lozenge
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_25'>25</span>pattern on the surface, is described as a ridge-tile.
-There is also a fragment of still larger diameter
-at the Guildhall. Similar flues found at Woodchester
-were used as horizontal heating channels
-under the floor.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Here also one of the walls was found to be lined
-with flanged tiles, set thus, │__││__│, with the
-flanges against the walls. This may have been
-a provision against a damp wall. I have seen a
-similar wall in Rome—I believe subterranean—also
-another very similar where large flat tiles,
-having four projections at the back like short legs
-to a low stool, were used as linings. Each of the
-four studs was pierced for a nail. Fragments of
-tiles found at Newgate in 1877 were about 1½ ft.
-square and 1¼ in. thick, “with rough clay stubs for
-attachment”; they were scored over the surface
-with wavy lines, and were probably used internally.
-(In <i>V.C.H.</i> it is said that these may have been
-mediæval, but the examples just given show that
-they were Roman.) In the British Museum and
-at the Guildhall are some flat tiles, scored on one
-side to receive plastering, and with four notches
-in the sides to allow of nails being driven between
-two adjoining tiles. These, too, must have been
-for wall linings.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The impressed patterns on the surfaces of some
-of these flue tiles are quite neat and pretty, and they
-are interesting in the history of design as being
-“all-over patterns.” In some cases at least, they
-seem to have been produced by a roller having a
-unit of the design cut on it in the style of a butter
-print. A tile found in Kent, illustrated by Haverfield
-(<i>Romanization</i>, p. 33), has the inscription:
-“Cabriabanus made this wall-tile” (<i>parietalam</i>)—“The
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_26'>26</span>man who made the tiles apparently incised
-the legend on a wooden cylinder and rolled it over
-the tiles, producing a recurrent inscription.” The
-patterns superseded the scorings and seem to have
-been for the same purpose—to afford a better hold
-for the plaster than a plain face. Fig. <a href='#fig-013'>13</a> is of tiles
-found in Thames Street. Fig. <a href='#fig-014'>14</a> is a fragment
-illustrated in Roach Smith’s Catalogue.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i026a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 13.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id002'>
-<img src='images/i026b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 14.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Inscriptions roughly scratched on tiles led the
-late Dr. Haverfield to the conclusion that ordinary
-workers in Britain wrote Latin. At the Guildhall
-a tile has a humorous note about a workman who
-went off “on his own” too often. In the British
-Museum a tile has <i>Primus</i>, and one from Silchester
-has <i>Satis</i>.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Floors.</i>—The floors which have been found were
-most generally of concrete, tiles and mosaic. In
-Rochester Museum are some lumps of material
-from concrete floors. There were also floors of
-“rough stones” and of “chalk stones.” A better
-kind of concrete floor was that known as <i>opus
-signinum</i>, made of lime and broken pottery polished
-on the surface; this made an admirable floor.
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_27'>27</span>Another excellent and much used surface was
-obtained by coarse tesseræ of tile from 1 in. to 2 in.
-square; sometimes pieces of yellow, black and
-white were intermixed. In Rochester Museum is a
-tile fragment subdivided by indented lines imitating
-this coarse kind of mosaic, also a square of light buff
-tile. At the Guildhall is a tile a Roman foot square,
-having incised squares. Tiles were of various forms
-and sizes. In the Reading Museum are round and
-polygonal tiles, and a very pretty floor formed of
-such tiles with coarse tesseræ intermixed. Some
-small paving tiles have been found (not in London)
-with patterns impressed on the surface (Fowler’s
-engravings). In the British Museum is a tile 7 in.
-square, and a large tile about 18 by 14 in. is scored
-on the surface neatly, like the crosses of a Union
-Jack (cf. Fig. <a href='#fig-007'>7</a>); it seems to be abraded on the
-surface, and may be a paving tile—if so, it must have
-made an excellent floor. Roach Smith mentions
-large tiles about 2 ft. square and 3 in. thick, and
-some of these are in the British Museum. Such
-tiles, as large as paving slabs, were useful in covering
-hypocausts, spanning the intervals between the little
-piers on which the corners rested.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the British Museum and at the Guildhall
-are portions of paving of small tiles set on edge
-in a herring-bone pattern. The former is described
-as having been found at Bush Lane, the latter near
-Dowgate Hill on the Walbrook. “Near by was
-piling and the cill of a bridge which crossed the
-brook from E. to W.” This seems to be the same
-pavement as that described in <i>The Builder</i>, 1884,
-as being on the west bank facing the brook; there
-was a second landing-stage in Trinity Square
-Gardens, on “the edge of a haven,” with a pavement
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_28'>28</span>over oak piling. (The haven at the tidal inlet to
-Walbrook was doubtless the original port of
-London.) I have seen similar herring-bone pavement
-of tiles on edge in Rome. I doubt there
-having been a bridge here.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Plastering.</i>—External walls would mostly have
-been plastered. C. Knight mentioned the discovery
-near the Bank of traces of a Roman building,
-and of what was “apparently the basis of a Roman
-pillar (circular?) built of large flat bricks incrusted
-with a very hard cement, in which the mouldings
-were formed exactly as is done in the present day.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Rome itself must have been a city of plastered
-walls; the Pantheon, the great Basilica of Constantine
-in the Forum, and the splendid Baths were
-all, as may be seen to-day, plastered. The tile
-walls of the Basilica at Trèves were covered with
-red plastering. The Baths at Silchester were
-plastered externally. Of the great villa at Woodchester
-we are told the walls were “plastered on
-the outside and painted a dull red colour” (T.
-Wright). At Caerwent the Basilica was plastered
-a reddish-brown colour. The best description I
-have found of such plastering is that in <i>Archæologia</i>
-of a round temple or tomb building found at Holmwood
-Hill, which was covered outside with “a
-mixture of lime and gravel and coarse fragments of
-broken tile. On this was laid a coat of stucco
-composed of lime and tile more minutely broken,
-the latter being rendered very smooth was covered
-with a dark pigment ... a sort of ochre.” It is
-clear that external plastering was generally finished
-with a red surface.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Of internal plastering we have many fragments
-covered with painted decoration in the museums;
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_29'>29</span>it was generally very thick and smoothly finished
-on the surface; against the floor there was usually
-a projecting quarter-round fillet about 3 in. high,
-of hard cement. Such a skirting was found around
-the Bucklersbury mosaic pavement (Price). Sometimes
-a similar fillet ran up the angles of a room, as
-at a bath at Hartlip Villa, illustrated by T. Wright.
-I have seen a similar treatment in Rome, also a
-hollow curve.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Roofs, Windows, etc.</i>—Roofs were generally
-covered with tiles, stone-slates, and doubtless
-thatch. Examples of the two former are in our
-museums. The flat tiles had turned-up edges;
-these were removed near the top for the next
-tile to lap over. The flanges were covered by
-half-round tiles, larger below than above, so that
-one lapped over the other. The flat tiles were
-frequently if not always of a key-stone shape, so
-that the bottom of the upper one set into the
-wider top of the lower one. (See one figured in
-Allen’s <i>London</i>.) Some have a single nail-hole
-near the top; but others, I suppose, can only have
-been nailed against the slanting sides. (See V. le
-Duc’s article “Tuille” for the Romanesque system.)
-In better work ante-fix tiles covered the terminations
-of the round tiles at the eaves. “Part of an
-ante-fix of red terra-cotta in the form of a lion’s
-mask” was found in the Strand (<i>V.C.H.</i>). There
-are several in Reading Museum and one in the
-British Museum from Chester. The slates were
-thick and of a pointed shape below, forming diagonal
-lines when laid. Both the stones and tiles were
-very heavy, and must have required strong roof
-timbering.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-015'  class='figcenter id002'>
-<img src='images/i030a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 15.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-016'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i030b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 16.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Ridges were of tile or stone. A fragment in
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_30'>30</span>the Reading Museum from Silchester has a knob
-rising from the saddle-back of a ridge-tile strangely
-mediæval in appearance (Fig. <a href='#fig-008'>8</a>). Probably one
-came at each end of the ridge only (cf. V. le Duc’s
-“Faîtière”). Ridges were frequently terminated by
-stone gable knobs, which have been found in many
-places (see Ward’s <i>Roman Buildings</i>), and occasionally
-in such a position as to show that a gable end
-fronted a street. A ridge termination
-in Exeter Museum is
-shown upside down as if it were a
-corbel (Fig. <a href='#fig-015'>15</a> is a memory sketch,
-and compare Fig. <a href='#fig-015'>16</a> from Bath).
-These terminations are late derivations
-from acroteria and prototypes
-of gable crosses; they are
-links in a continuous chain from
-Greek to Gothic.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-017'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i030c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 17.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Little joiner’s work has survived to our day.
-Doors would not have been very different from
-our own, as is shown by many examples of framed
-panel work from foreign sites in museums. A
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_31'>31</span>bronze pivot in the Museum at Westminster Abbey
-must have been a hinge of a door (Fig. <a href='#fig-017'>17</a>). Iron
-strap-hinges in the museums are very similar to
-our own. There are two in the British Museum
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-018'>18</a>). The plane found at Silchester is evidence
-for joiner’s work. In Leicester Museum is a fragment
-of a lion’s head and leg from a piece of
-furniture—probably a table. Turning in a lathe
-was practised, as some wooden dishes at the
-Guildhall show. There are many excellent locks
-and keys and hinges and handles in our
-museums.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-018'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i031.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 18.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The use of window glass was very general. It
-was cast in small panes, as is shown by the large
-proportion of existing fragments which have edges
-and corners. Practically a whole pane, about
-12 in. by 12 in., is in the Rochester Museum. Near
-Warrington, on a Roman site, was found a stone
-slab with a shallow recess 12 in. by 8 in., which Mr.
-May regarded as a mould for glass (Ward). The
-average size of panes would have been about one
-Roman foot long. Glassware seems to have been
-made in London, Silchester and elsewhere, doubtless
-from imported “metal.” Some windows,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_32'>32</span>possibly unglazed, were protected by iron gratings.
-An iron star
-<span class='sans'>X</span>
-in the Guildhall Museum came
-from such a window guard as is
-shown by a complete example I
-sketched many years ago in the
-Strasbourg Museum (see <i>Arch. Rev.</i>,
-May 1913) (Fig. <a href='#fig-019'>19</a>). It had been
-suggested that such
-<span class='sans'>X</span>-pieces
- were
-“holdfasts,” to keep the glass panes
-in position (Ward); but this is not the case;
-moreover, the pane at Rochester shows that it
-was “cemented” into place.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-019'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i032a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 19.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Lead must have been largely used; there are
-a dozen large “pigs” in the British Museum.
-Melted lead was found at Verulam in a position
-which suggested that it had been used on an important
-building. In the Guildhall Museum are
-some sections of lead water-pipes found in London,
-and at Westminster Abbey is a piece 4 in. in
-diameter, which must, I think, be Roman (Fig. <a href='#fig-018'>18</a>, C).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A study of Roman building methods may suggest
-to us many points for our consideration and
-emulation. I would especially mention their
-excellent mortar made of crushed tile, <i>opus
-signinum</i>, and coarse tesseræ floors, cement skirtings,
-red external plastering, the tile-shaped brick,
-tile wall linings and down-pipes, hip and gable
-knobs, vaults of box-tiles and pipes, the hypocaust
-system of heating, turning of stonework, painted
-decorations, marble linings, cast leadwork. Some
-day I hope our sterile histories of “architectural
-styles” will make way for accounts of practical
-building methods.</p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_33'>33</span>
-  <h2 id='ch02' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER II</em><br /> <br />BUILDINGS AND STREETS</h2>
-</div>
-<div class='lg-container-b c018'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'>“Set we forward friendly together, so through Lud’s-town march;<br /></div>
-      <div class='line in1'>And in the temple of great Jupiter<br /></div>
-      <div class='line in1'>Our peace we’ll ratify; seal it with feasts,<br /></div>
-      <div class='line in1'>Set on there!”</div>
-      <div class='c019'><span class='sc'>Cymbeline.</span></div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c020'><i>BASILICA.</i>—In 1880 the extensive foundations
-of an important building with massive
-walls were found on the site of Leadenhall
-Market, and a survey of the ruins made by Henry
-Hodge was published in <i>Archæologia</i> (vol. lxvi.).
-This great building was
-exceptional, not only in
-its scale but in its manner
-of workmanship. I know
-no other case where the
-walls of a building had
-wrought and coursed facings
-like the City Wall
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-020'>20</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-020'  class='figright id009'>
-<img src='images/i033.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 20.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In 1881 Mr. E. P. L.
-Brock exhibited at a
-meeting of the British Archæological Association
-“plans of excavations recently carried out in Leadenhall
-Market, showing the foundations of an apse
-33 ft. wide and indications of four different conflagrations.
-He also exhibited fragments of fresco
-painting with ornamental patterns.... The
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_34'>34</span>building appears to have had the form of a Basilica
-in some respects, with eastern apse, western nave,
-and two chambers like transepts on the south side”
-(<i>Archæol.</i> lxvi.). From the wording of this it
-appears that Brock meant that the building had a
-general resemblance to an early Christian church.
-Mr. Lambert in publishing Hodge’s drawings in
-<i>Archæologia</i> seems to have understood Brock to
-mean that it was the Civil Basilica of Londinium.
-This, indeed, I have no doubt it was, but at the
-time Brock wrote such buildings in Britain were
-hardly known.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-021'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i034.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 21.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Civil Basilica or Public Hall was generally
-the “complement of the
-Forum; it was, in fact,
-a covered Forum used
-for commerce, exchange,
-and administration, or
-simply as a promenade”
-(Daremberg and Saglio).
-At Silchester the Forum
-and Basilica filled an
-“island” site, about
-315 ft. by 280 ft., at
-the centre of the city.
-The Forum was a
-quadrangle included within a single row of buildings
-on three sides, having a colonnaded walk
-on the inside, while the Basilica occupied the
-fourth side facing the central avenue of the town.
-It was 233 ft. long by 58 ft. wide, and was divided
-into a “nave” and “aisles,” the former being
-terminated at <i>each end</i> by a large apse. In the
-interior were two ranges of Corinthian columns
-about 3 ft. in diameter, some capitals from which
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_35'>35</span>are now in Reading Museum. Cirencester Basilica
-was still larger, being about 77 ft. wide, divided into
-nave and aisles by fine Corinthian columns; at one
-end a great Hemicycle embraced both nave and
-aisles. It must have been a noble building (Fig. 21
-is a restored plan of one end). At Wroxeter the
-Basilica was 67 ft. wide, divided into nave and aisles
-by ranges of Corinthian columns.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The columns in the interior of the Basilica at
-Caerwent were also of Corinthian fashion: the
-shafts were 3 ft. in diameter and decorated with
-a leaf pattern. Under the floor were wide sleeper
-walls, one of which ran across the front of the
-Tribune. The exterior was covered with reddish-brown
-plastering, and the interior had painted
-decorations of large scale.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Basilica at Verulam had a very long hall,
-26 ft. wide and about 360 ft. in length. From it
-three great chambers opened at right angles. The
-central chamber was 40 ft. wide. The others were
-34½ ft. wide, having apses at the farther ends
-included within square outer walls. There was
-evidence that these side chambers had been vaulted.
-Some painted wall plaster was found, and it was
-clear that the whole of the interior walls and
-vaults had been painted, mostly in floral designs,
-in dark olive green and other colours. Fragments
-of drapery indicated that there had been figures
-also. In front of the Basilica was a great quadrangle
-court, with a block of masonry on the central
-axis, which can hardly have been other than a
-pedestal for a statue (see <i>V.C.H.</i>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Basilica at Trèves is built wholly of tile-bricks,
-and was once covered with red plaster, of
-which some fragments remain in the window
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_36'>36</span>jambs. It is about 240 ft. long, the flank wall
-having six bays recessed between pilasters each containing
-an upper and a lower window. A large
-apse exists at one end, about 40 ft. wide. It has
-been restored to serve as a church, and is a noble
-building, big and bare. The British Basilicas, so
-far as they are now known, were of the following
-dimensions in width. The English measures may
-probably be equated with Roman feet as suggested:
-Silchester, 58 (60); Caerwent, 62 (65); Wroxeter,
-67 (70); Cirencester, 78 (80); Chester, 76 (?).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The foundations discovered on the site of Leadenhall
-Market represented some very large and
-exceptional structures. The following account is
-condensed from Mr. Lambert’s description in
-<i>Archæologia</i>: “The plans show at the eastern end
-a quarter-circle of 27 ft. 7 in. radius, which seems
-to represent the eastern apse mentioned by Brock;
-and in continuation of its southern line, a wall
-about 150 ft. long, having the extraordinary breadth
-of 12 ft. 7 in., runs to the line of and apparently
-underneath Gracechurch Street.... From the
-south side at the east end, spring at right angles
-three walls, which doubtless enclosed the ‘two
-chambers like transepts’ mentioned by Brock....
-It is probable that work of different periods is included
-in this plan.... The northern half of the
-great wall appears to be brick, the rest stone or
-rubble, as though one wall had been built along
-the face of another.... It is clear from the
-drawings that the bulk of the eastern portions of
-the remains is homogeneous in structure. The
-extra thickness of the great wall and the fragments
-of solid brick walls at either end of the site represent
-perhaps later additions.... These remains
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_37'>37</span>form the most extensive fragment of a Roman
-building recorded within the Walls of London.”
-From the thick mortar joints of the brick walls,
-Mr. Lambert concludes that they were probably
-built in the third or fourth century. The more or
-less alternating use of red and buff bricks, as I have
-already suggested, is also evidence that this part
-of the work should be assigned to the fourth century.
-Concrete, tessellated and herring-bone floors were
-found, also flue tiles (Price, <i>Athen.</i>, 1881).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Some of the bricks used were of larger size than
-the ordinary, being 20 in. by 12½ in., and the drawings
-show that they were carefully laid with alternate
-headers and stretchers (Fig. <a href='#fig-017'>17</a>). They were
-1¾ in. thick, and four courses made 10-12 in.; the
-joints were thus about 1¼ in. thick. At the Guildhall
-is a fragment of brickwork from Leadenhall
-Market, with bricks and joints both 1½ in. thick.
-The stone walling was of concreted rubble, with
-facings on each side in small, roughly wrought but
-carefully-coursed stones; the layers of bonding
-tiles passed through the thickness of these walls
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-020'>20</a>). A large drain ran parallel to the outer
-south wall about 4 ft. wide, including its brick sides.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The general plan shows a total length from
-the apse at the east to the broken wall at the west
-against Gracechurch Street of about 210 ft. About
-44 ft. to the north of the Great Wall a parallel wall
-is shown on the plan, but no details are given, and
-it may not have been Roman.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The interior curve of the <i>upper wall</i> of the apse
-had a radius of about 22 ft., and the width of a
-central “nave” agreeing with this can hardly have
-been less than 50 ft.; the total internal width,
-supposing there were “aisles” in line with the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_38'>38</span>“chambers” at the end, would have been about
-110 ft. There were thick transverse walls across
-the front of the apse, and again about 20 ft. to the
-west. I give (Fig. <a href='#fig-022'>22</a>) a plan adapted from <i>Archæologia</i>;
-the walls shown black were not necessarily
-all above the floor level, although they are thinner
-than the lowest foundations. (Note that in the
-plan in <i>Archæologia</i> the scale is given in divisions
-of 12 ft., and not of 10 ft. as usual.)</p>
-
-<div id='fig-022'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i038.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 22.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>My plan is restored as a possible reading of the
-evidence; the most certain parts are those in
-black (A); the foundations (B) may be of a different
-age; at the left (C) is the brick pier or wall against
-Gracechurch Street.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A structure perhaps 110 ft. wide with a central
-avenue of 50 ft. would have been exceptional;
-on the other hand, a Basilica 220 ft. to 250 ft. long
-including the apse would have been rather short.
-One of the walls found to the west of Gracechurch
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_39'>39</span>Street was bent in its line as if it might have been
-against a stream. The nature of the site might
-have dictated a rather short and very wide building.
-It should be noticed that the line of Gracechurch
-Street is nearly or exactly at right angles to the
-great building. Hodge’s drawings show that the
-walls of Leadenhall Market were built directly
-on the Roman foundations, and hence square with
-them.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Basilica would have had ranges of Corinthian
-columns and perhaps a transverse row on the
-foundation in front of the apse, as at the Basilica
-Ulpia in Rome and at Pompeii: compare also the
-transverse walls at the Basilicas of Cirencester and
-Caerwent. The roof would probably have had
-trusses of low pitch exposed to the interior, like
-those of the early Christian churches.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In 1908 a Roman wall, 3½ ft. wide, <i>parallel</i> to
-Gracechurch Street, was found at No. 85. In
-1912 a fine Roman wall, 4½ ft. wide, running north
-and south, was found just south of Corbet’s Court;
-turning at right angles it passed under Gracechurch
-Street. It was of ragstone with double courses
-of tiles; the base was 27 ft. below the present
-level; a piece of thinner wall ran close and <i>parallel</i>
-with the roadway (<i>Archæologia</i>, lxiii.). Kelsey
-noted that in 1834 massive walls were found in
-Gracechurch Street from Corbet’s Court to the
-head of the street (<i>Archæologia</i>, lx.).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The discovery was announced in January 1922 of
-a wall 2¾ ft. thick of ragstone and bond tiles “in
-the centre of Gracechurch Street a little south of
-the Cornhill crossing (to the west or left of Fig. <a href='#fig-022'>22</a>).
-A length of about 10 ft. has been disclosed following
-the central line of Gracechurch Street. The
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_40'>40</span>presence of this Roman building in the middle of
-the highway proves that the mediæval street did
-not follow the line of the Roman street. Close at
-hand is Leadenhall. When the present market was
-reconstructed, excavations disclosed remains of an
-important Roman building. It is probable that
-the remains now unearthed are associated with the
-same group of buildings.” Another wall, 4½ ft.
-thick, was found at right angles to the thinner wall;
-the finds were at a depth of about 13 ft. This
-building, which must have been part of the Basilica
-or adjacent to it and square with it, was thus as far
-west as the middle of the street, and doubtless
-farther, for the thinner wall in association with a
-thicker one would not have been an external
-wall. Other walls have recently been found
-under St. Peter’s, Cornhill, corresponding with
-those under Leadenhall Market. “All these finds
-seem to be part of a great building more than
-400 ft. long, which crowned the eastern hill of
-London” (<i>Antiquaries’ Journal</i>, vol. ii. p. 260;
-see also p. <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, below).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The smaller inset plan on Fig. <a href='#fig-022'>22</a> is a very visionary
-reading of the possibilities. A street in line with
-Fish Street Hill and the Bridge, which I will call
-<i>Axis Street</i>, may not have pointed to the centre of
-this great building, but rather by its west end as
-suggested (X). If this is too far west for the <i>Axis
-Street</i>, then we must suppose that it was directed
-towards some point in the south front of the Forum.
-(It is desirable that all the walls found in this
-locality should be accurately laid down on a plan.)
-A parallel street to the east, which I will call <i>North
-Gate Street</i> (Y), would not be in continuation with
-<i>Axis Street</i>. The question whether Bishopsgate
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_41'>41</span>and Gracechurch Street represent a Roman street
-from the Bridge to the Gate has been much argued
-over (see <i>Archæologia</i>, 1906), and it seems to have
-been shown that the line was interrupted in some
-way. The southern part, however, must, I think,
-represent the Roman street from the Bridge, although
-it may later have been bent aside to tend
-more directly to Bishopsgate. The facts and the
-fault in the line may be reconciled in some such
-way as suggested. (Hodge’s drawings are in the
-old Gardner collection, and it would be interesting
-to know what other Roman records are included.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Beyond the statement quoted from Brock no
-identification of the building is offered in <i>Archæologia</i>,
-and Mr. Bushe-Fox thought that if the walls
-were contemporary they could not belong to a
-Basilica. “If there were a nave with two aisles
-and an apse there would be no reason for the cross
-wall, nor for the excessive thickness of the side wall.
-The building had perhaps been a bath; the wall
-which ended abruptly at the west end was probably
-a flue for heating the apse, and the large drain
-would be accounted for” (<i>Proceedings</i>, 1914-5).
-That the building was indeed the civil Basilica of
-Londinium is proved to my mind by: A comparison
-of the plan with those of other British Basilicas—notice
-the way that the apse is within straight
-external walls, and compare Fig. <a href='#fig-021'>21</a>; by the great
-scale of the work; by its central position in the
-City; by the scale and character of the construction;
-by the fact that the only possible alternative seems
-to be the supposition that it was the great Bath of
-the City, and for this neither the planning nor the
-situation seems suitable; by the exceptional wall
-decorations described below; by the fact that a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_42'>42</span>tile bearing the official stamp PR-BRILON was
-found on the site (Price). It is a remarkable fact
-that Leadenhall was the market, and that the
-Crossing at Cornhill was the carfax of London
-during the Middle Ages.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>We have seen above that Brock said that fragments
-of painting were found on the site. In the
-British Museum are four pieces of wall painting,
-given by Mr. Hilton Price—1 and 2 in 1882, and
-3 and 4 in 1883; the first pair are said to be from
-Leadenhall, the second pair from Leadenhall
-Market. One and 3 are fragments of large-scale
-scrolls of ornamental foliage of a grey-green colour;
-2 is a piece of large-scale drapery, and 4 is part of a
-life-sized foot. These four remarkable fragments
-evidently form one group and came from the
-Basilica. The large scale of the ornament and
-figure work differentiates these pieces of painted
-plaster from all others found in London. At
-Silchester and Cirencester fragments of marble
-wall linings have been found on the sites of the
-Basilicas, and some of the marble fragments in the
-British Museum may have come from our Basilica,
-which must have been a handsome, indeed splendid,
-civic centre. In the Forum would have been
-statues of Emperors, and in the Basilica some impersonation
-of Londinium itself (cf. the fragment
-of such a figure found at Silchester, now at
-Reading).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-023'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i043.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 23.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Houses.</i>—In 1869 a mosaic pavement was discovered
-in Bucklersbury which is now at the
-Guildhall (<i>Builder</i>, May 15 and 29). It was fully
-described in a volume by Price. The floor was
-that of a small round-ended chamber, and belonged
-to a building on the western bank of the Walbrook,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_43'>43</span>Around the apsidal end of the room which had the
-mosaic was a wall of stone and chalk, built upon
-piling; this wall contained the flues of the heating-system,
-and it terminated in piers at the ends of the
-semicircle. From the fact that no more walling
-was found and the evidence of an attached lobby
-which had a wooden sill around it, we may suppose
-that the rest of the house was of timber work
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-023'>23</a>). The curved apse would be a strong
-form in which to build a mass of wall to contain
-the vertical wall flues; and it is an interesting
-example of building contrivance. We have already
-seen that timber and clay construction was frequent
-in Londinium. Near this building a well was
-found (built of square blocks of chalk, <i>The Builder</i>
-says). This building with the mosaic floor must
-have been a superior house on the bank of the Walbrook.
-To the west, as we shall see, seems to have
-been a street possibly of shops; we can thus
-imagine a little group of buildings and streets,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_44'>44</span>and a bridge over the Walbrook at the end of
-Bucklersbury.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-024'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i044.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 24.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The well mentioned above is one of a great
-number which have been discovered; for instance,
-in excavating for Copthall Avenue “a pit or well,
-boarded, and filled with earthenware vessels,” etc.,
-was found (<i>Builder</i>, October 5, 1889). Such wells
-with boarding like a long barrel have been excavated
-at Silchester. Again to the south of Aldgate High
-Street two wells were found (<i>Builder</i>, May 3, 1884).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The most complete Roman building which
-has been recovered and planned is one excavated
-in Lower Thames Street in 1848 and again in 1859
-(<i>Builder</i>, February 5, 1848, and June 11, 1859).
-A restored plan was given in the <i>Journal of the
-British Archæological Association</i>, vol. xxiv. (see
-Fig. <a href='#fig-021'>21</a>). The two apsed chambers had hypocausts
-beneath their floors, supported on little piers built
-of tiles 8½ in. square, and broken materials. Fig.
-25 is reproduced from the illustration of the eastern
-chamber given in <i>The Builder</i>. Several sketches
-and some notes, by Fairholt, of this building are
-in the Victoria and Albert Museum. About 4 or
-5 ft. of the walls remained in places, all of tiles
-with mortar joints nearly as thick as themselves.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-025'  class='figcenter id001'>
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_45'>45</span>
-<img src='images/i045.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 25.</span>—(A, old masonry; B, brickwork with a flue tile; C, foundations of chamber.)<br />Foundations discovered in Lower Thames Street in 1859.</span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_46'>46</span>“The walls were of red and yellow brick in alternate
-layers composed of 18 in. tiles.” Outside the walls
-was “a drain of wooden planks, 18 in. deep by 10
-wide, running towards the river” (see plan). The
-walls were erected on piles. The sketches show
-some of the box-flue tiles which had impressed
-patterns (see Fig. <a href='#fig-025'>25</a>). Some additional information
-is given on a lithograph by A. J. Stothard
-(1848). The walls were 3 ft. thick. Above the
-floor of the south room, which was of coarse red
-and yellow tesseræ, was a second, about a foot
-higher in level; this was “a layer of red concrete
-2½ in. thick, hard, and the upper surface almost
-glazed” (compare a floor found in Eastcheap,
-“concrete stuccoed over and painted red.”—<i>V.C.H.</i>).
-This building was doubtless a house;
-at the time it was found it was called a bath, but
-it seems too small to have been even a secondary
-public bath. As Thos. Wright says: “Many writers
-have concluded hastily that every house with a
-hypocaust was a public bath” (cf. the plan of a house
-at Lymne, <i>The Roman, etc.</i>, p. 160). The stoke-hole
-of the hypocaust was at F, and there were flues
-up the middle wall and the western apse. The
-large room was 23 ft. square; some tiles of 2 ft.
-square were found here, also window glass and an
-iron key. The plan lay square with the south
-City Wall (Fig. <a href='#fig-024'>24</a>), and the building can hardly
-be earlier than this wall. It may thus be accepted
-as a late fourth-century house, and we may further
-infer that box-tiles with impressed patterns were
-a characteristic of this century. On two sides of
-the house were lanes about 10 ft. wide. As in so
-many cases modern walls seem to have been laid
-out on the same alignment as the Roman building.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_47'>47</span>The house just described had two apses, and the
-Bucklersbury house also had an apse. This was in
-agreement with general custom. As Thos. Wright
-remarked: “One peculiarity which is observed
-almost invariably in Roman houses in Britain is that
-one room has a semicircular alcove, and in some
-instances more than one room possesses this adjunct.”
-In the plan given in <i>Archæologia</i> of the Roman
-walls and floors found in and about Lombard Street
-in 1785 two apses seem to be indicated; thus we
-have evidence for five in the scanty records;
-altogether there must have been scores in the
-city.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Within the walls of the City were many large
-houses of the villa type as well as minor dwellings
-and streets of shops. Roach Smith speaks of such
-great houses about Crosby Square; he also describes
-a mosaic floor under Paternoster Row which extended
-40 ft.; a second important floor on the site
-of India House, Leadenhall Street, was at least
-22 ft. square, and may have been considerably
-more; a third large floor which was found under
-the Excise Office, Broad Street, was about 28 ft.
-square (probably 30 Roman ft.). All these must
-have been the floors of the chief central rooms of
-large houses of the villa type. Tite saw this of the
-Broad Street floor as his speaking of the “triclinium,
-other rooms, and the garden” shows. This Broad
-Street pavement was lying square with more modern
-walls surrounding it, and it may not be doubted
-that buildings continuously occupied the site.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The supposition that there were important
-houses of the villa type within the walls of the City
-has been fully confirmed by the excavations at
-Silchester, and I may here quote Dr. Haverfield’s
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_48'>48</span>general conclusions as to Roman towns in Britain.
-“Roman British towns were of fair size, Roman
-London, perhaps even Roman Cirencester were
-larger than Roman Cologne or Bordeaux. They
-possessed, too, the buildings proper to a Roman
-town—town hall, market-place, public baths, chess-board
-street-plan, all of Roman fashion; they had
-also shops and temples and here and there a hotel....
-The dwelling-houses in them were not town
-houses fitted to stand side by side to form regular
-streets; they were country houses, dotted about
-like cottages in a village. But in one way or another
-and to a real amount, Britain shared in that
-expansion of town life which formed a special
-achievement of the Roman Empire.” The evidence
-as to the isolation of the houses is here a little
-overstated, but in the main the passage gives a
-true impression. Fragments of wall decorations and
-mosaics found in Southwark suggest that there were
-big houses on that side of the river, and doubtless
-others occupied sites along the Strand and
-Holborn.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-026'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i048.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 26.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>I give here a little sketch plan (Fig. <a href='#fig-026'>26</a>) of a house
-found about a century since at Worplesdon, Surrey,
-from a survey at the
-Society of Antiquaries.
-This house is interesting
-as its unaltered plan
-gives an example of
-a simple “Corridor
-House.” It was 62 ft.
-long by 22½ ft. wide
-within the foundations,
-and faced west. The slight foundations of flint,
-not much more than a foot wide, show that the walls
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_49'>49</span>must have been of timbering or wattle work. The
-rooms and passage had floors of plain coarse tesseræ,
-except that the outer side of the passage had a simple
-twist border in mosaic. Possibly there had been
-some pattern in the central room as the floor was
-there missing, and a note reads: “Near this place
-was found the lozenge-shaped tessellated pavement.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Baths, Temples, etc.</i>—Remnants of important
-buildings have been found in Cannon Street from
-time to time, and London Stone is probably a
-fragment of one of them. Wren was of the opinion
-“by reason of its large foundations that it was
-some more considerable monument in the Forum;
-for in the adjoining ground to the south were
-discovered some tessellated pavements, and other
-extensive remains of Roman workmanship and
-buildings.” Under Cannon Street a building with
-one apartment 40 ft. by 50 ft., and many other
-chambers, is mentioned in <i>V.C.H.</i> At Dowgate
-Hill the foundations of large edifices are listed in
-<i>V.C.H.</i>, and of Bush Lane it is remarked: “That
-there must have been extensive buildings here seems
-clear.” At Trinity Lane, Great Queen Street,
-“great portions of immense walls with bonding
-tiles” have been found (<i>V.C.H.</i>). There was a
-house on the south side of St. Paul’s known as
-<i>Camera</i> or <i>Domus Dianæ</i> which may have taken
-its name from some Roman monument. In a
-St. Paul’s deed of 1220 it appears as a messuage or
-inn, <i>domum que fuit Diane</i>.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In December 1921 Mr. Lambert described the
-foundations of a building by Miles Lane. The
-plan of this suggested a house of the corridor type
-facing east. The site seems to have been levelled
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_50'>50</span>up by timber walling or wharfing against the river
-and running back into the sloping ground.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>One of the most important public buildings in
-the City would have been the Public Baths, as
-those of Silchester and Wroxeter show. At Trèves
-the great Baths cover acres of ground by the river.
-Bagford says that after the fire of London some
-Roman water-pipes were found in Creed Lane
-“which had been carried round a Bath that was
-built in a round form with niches at equal intervals
-for seats.” This suggests a part of important
-Baths, and Creed Lane does not seem an unlikely
-situation for the Public Baths. (In <i>V.C.H.</i> the site
-is said to have been in Ludgate Square.)</p>
-
-<div id='fig-027'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i050.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 27.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The only certain evidence we have for Temples
-are some inscriptions and sculptures. For the
-most part they would, like those found
-at Silchester and elsewhere, have been
-small square and polygonal structures
-set on a rather high podium
-approached by steps. Fig. <a href='#fig-027'>27</a> is a
-restored plan of the little Temple
-found at Caerwent. Doubtless here
-and in most cases, the roof of the
-cella ran on to cover the podium.
-At the foot of the steps an external altar would
-have stood. The column illustrated before (Fig.
-1) seems suitable for a temple. Roach Smith,
-speaking of the group of Mother Goddesses found
-in Crutched Friars (see <i>Builder</i>, October 30,
-1847), says: “It is the only instance with the
-exception of the discovery made in Nicholas Lane
-in which the site of a temple can with reason be
-identified” (<i>Ill. Rom. Lon.</i>, p. 33). The find in
-Nicholas Lane was part of an important and early
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_51'>51</span>inscription which may have been on the chief temple
-in Londinium. Some sculptures found on the bank
-of the Walbrook suggest that a cell of Mithras
-occupied the site. In the fourth century a Christian
-church would, as at Silchester, have occupied an
-important site in the City.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A large Theatre or Amphitheatre, or both,
-would have been necessary in such a town. Roach
-Smith, who had a wonderful instinct of insight,
-thought that such a building probably occupied
-a site against the bank of the Fleet, called “Breakneck
-Steps.” Lately it has been suggested that
-the drawing-in of the line of the City Walls at the
-north-west angle was done to avoid an amphitheatre;
-more probably, I think, it was to avoid
-wet ground. There is evidence that gladiator
-contests and chariot races were popular. For
-gladiators, compare two small bone figures at the
-British Museum, evidently from one shop, with the
-fragment of a little statuette at the Guildhall.
-The bronze trident-head, also at the Guildhall,
-really does seem to be a gladiator’s weapon as
-suggested in the catalogue. For chariot races, see
-the fragments of glass bowls, which may have been
-made in London, in the British Museum. I have
-found an additional little point of evidence on
-chariot races. Amongst Fairholt’s sketches at the
-Victoria and Albert Museum, is one of an enigmatical
-little fragment of a Castor vase, found in
-Bishopsgate Street, which seems to represent four
-heads of dogs running neck and neck. Now there
-is a whole vase in the British Museum (found in
-Colchester) which was practically a replica of the
-other, and this shows that the four running animals
-of the fragment were chariot horses, and the whole
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_52'>52</span>represented a race. Above the horses of the fragment
-is scratched <span class='fss'>ITALVS</span>, which, I suggest, must
-have been the name of some favourite “winner”
-in Londinium.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Streets.</i>—In his account of the Bucklersbury
-pavement, Price describes also some walls which
-were found “about 30 yds. westerly from the pavement”
-(the position is shown on his plan). “Two
-Roman walls running nearly in line with Bucklersbury
-directly towards the Walbrook.” In the space
-between them had been laid a drain to fall towards
-the brook with a tile pavement above, and mortar
-fillets against the walls. The walls were 2¾ ft.
-thick, and built on three rows of piles, and the
-space between was 2¼ ft. The tiles are of the usual
-kind of red and yellow brick. Above these walls
-were others of chalk and stone 3 ft. apart, of later
-date. This is one of a great number of instances
-where we find that mediæval buildings were founded
-directly on Roman walls. The space Price suggested
-was “an open passage-way, or it may be of an alley
-between two buildings.” Comparison makes it
-certain that the walls were those of neighbouring
-houses in a street; similar conditions have been
-found at Caerwent, Silchester, etc. At the former
-“the shops along the main street were probably
-roofed with gables; this is substantiated by the
-finding of a finial in front of a house. The narrow
-space between the houses would serve to carry
-away the water which would drop from the
-eaves” (<i>Archæol.</i>, 1906). The walls are shown
-in Fig. <a href='#fig-028'>28</a>.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Bucklersbury paved passage, only just wide
-enough for a man to get at it, with the underlying
-drain, is obviously a similar space. The tradition of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_53'>53</span>dividing houses in streets from one another in this
-way lasted into the Middle Ages (see V. le Duc’s <i>Dict.</i>,
-“Maison”) and, of course, occasionally to modern
-times. By this means party walls and difficult roof
-gutters are avoided. From the two parallel walls
-we are justified in inferring a row of houses—possibly
-shops—and a street running to the west
-of them; moreover, the example suggests to some
-extent what continuous streets of houses must have
-been like. In Southwark a passage-way between
-houses was found 3 ft. 8 in. wide. A wall with tile
-paving against the outside, found under the Mansion
-House, suggests a similar passage.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i053.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 28.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>It has been mentioned above how in several
-cases, as is clear even from our imperfect records,
-that later walls were founded directly on Roman
-walls. Modern buildings were thus in direct and
-unbroken succession to Roman ones and maintained
-the same alignment. In the Archer collection at
-the British Museum is a drawing of “a Roman
-pavement and foundations, supposed to be remains
-of Tower Royal” in Cannon Street; this again was
-square with modern work. Roman remains have
-been found under several churches. Massive walls
-of chalk were found under St. Benet’s, Gracechurch.
-Roach Smith, speaking of a floor found at the corner
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_54'>54</span>of Clement’s Lane, says: “This adds another to the
-numerous instances of churches in London standing
-on foundations of Roman buildings.” In 1724
-Roman foundations were found under St. Mary,
-Woolnoth, and “three foundations of churches in
-the same place” (<i>Minutes Soc. Ant.</i>, June 17).
-Even Westminster Abbey and St. Martin’s in the
-Fields were built on Roman sites, and so probably
-was St. Andrew’s, Holborn.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>This continuity of the buildings from the Roman
-Age is not only an interesting fact, but it is a strong
-argument for the general continuity of the street
-lines as well. The plan of the extensive finds in
-and about Lombard Street in 1785 shows the building
-to have conformed very much to lines parallel
-with, and at right angles to St. Swithin, Sherborne,
-Abchurch, Nicholas, Birchin and Clement’s Lanes,
-and I cannot doubt that these lanes are in some
-degree the successors of Roman streets. In “Lombard
-Street and Birchin Lane the discoveries are
-said to have indicated a row of houses” (<i>V.C.H.</i>).
-If all the evidence as to the “orientation” of buildings
-and walls was laid down on a plan, merely
-marking the direction of the minor ones with a
-cross, we might build up further results in regard to
-the direction of the streets. At the same time it
-would be vain to expect any large and simple scheme
-of lay-out of the chess-board type, the Walbrook
-and other streams, and probably the persistence of
-some earlier lines (Watling Street to St. Albans?)
-would have interfered with that. The Walbrook
-seems to have been crossed by two chief bridges,
-which must have been governing facts in the lay-out.
-One was at Bucklersbury, the other, Horseshoe
-Bridge farther south, is recorded from the thirteenth
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_55'>55</span>century. Cannon Street, I cannot doubt,
-represents one east to west street. Thames Street
-must have been formed when the south City Wall
-was built. I have spoken of the north-south
-lines above. Saint Benet “Gerschereche” is
-mentioned in a charter of 1053 (<i>Athen.</i>, February 3,
-1906).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Wren found a “causeway” made up of stones
-and tiles by Bow Church (under the present tower).
-It is suggested in <i>V.C.H.</i> that this was an embankment,
-but <i>causeway</i> was one of the regular names for
-a Roman road. At Rochester one 5 ft. or 6 ft.
-thick of hard stuff has been found crossing some soft
-ground.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The best way now to see again the old Roman
-City of London is to go to the foot of the hill below
-St. Magnus the Martyr and then, turning away
-from the riverside quays of the seaport, to walk up
-the street which still retains something of the look
-of a High Street in an old market town. Behind it
-we may still discern the ghost of the Roman Axis
-Street. Right and left are narrow streets with red
-plastered houses separated by little “drangways.”
-Here at a corner is a small temple with a dedication
-to the deified emperor. There is the great City
-Bath. Farther on is the civic centre, the market-place
-and hall; one, a square piazza containing
-imperial statues in gilt bronze, and the other a big
-building having internal ranks of tall Corinthian
-columns, a wide apse, and an open timber roof—sombre
-but noble. Round about are many isolated
-and widespreading mansions, one doubtless being
-the palace of the Governor of the province. Beyond
-are the walls and gates which will be next described,
-and in the background rise the northern heaths
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_56'>56</span>and wooded hills now called Hampstead and
-Highgate.</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b c021'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'>“On alien ground, breathing an alien air,</div>
-      <div class='line in2'>A Roman stood, far from his ancient home,</div>
-      <div class='line in1'>And gazing, murmured, ‘Ah, the hills are fair,</div>
-      <div class='line in2'>But not the hills of Rome.’”</div>
-      <div class='c019'><span class='sc'>Mary E. Coleridge.</span></div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_57'>57</span>
-  <h2 id='ch03' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER III</em><br /> <br />WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='c022'>“Gem of all Joy and Jasper of Jocundity,
- Strong be thy walls that about thee stand;
- London, thou art the flower of cities all.”</p>
-<div class='c023'><span class='sc'>William Dunbar.</span></div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'>THE walls, gates and bastions of the City may
-be traced by the record of early maps such
-as that of Braun and Hogenberg. The
-bastions of the east side are particularly shown on a
-plan of Holy Trinity Priory made in the sixteenth
-century; the west side from Ludgate to Cripplegate
-plainly appears in Hollar’s plan after the fire,
-1667. There were two bastions between Ludgate
-and Newgate, then an angle bastion to the north;
-three more on the straight length to Aldersgate,
-then one beyond that gate at the angle where the
-wall turned north again; two bastions occurred
-between this angle and the bastion at the corner
-where the wall again turned east, which now exists
-in Cripplegate Churchyard.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Several of the gates stood until 1760. In an
-old MS. book of notes I find under the heading
-“Remarkable Transactions in ye Mayoralty of
-Sir J. Chitty.”—“In July, ye gates of Aldgate,
-Cripplegate and Ludgate were sold by public
-auction in ye council chamber, Guildhall, and
-were accordingly taken down without obstructing
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_58'>58</span>either ye foot or cartway, and their sites laid
-into ye streets. Aldgate for £157, 10s.; Cripplegate,
-£93; and Ludgate for £148.” Many old
-drawings of parts of the wall are preserved in the
-Crace, the Archer and other collections. The exact
-line of the wall and positions of the bastions has
-been verified by modern excavations and discoveries.
-For full description and a plan, see the <i>Victoria
-County History</i> and <i>Archæologia</i>, lxii. (1912). A
-good description of what was visible in 1855 is
-given in <i>The Builder</i> for that year.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-029'  class='figcenter id010'>
-<img src='images/i058.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 29.</span> See p. <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>.</span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-030'  class='figright id005'>
-<img src='images/i059.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 30.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In September 1903 an important section of
-the Roman wall was found in excavating the site
-of Newgate Prison; in some parts it was about a
-dozen feet high. I saw it in October and noted—“The
-wall is about 8½ ft. wide. On the outside
-and inside one or two courses of facing stones were
-first raised and the core of rubble was then filled
-in to that height; first there was a thick couch
-of mortar, then a layer of rubble stones, then
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_59'>59</span>another liberal supply of mortar running down
-between the stones as grout; there were two or
-three such levellings-up in the heights between the
-tile bonding courses.” The wall had a rough
-rubble foundation, then a course of plinth stones
-on the outside, with three tile courses corresponding
-to it on the inside of
-the wall, then followed
-five courses of
-the fairly square facing
-stones on both
-sides of the wall, then
-two rows of tile, five
-courses more stone
-and two rows of tile,
-then five more stone
-courses; above this
-level the wall had
-been destroyed. The
-stones and tiles were
-set in mortar, and the
-latter, except for the
-three courses at the
-bottom on the inside,
-which served as a
-plinth, were carried
-right through the
-thickness of the wall; the “tiles” were Roman
-bricks about 18 in. by 12 in. and 1½ in. thick, laid
-in what we call Flemish bond. The stone facing
-courses were a little higher at the bottom than upwards,
-but all were comparatively small and square;
-there was a clear distinction between the wrought
-facings and the rubble filling, which was practically
-concrete. The “facings” were hard skins adhering
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_60'>60</span>to the filling and required by the method of
-building as described above (Fig. <a href='#fig-030'>30</a>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The mode of construction of the wall is likely
-to be misunderstood when we speak as we almost
-necessarily do of facings and filling and of bond
-tiles. The “facing” stones were small, roughly
-wrought, and set in much mortar; they formed
-outer skins to the concreted mass into which they
-tailed back. The whole was homogeneous. The
-method was analogous to the facing of concrete
-with triangular bricks notching back into the core.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The tile courses in the City Wall were doubtless
-bonds, but they also divided the wall into strata
-locking up the moisture of the mortar from too
-rapid absorption and evaporation. I have little
-doubt that the wall was carried up a stratum at a
-time over long lengths; it would thus have been
-available as a defence from an early stage, and
-scaffolding would not have been required. The
-building of this wall and casting the ditch about it
-required a great constructive effort. A strip of
-ground some 100 feet wide must have been cleared
-as a preliminary. Then the immense quantity of
-stone required would have been brought by ships
-and barges. It is often said that old material was
-not re-used in the wall, but I can hardly think that
-two miles of chamfered plinth had to be provided
-out of new stone at the very beginning of the
-work. And material from destroyed monuments
-was doubtless broken up for the small facing stones.
-The lime-burning, brick-making, stone-cutting, as
-well as the actual building, called for much labour.
-It would be interesting to have the quantities taken
-out and an estimate prepared.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The south wall along the river front is well
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_61'>61</span>described in <i>V.C.H.</i> Roach Smith, in an article
-in vol. i. of the <i>Archæological Journal</i>, recorded the
-fact that it had “alternate layers of red and yellow
-plain and curve-edged (<i>i.e.</i> flanged) tiles”; the
-rest being of ragstone and flint. It was founded on
-piles. In <i>The Builder</i> (January 19, 1912) it is recorded
-that in digging for a foundation at No. 125
-Lower Thames Street, between Fish Street Hill
-and Pudding Lane, there was found the base of the
-Roman wall resting upon long and thick timber
-balks laid crosswise, with piles beneath them; there
-were three courses of rough rag and sandstone
-capped with two courses of yellow bonding tiles,
-all in reddish mortar; what remained was about
-3 ft. high and 10 ft. wide, and was at 24 ft. below
-the existing pavement. Full evidence of the course
-of the City Wall along the river front has been
-found (<i>Archæol.</i> xliii.). It may be noticed that in
-mediæval regulations foreign sailors might not go
-beyond Thames Street; that is, pass where the
-wall had been, into the City proper. This south
-wall, like the bastions, contained remnants of Roman
-monuments.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The south wall would have been interrupted
-at the outlet of the Walbrook, which must have
-been a tidal creek. This was doubtless the original
-harbour, and there would have been quays within
-the line of the wall. Daremberg and Saglio’s plan
-of Bordeaux shows a remarkable parallel to Londinium,
-standing on the bank of a great river,
-flanked by a little stream and with a port within
-the walls (Fig. <a href='#fig-029'>29</a>). It seems probable that the
-strong wall which Roach Smith reports as having
-been found on the east side of the Walbrook may
-have been a quay wall. The Thames has been
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_62'>62</span>much encroached on where it passes the City. In
-making the approach to new London Bridge three
-successive embankments were found, one being of
-squared trunks of trees. A similar timber wall
-has just been found in Miles Lane. In Lower
-Thames Street the Roman house found on its
-north side was built on piles, “probably on the
-river bank” (<i>Athen.</i>, 1848), and the south City
-Wall was wholly built on timbering. In earlier
-Londinium, Cannon Street must have been the
-southern thoroughfare.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Bastions.</i>—In July 1909, when the angle bastion
-near Giltspur Street was excavated, I noted that
-close to it the City Wall was badly fractured, and
-inclined outwards; there had evidently been a
-serious settlement here, which was sufficiently
-accounted for by the nature of the ground—wet
-clay on the bank of a stream. The wall was taken
-lower than the ordinary level here, and the bastion
-was founded at a lower level still. The bastion was
-not bonded to the City Wall, but merely built
-against it with a straight joint; it was of horseshoe
-shape on plan and projected about 27 ft., the
-masonry was rubble in thin courses, and the whole
-looked mediæval to me. In the careful report in
-<i>Archæologia</i> it was said that some evidence for
-Roman date was discovered in the foundation.
-The facts suggested to me not only that the bastion
-had been built against the wall, but that it was
-probably built at a point of failure in the original
-wall. It is agreed that the bastions were built
-later than the wall, and with a straight joint between
-them and it, and I would suggest that they were
-built to cover cracks and form buttresses as well
-as for their additional defensive value, and this
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_63'>63</span>may very well have been the general procedure. It
-would have been impossible to build a wall measured
-by miles on inferior foundations without bad settlements;
-the Egyptians provided for them by building
-such walls in sections with inclined straight
-joints at intervals.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>M. Blanchet, writing of the walls of the cities of
-Gaul, says: “Often the curtains are not bonded
-with the towers. This independence reminds one
-of a precept of Philo’s, which advises that the
-method should be followed so as to prevent the consequences
-of unequal settlement between the two.
-But there is a more simple explanation—the town
-under immediate danger ensures itself first with the
-curtain and adds the towers after. Most of the
-fortifications are those which the Romans built on
-the approach of the Barbarian invasions. To this
-period belong the walls of Rome and those of the
-cities of Gaul.” Choisy again has an interesting
-account of the towers of the walls of Constantinople,
-with a diagram of arches in the sides of the towers
-at the ground level, which were built so that the
-effective part of their foundations should be kept
-clear of the wall. Now, the foundations of the
-London bastions provide evidence of a similar way
-of thinking.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-031'  class='figcenter id011'>
-<img src='images/i064.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 31.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In Fig. <a href='#fig-031'>31</a> I give a sketch of this angle bastion
-made on July 5, 1909. Here is seen the City Wall
-curving round from the north to the west, and
-against it the bastion. The Roman wall was badly
-cracked and leaning outward (A); in the corner
-by the bastion the plinth and the foundation are
-seen, and below a sloping bank of wet clay (C), and
-farther out water (W). The bastion was built of
-rubble, and was hollow to the base; the form was
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_64'>64</span>different below and above (see B). In the sketch
-the tile courses are seen going through the thickness
-of the wall.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The bastions which have been most carefully
-examined are those on the site of the General Post
-Office, described in <i>Archæologia</i>, lxiii. (1912). One
-is said to have been built in “the usual manner of
-random rubble”; it was separate from the City
-Wall, and the foundation was deeper than that of
-the wall. A second was built in a very soft spot.
-“Why it should have been selected is not easy to see,
-as at a little distance either way the builders could
-have found firm soil.” Its site was an old stream
-bed, and the conditions might well be the cause
-of a settlement at the point. This, as suggested
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_65'>65</span>above, may have been the reason the bastion was
-erected just here. (For the bastion by Giltspur
-Street, see <i>S. A. Proceedings</i>, 2 S. xxii. 476.)</p>
-
-<div id='fig-032'  class='figleft id012'>
-<img src='images/i066.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 32.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Nothing very definitely Roman was found in
-these bastions, but one at All Hallows was certainly
-Roman. This is described as (I condense) “built
-of stonework which, like the rest, so far as they have
-been observed, is of random rubble, built principally
-of irregular pieces and ragstone with portions of
-Roman tile (none complete) and other material;
-much of it appears to have done duty in some
-previous building. A base was formed of large
-square stones a uniform height of 2 ft.; they had
-been employed in some former building; several
-had lewis holes. This base rested on a table of large
-flat stones 9 in. thick. Most of these seem to have
-been portions of a cornice. Roman origin was
-shown by red mortar in which the joints had been
-set.” The foundation was about 3 ft. below that
-of the City Wall, and projected into the original
-Roman ditch. What is called the “table” above
-was a square-fronted lower base; the back of this
-base was set in advance of the City Wall; indeed,
-it was 3 ft. in front of it on the eastern side and “the
-gravel in this intervening space was undisturbed.”
-This gap is specially to be noted. The description
-of the masonry as random rubble must apply mainly
-to the core of the work, for the illustrations show
-an approximation to courses on the face; indeed, on
-the east side, thirteen courses may be counted in the
-photograph up to a line which seems to be the top
-of a sloping plinth; these courses averaged about
-4½ in. high. The full significance of this account
-is only brought out on comparing it with Price’s
-description of what was found in excavating the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_66'>66</span>Camomile Street bastion. This bastion was founded
-on two deep courses of heavy stones taken from
-Roman buildings, many sculptured, and having
-lewis holes in them. These masonry courses were
-set 1½ ft. in advance of the City Wall, one over the
-other, forming a straight joint, and leaving a gap
-“separated from the wall by an intervening space
-filled with rubble” (Price) which was filled with
-small stones. This curious and carefully-arranged
-construction in both bastions was clearly with the
-object of making the foundations of the bastions
-take their bearings away from the wall so that they
-would tend to lean inwards
-against the wall; it is analogous
-to the arches of the
-Constantinople towers. This
-bastion had a batter or slope
-at the bottom of about 4 ft.
-high. Price describes the
-masonry as “rag rubble walling
-faced with random courses. The size of the
-blocks of which the facing was composed varied
-from 3 in. to 8½ in. thick [high] and from 5 in.
-to 14 in. long.” This account is supported by
-the carefully-executed illustrations which show
-coursed facings of small stones which seem almost
-identical with the facings of the City Wall. Such
-masonry of small facing “blocks” with concreted
-rubble behind is certainly Roman. The masonry at
-the All Hallows bastion seems to have approximated
-to the same character; there it may be noticed the
-courses became narrower upwards. This was certainly
-not so regular as the masonry of the City
-Wall, but it may be said to have resembled it
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-032'>32</a>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_67'>67</span>At the Guildhall Museum is “a group of architectural
-remains and fragments of sculptured stones
-from tombs, public buildings, etc., found in a
-bastion of London Wall, Duke Street, Aldgate,
-1881.” This find is best described in <i>The Athenæum</i>
-for that year. Mr. Watkins, while excavating in
-Houndsditch and Duke Street, found the City
-Wall and a mass of masonry extending 18 ft. outward
-from the wall; the stones were dressed and
-weighed from 1 cwt. to 1½ tons. “In the structure
-he observed a channel 15 in. deep by 18 in. wide,
-which showed signs of use as a watercourse. It had
-been filled with concrete composed of chalk and
-flints. The site was the foundation of one of the
-bastions composed of sculptured stones in character
-similar to those previously recorded, upwards of
-twenty in number.” This was the second bastion
-east of Bishopsgate. The channel filled with concrete
-suggests a gap dividing the bastion from the
-City Wall as already described; but see also account
-in <i>V.C.H.</i></p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In 1887 Mr. Loftus Brock reported to the British
-Archæological Association the removal of part of
-the City Wall on the east side of Wormwood Street.
-Nearly opposite Bevis Marks Synagogue the foundation
-of a circular-fronted bastion was found of
-worked freestones and not bonded into the main wall
-(<i>The Builder</i>, May 28, 1887). A paper by J. E.
-Price in 1884 (London and Middlesex Archæol.
-Soc.) referred to the discovery of a bastion containing
-several sculptured stones in St. Mary Axe
-(<i>The Builder</i>, November 22, 1884, and compare
-<i>V.C.H.</i>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-033'  class='figcenter id013'>
-<img src='images/i068.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 33.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In 1852 an excavation was made against the
-outside of the City Wall on Tower Hill, and a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_68'>68</span>number of large wrought and carved stones were
-found (<i>The Builder</i>, September 4, 1852) (Fig.
-33). In an account given in the <i>Journal of the
-British Archæological Association</i> the workmen are
-said to have discovered a “complete quarry of
-stones cut in various forms and evidently belonging
-to some important building ... 125 making 40
-cart loads.” Fairholt made an etching of the place
-while the work was in progress, which shows that the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_69'>69</span>“quarry” was heaped against the external face of
-the wall like the bases of the other bastions, and
-that, in fact, it was a ruined bastion Fig. <a href='#fig-034'>34</a> from
-Roach Smith’s <i>Roman London</i>, slightly modified).
-Another account is given in the Antiquarian Etching
-Club by A. H. Burkitt, with a plate: “These
-interesting remains were discovered during the
-excavations in June 1852, which laid bare the wall
-to its base. The various portions of stone, which
-amounted to about forty cart loads, bear evidence
-of having belonged to an important building. The
-inscription and band of laurel leaves, which probably
-formed an ornament above it, indicate a monument
-of considerable magnitude to the memory of a
-commander of the Roman Navy. There were
-found at the same time fragments of frescoes with
-inscriptions.” (In Fig. <a href='#fig-033'>33</a> the fragment with laurel
-leaves is represented upside down.)</p>
-
-<div id='fig-034'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i069.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 34.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The two stones specially mentioned are now
-in the British Museum. It appears from the
-accounts and illustrations that this bastion was
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_70'>70</span>built against the wall without being bonded to it
-in the lower part, that its foundation was formed of
-large carved and moulded stones, and was at a lower
-level than that of the wall. (The part below the
-plinth in Fig. <a href='#fig-034'>34</a> on the left is rough foundation.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>We thus have clear record that several of the
-bastions on the east and north sides of the City
-were constructed in a similar way. Those farther
-west near the Post Office were probably rebuilt
-in mediæval times. These
-were hollow at the base,
-not solid like the others.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-035'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i070.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 35.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The towers of the city
-wall of Carcassone, described
-by Viollet le Duc
-(<i>Dict.</i>, vol. i.), were so
-similar in construction
-that it is plain our bastions
-were constructed according
-to general custom. In
-the illustration we see big
-stones at the base of
-the bastion only; large
-window-like openings
-closed with woodwork above; and an upper storey
-rising higher than the wall top. Fig. <a href='#fig-035'>35</a> is a suggested
-restoration of one of the London bastions, showing
-the foundation gap A, and an upper storey overlapping
-the City Wall.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>It is probable that most, or all, of the bastions
-from Tower Hill to Cripplegate were built in the
-same way as those just described, and there is
-evidence to suggest that the western bastions were
-also similar. In 1806 fragments of Roman monuments
-were found near Ludgate; “these may have
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_71'>71</span>come from a later Roman gate or from the adjoining
-bastion” (<i>V.C.H.</i>). Allen says: “At the back of
-the London Coffee-house, Ludgate Hill, a circular
-tower and staircase was discovered; and about 3 ft.
-below the pavement some remains of Roman art
-were found.” An etching of the stones published
-by T. Fisher in 1807 describes them as “dug out
-of the foundations of the wall of the City, a few
-yards north of Ludgate.” Archer, speaking of an
-inscribed pedestal, says it was found “in extending
-the premises at the back of the London Coffee-house.
-It appeared in a bastion of the City Wall,
-and was built in with the masonry near some remains
-of a circular staircase” (<i>Illust. Family Jour.</i>, <i>c.</i> 1850).
-Now, Horwood’s plan of 1799 shows the back of
-the Coffee-house adjoining the line of the old wall
-and extending a long way north—apparently much
-more than sufficient to overlap the bastion numbered
-55 on Mr. Reader’s plan. The Post Office excavations
-recently made down Ludgate Hill show that
-the natural ground is here only about 10 ft. below
-the modern level.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Camomile Street and All Hallows bastions
-were about 20 ft. wide and projected about 16 ft.
-In mediæval days the bastions rose above the parapet
-walk on the main wall, and each formed a round-ended
-chamber having loopholes. This is well
-shown on the Survey of Holy Trinity, Aldgate,
-1592, which I published about 1900 in <i>Middlesex
-Notes and Queries</i>. (Several round-fronted bastions
-are planned as well as Aldgate itself.) The mediæval
-arrangement, I have no doubt, followed the Roman
-scheme. The openings in the original bastions
-would, we may suppose, have been wider than
-mediæval loops, and have had semicircular arches
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_72'>72</span>of brick over them. (See Viollet le Duc’s <i>Dictionary</i>,
-vol. i. p. 333.) The walls and bastions which still
-exist at Le Mans and Senlis more closely resemble
-those of Londinium than any others I have seen.
-At Le Mans a long portion fronting, but some way
-back from the river Sarthe, has three bastions 60
-yds. to 70 yds. apart, round on the front about
-20 ft. wide, and 15 in. or 16 in. projection. The
-curtain is about 30 ft. high, and the bastions rise
-higher—say, to 45 ft.; they rise sloping for some
-way from the ground (Fig. <a href='#fig-036'>36</a>). The bastions at
-Senlis are very similar, but some of these have two
-storeys of large openings, three in each.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-036'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i072.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 36.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>For a long time it was argued that the bastions
-of the Wall of London were mediæval; then very
-considerable difference of construction from the
-City Wall has been alleged. It has been said that
-their masonry was unlike the other, and that there
-were no tile bands. We only know with any
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_73'>73</span>certainty the lower parts of the bastions now recognised
-as Roman, and there is no reason for asserting
-that there were no tile bands in the upper
-parts. The bastion illustrated by Roach Smith
-from a sketch by Gough had bands of brick, but
-in the illustration this bastion appears as square,
-and this is unlikely (see <i>Archæol.</i> lxiii.). It is
-possible, however, that the form is a misreading of
-a rough sketch. This, I think, is more likely than
-the suggestion in <i>V.C.H.</i> that it was mediæval. An
-illustration of a round-fronted bastion near Falcon
-Square given by Thornbury (<i>Old and New London</i>),
-shows two bands of tile. This seems to be bastion
-40 of <i>V.C.H.</i>, which was about 40 ft. high; “in
-the upper part was a row of tile-brick, probably due
-to later patching.” There are also some other
-references to tiles in bastions, and on the whole I
-conclude that they probably had tile bands more
-or less like the wall. Both the bastion just mentioned
-and that of Gough’s sketch had openings
-below the upper storey, showing that in these
-bastions there were chambers below the level of
-the parapet. So there must have been at Le Mans
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-036'>36</a>) and Senlis. Compare also V. le Duc’s
-<i>Dictionary</i>, vol. i. p. 333.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In an article on the City Walls in the <i>Journal of
-the London Society</i> (November 1922), Dr. Norman
-says: “Last summer the remains of another bastion
-were laid bare not far from the west end of the
-Church of St. Anne and St. Agnes.” This was
-“the inner angle bastion” near Aldersgate.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>It is not exactly known when the City was protected
-by walls. Stow says: “It seemeth not to
-have been walled in the year of our Lord 296,
-because in that year the Franks easily entered
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_74'>74</span>London.” He accepted the legend that “Helen,
-the mother of Constantine, first enwalled this
-City.” Camden held the same view, and has a
-note: “Coins of Helena often found under the
-walls.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>It is now agreed that the walls were built around
-a late and extended city, for rubbish pits and burials
-have been found within the walls. A belt of the
-former occupied the site of St. Paul’s and the Post
-Office. It was Roach Smith’s impression that the
-walls were probably built “after the recovery of
-the province by Constantine, or even later, when
-Theodosius restored the towns” (<i>Archæol. Jour.</i>,
-1844).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Mr. Lambert, from planning the find-spots of
-Roman coins, comes to the conclusion that the
-wall was not in its later position until the fourth
-century. The type of walling is especially characteristic
-of the fourth century. Haverfield has
-pointed out some earlier cases of the use of bonding
-tiles, but these seem to be exceptional. (See also
-what is said of Colchester in <i>J.R.S.</i>, 1919.) Daremberg
-and Saglio give 309 as the date of the earliest
-wall of our kind in Rome. (They illustrate an
-example from Timgad, in North Africa, which
-closely resembles the wall of London.) I suggest
-that a point of evidence may be found in the Constantinian
-coin, which has a city gate or fortification
-for device, and the inscription <span class='fss'>PROVIDENTIAE
-CAESS</span>, with the mint mark of London (Fig. <a href='#fig-037'>37</a>).
-This device was not invented for London, but I
-cannot think that at such a time it could have been
-adopted if Londinium still remained an open
-city—it would have invited too obvious irony after
-what had happened in 296. This coin was issued
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_75'>75</span>between 320 and 324, and I suggest that it may be
-accepted as a record of the walling of the City, or,
-perhaps more probably, the beginning of the works.
-The coins of Helen mentioned by Camden were
-issued about this time. In the later half of the
-fourth-century London acquired the title of Augusta,
-and this change of style probably followed on the
-change of status of its having then been completely
-walled. (I find that Mr. Reg. Smith has already
-made this same suggestion in <i>V.C.H.</i>) Sir Arthur
-Evans has recently called attention to a silver
-coin of Valentinian the
-Elder as having in an abbreviated
-form the monetary
-stamp of <i>Londinensis
-Augusta</i>. “A group of
-coins shows that the Mint
-at London, which had
-been closed since the time
-of Constantine, was restored
-by Valentinian in
-<span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 368” (<i>Proceedings,
-S. A.</i>, 1915, p. 105).  I
-suggest that this is a probable
-date for the completion of the river wall.
-Several of the cities of Gaul were protected by
-walls at a still later time.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-037'  class='figright id004'>
-<img src='images/i075.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 37.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Many of the carved fragments found in the
-bastions can be little earlier than the year <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 300.
-The important monuments of which remnants
-have been found must have been destroyed when
-the long, wide strip required for the original wall
-and its ditch was cleared, for the bastions themselves
-did not go beyond this ground. It seems possible
-that the big stones were reserved for founding
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_76'>76</span>bastions; this is more likely than that distant monuments
-were destroyed to provide foundation stones.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>“To put an end to incessant pillage the Gallo-Roman
-towns sacrificed their faubourgs, and, retrenching
-their extent, surrounded themselves with
-strong walls, which were very often supported on
-sculptured blocks taken from destroyed edifices.
-Le Mans, like the towns of Senlis, Tours, Autun,
-Bourges, Fréjus, etc., girded itself with ramparts
-flanked with round-fronted towers, of which
-important remains still exist, especially along the
-river Sarthe. The <i>enceinte</i> of Le Mans enclosed
-an area about 500 by 200 metres” (A. Ledru, 1900).</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i076.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 38.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Gates.</i>—The excavations
-of 1903 at the Old
-Bailey revealed some
-remnants of the Roman
-gate on the site of Newgate.
-The most significant
-of these was a
-portion of plinth on the
-City side, with a return at the south end. This, as
-shown in <i>Archæologia</i>, lix., by Dr. P. Norman, when
-linked up with earlier discoveries made in 1875,
-allowed of the recovery of the plan of the gate (Fig.
-38). The plinth had been removed from its place
-before I saw it, but the stones were certainly shaped
-in Roman days; they had a chamfer 8 in. wide,
-with a square face of similar width below, and
-they had been strongly cramped together; one had
-a “return end,” and clearly came from a corner
-(A and B). A portion of the western plinth was
-discovered in 1909 (<i>Archæol.</i> lxiii.). The gate,
-with its towers on either side, had a frontage of
-about 96 ft.—probably 100 Roman feet, as a Roman
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_77'>77</span>foot was about 11·60 in. The space between the
-towers appears to have been about 35 ft., which is
-not more than sufficient for two large archways.
-The great gate at Colchester, which was about
-107 ft. wide, had two carriage-ways 17 ft. wide, and
-two small side openings 6 ft. wide as well (see <i>J.R.S.</i>,
-1919). Enough of the walling was found in 1875
-to show that the London gate was of stone bonded
-with tiles; it was erected on a thick platform of
-“clay and ragstone,” which raised the plinth about
-5 ft. above the plinth of the adjoining City Wall.
-Fig. 39 is a restoration of the front.</p>
-
-<div  class='figright id004'>
-<img src='images/i077.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 39.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Several years ago a mass of masonry with a face
-to the south was found
-under Bishopsgate Street
-a little within the line
-of the wall; underlying
-it was “puddling of flint
-and clay” over a wide
-area. It was suggested
-at the time (<i>Archæeol.</i> lx.
-p. 58) that this masonry and foundation might have
-belonged to Roman Bishopsgate, and the finding of
-what seems to have been a similar platform at
-Newgate strengthens the hypothesis. It had long
-ago been pointed out by T. Wright that the gate
-at Lymne was raised on a platform of big stones.
-At Lymne and Pevensey entrance gates had round-fronted
-towers, and the great gate at Colchester
-had quadrants.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Mediæval Aldgate had two round-fronted
-towers; these are shown in the Survey of Holy
-Trinity Priory mentioned above, and they are so
-similar to the bastions of the wall that I was led to
-suggest that the double gateway and towers were
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_78'>78</span>probably substantially Roman work (Fig. <a href='#fig-040'>40</a>). Some
-confirmation of this is given in <i>V.C.H.</i>, but compare
-<i>Archæologia</i>, xliii. Fitzstephen, writing at the
-end of the twelfth century, says that London
-had “double gates,” and this was doubtless so from
-Roman days.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-040'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i078.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 40.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Roman ditch outside Aldersgate, with a
-foundation for a bridge pointing towards the gate,
-was found about thirty years ago, and this is evidence
-for a Roman gate on this site (<i>Archæol.</i> lii.).
-Ludgate is guaranteed as Roman by the antiquity
-of the Strand and Fleet Street. Stow says that in
-1595 he observed on the north side of Fleet Street
-from Chancery Lane to St. Dunstan’s Church, 4 ft.
-below the surface, “a pavement of hard stone,
-more sufficient than the first, under which they
-found in the made ground piles of timber almost
-close together, the same being black as pitch and
-rotten, which proved that the ground there, as
-sundry other places of the City, had been a marsh.”
-Close piling was such a common Roman procedure
-that it may not be doubted that what Stow observed
-was the Roman road to Ludgate.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Mediæval Aldgate can be restored very fully by
-comparing the plan mentioned above with the view
-of the City given by Braun and Hogenberg (<i>c.</i> 1550).
-The gate is so accurately represented that two stair
-turrets appear over the positions where stairs are
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_79'>79</span>shown in the plan. If this gate is so accurately
-drawn, then the other indications may be accepted.
-In the Pepys collection, Cambridge, is an engraved
-view of a gate dated 1688; in the list of contents
-this is described as Cripplegate, but I believe it is
-rather Bishopsgate. It was an unaltered mediæval
-structure, with corbelled battlements and three
-statues in niches, one on each of the towers and
-one in the centre. Newgate is also represented in
-a woodcut view of about the same time, and in an
-engraving of considerable accuracy, from a book
-entitled <i>Herba Parietis</i>; here even Whittington’s
-coat-of-arms plainly appears. For a possible view
-of the Bridge gate, <i>c.</i> 1416, see an article by Mr.
-Weale in the <i>Burlington Magazine</i>, 1904.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A Roman road on piles has recently been found
-in Southwark (<i>Archæol.</i> lxiii.). Adding the Bridge
-gate, we now have evidence for the existence in
-Roman days of the six chief gates of Londinium.
-It has been suggested that there may have been an
-earth bank inside the walls, as at Silchester, but the
-different relation of the fronts of the gates to the
-walls in London are contrary arguments.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Ditches.</i>—When the site of Newgate was excavated
-I saw the slope of the ditch clearly defined
-by the blacker earth lying above the clean yellow
-gravel. The latest and clearest account of the
-ditches is in <i>Archæologia</i>, lxiii. There was first a
-narrow
-<span class='sans'>V</span>-shaped
-ditch dug when the wall was first
-built. A second wider ditch was excavated outside
-the other, which was at least partly filled when
-the bastions were built. There were similar double
-ditches at Silchester, and it has been pointed out
-that there the earlier
-<span class='sans'>V</span>-shaped
-ditch probably
-supplied the gravel for building the wall; possibly
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_80'>80</span>this was the case at London too. The wide ditch
-was probably further expanded in front of the gates;
-it was about 75 ft. wide at the top of the bank outside
-Aldersgate.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>The Original Port of London and the Bridge.</i>—The
-space within the completed walls has been
-computed to have been about 330 acres by Dr.
-Philip Norman. Dr. Haverfield says: “At London,
-Silchester, Trier, Cologne, the walls seem to have
-enclosed the town at near its largest” (<i>Romanization</i>).
-Roach Smith first remarked that from the
-position of burials within the area of the City we
-might infer the position of an earlier Londinium.
-Loftus Brock also, following Woodward, in pointing
-out that the northern cemetery had come within
-the space enclosed by the City Wall at Bishopsgate,
-used the same argument. Mr. Reginald Smith
-plotted all the known burials on a plan. Mr.
-Lambert has also laid down the find spots of coins
-of different dates. In his recent paper in <i>Archæology</i>
-he suggests that a stratum of charred material
-between London Bridge and the Walbrook represents
-the early Londinium destroyed by
-Boadicea. A large number of rubbish pits have
-been found within the walls. Putting these facts
-together it is evident that the original site of
-Londinium must have been by the inlet of the Walbrook,
-and it is probable that this little tidal creek
-was the first port of London—the seaport of Celtic
-Verulam, to which an old road led by Aldersgate
-and Islington. It is likely that before the Roman
-walls were built some defensive bank would have
-been thrown up between the Fleet and the Walbrook;
-compare the earth banks at Colchester.
-Can Barbican represent such a defence?</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_81'>81</span>London Bridge is mentioned in the tenth century.
-Stow tells us that it was first of timber.
-Then in 1067 a charter speaks of “Botolph’s Gate,
-with a wharf which was at the head of London
-Bridge.” He goes on: “About the year 1176 the
-stone bridge was begun near unto the bridge of
-timber, but towards the west, for Botolph’s wharf
-was, in the Conqueror’s time, at the head of London
-Bridge.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Nothing was known of a Roman bridge until
-last century. Then when the old stone bridge
-was destroyed evidence was found which convinced
-observers of the time that a Roman bridge
-had preceded it on the same line. Recently some
-writers, while accepting the Roman bridge as proved,
-have preferred to put it back to Stow’s line. Haverfield
-says: “No traces of a Roman bridge have yet
-been found (<i>Archæologia</i>, lx.): the oldest mediæval
-bridge (eleventh century) is said by Stow to have
-been near Botolph’s wharf (see plan).” This plan
-shows the bridge “temp. William the Conqueror”
-far to the east of Fish Street Hill (see also <i>V.C.H.</i>).
-Exactly what Haverfield meant by saying that no
-traces of the bridge had been found is hard to say;
-it seems to have been as loose a statement as the
-one which seems to imply that the earliest mediæval
-bridge was of the eleventh century.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Roach Smith, a cautious observer, was entirely
-convinced by the evidence that the mediæval
-bridge followed the course of the Roman bridge.
-“Throughout the line of the old bridge many
-thousands of Roman coins, with abundance of
-Roman pottery, were discovered, and beneath
-some of the central piles brass medallions of Aurelius,
-Faustina and Commodus. The enormous quantity
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_82'>82</span>of Roman coins may be accounted for by the
-practice of the Romans ... they may have been
-deposited upon the building or repairs of the
-bridge, as well as upon the accession of a new
-emperor.... The beautiful works of art which
-were discovered alongside the foundations, the
-colossal bronze head of Hadrian, the bronze images
-of Apollo, Mercury, Atys ... and other relics
-were possibly thrown into the river by early
-Christians” (<i>Archæol. Jour.</i>, vol. i.). This seems
-substantial evidence. The charter cited by Stow
-only speaks of a wharf as being at the head of
-London Bridge; it does not tell us that the bridge
-ran into the middle of the wharf. The Roman
-bridge was linked up with an approach from the
-south over a raised causeway; the bridge-ends
-would have required much consolidation, and the
-foundations in the great tidal river must have been
-extremely difficult to construct. We should need
-very clear demonstration before we could believe
-that the early Saxons did more than patch up the
-work of skilled Roman engineers. Altering of the
-bridge to the Gracechurch Street line on the City
-side in 1176 would have meant replanning on a big
-scale. The ancient line of approach on the south
-side is guaranteed by the area of Roman finds (see
-<i>V.C.H.</i> plan). Gracechurch Street is known to
-have existed before the Conquest, and the positions
-of the ancient churches of St. Magnus’s and St.
-Olaf’s at each end of the bridge are significant:
-the bridge, I believe, was in the parishes of these
-two churches.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Much more might be said, but I cannot think
-it is necessary. I conclude that the Roman bridge
-followed the line between the “Borough” and
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_83'>83</span>Gracechurch Street, and that the phrase in the
-charter was nothing more than a general indication
-of the position of the wharf.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>After the building of the Roman bridge, Billingsgate
-may have succeeded the Walbrook creek as the
-chief port of London.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>One of the sights of Londinium which may best
-be imagined is the approach over the bridge. Or
-we may think of the ring of turreted walls of the
-City by the river as seen from the northern heights.
-Or, again, we may think of the sights from the
-walk on the City Walls; the Kent hills beyond the
-Thames estuary, with ships coming up to make fast
-at Dowgate; then, turning to look inward over
-the City, we may imagine the narrow streets and
-plastered, red-tiled, houses. It must have been
-grim and grey when the roofs were covered with
-snow, and we may wonder what dwellers from the
-south thought of our fogs. Yet Londinium was a
-romantic city, a little Rome in the west, and we
-want some good story about it which shall bring
-it out of archæology into the minds of the citizens
-and the hearts of the children.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i083.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>From a Carving on an Altar at Risingham.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_84'>84</span>
-  <h2 id='ch04' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER IV</em><br /> <br />CEMETERIES AND TOMBS</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='c022'>“O more than mortal man that did this town begin,
- Whose knowledge found the plot so fit to set it in.
- Built on a rising bank within a vale to stand,
- And for thy healthful soil chose gravel mixed with sand.”</p>
-<div class='c023'><span class='sc'>Drayton’s</span> <i>Polyolbion</i>.</div>
-<h3 class='c024'><span class='sc'>Cemeteries</span></h3>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c020'>THE site of London by a noble tidal river,
-or rather at the head of a long estuary,
-on clean gravel ground intersected with
-streams, was well chosen. The ground was open
-heath with scrubby vegetation, except for woods
-here and there where the soil was suitable. Sir
-Thomas More planned his “Utopia” on a site
-similar to that of London. The buildings of
-London have spoilt an excellent golf course! The
-walled city set down in the fair land must have been
-beautiful indeed, as seen from the Hampstead or
-Surrey hills. On approaching the turreted walls
-by the straight and narrow roads, the traveller
-would have had to pass through a wide belt of
-cemeteries. Around Londinium in its later state,
-the gardens of the dead would have come right up
-to the city ditch, just as at Constantinople the
-beautiful Turkish cemeteries, with their noble
-cypresses, lie close beside the walls of the city.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>“Around Rome was a great belt of cemeteries;
-the sides of the main roads issuing from the gates
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_85'>85</span>were especially favoured sites; the chief region of
-all was that crossed by the Via Appia and Via
-Latina” (Lanciani).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>“An immense field of the dead had extended all
-along the north-eastern quarter of ancient London,
-from Wapping Marsh to the fen beyond Moorfields”
-(C. Knight).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Goodman’s Fields, Moorfields, Spitalfields, were
-all cemeteries, and it is curious that they all have
-in common the name of fields. In the valley of the
-Fleet River by Ludgate and Blackfriars on the west
-were also cemeteries; and others lay beyond
-Southwark (Battersea Fields and St. George’s
-Fields?). The city of the dead must have been
-impressive on account of its extent and the number
-of its population, and doubtless it was beautiful.
-The harsh horror of modern cemeteries is a new thing
-on the earth. In antiquity, cemeteries had beauty,
-poetry, history.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The monuments of Londinium would have been
-of many kinds, small and big—columns, sculptures,
-mausolea, altar-tombs, tomb-houses, and steles
-or slabs. These tombs were not cold and pale, but
-profusely carved, and, doubtless, in most cases,
-coloured. The monuments in the museum at
-Trèves show many traces of colour—red, green and
-yellow, if I remember aright. Dr. Ashby recently
-described a huge Roman necropolis at Syracuse
-in words which might apply to Londinium. “Fragments
-of memorials were found, varying from simple
-steles and columns to the chapel with rich architectural
-forms, the decorative portions being in soft
-limestone with considerable traces of polychromy.”
-Painting over coarse soft stone was a general tradition,
-and bright colour liberally applied would greatly
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_86'>86</span>change the aspect of rather crude carvings. At
-Bath an inscription mentions the repair and repainting
-of a building. This might be internal
-painting, but it was an external inscription and
-probably included outside work. The Corinthian
-temple at Bath was decorated with colour on the
-exterior. Mr. Irvine says of a piece of the cornice:
-“Considerable portions of the red paint with which
-it had been covered remained among the carving.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Finds of burials are still not infrequent in London;
-as specimen cases I quote two recent newspaper
-clippings: “A workman excavating in Cannon
-Street Road, Stepney, has unearthed an urn containing
-bones at a depth of 2 ft. below the road
-level; Sir C. H. Read observed that it provided a
-link in the track of the Roman road eastward, as the
-custom was to deposit these urns at the sides of the
-roads” (December 19, 1919). “The discovery of
-two Roman urns in Mansell Street, Goodman’s
-Fields, is of considerable importance. The urns
-were found about 10 ft. below the garden of a house.
-Both contained inner cinerary urns with calcined
-remains. The perfect one resembles an ordinary
-jar with a cover; the outer urn is perfectly round,
-and has handles on each side by the mouth. It is
-believed that the site was that of a Roman villa;
-bricks and tiles having been discovered in other
-parts of the site” (1913). The urns are now in the
-London Museum.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The actual monuments once on the east of the
-City are represented by the fragments found in
-the Tower Hill bastion; those to the north, by the
-stones found in the Camomile Street and other
-bastions; those on the west, by the soldier’s monument
-found at Ludgate Hill by Wren, by later
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_87'>87</span>discoveries near Ludgate Hill, in 1806, and the
-fragment of the monument of Celsus found on the
-Blackfriars site.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Steles.</i>—A memorial slab in the Guildhall Museum
-is particularly interesting, as it is obviously in the
-tradition of Hellenistic art. It is a true stele of the
-usual small scale, about 2 ft. wide and 2½ ft. high;
-it bears a relief sculpture of a soldier in a panel
-bordered by pilasters and
-finished with a pedimental
-top (Fig. <a href='#fig-041'>41</a>). This broken
-slab is in the reserve
-collection and is not
-usually visible, nor is it
-in the catalogue; the
-supposition is that it was
-found in one of the bastions
-with so many other
-remnants of tombs. It
-must, I think, be one of
-the earliest Roman monuments
-discovered in
-London.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-041'  class='figright id004'>
-<img src='images/i087.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 41.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>At the Guildhall is
-shown a sculptured slab
-thus described: “Monumental tablet, marble,
-bearing in relief the figure of a man armed with
-a trident and sword (?), and having a shield-like
-protection to the upper portion of his left arm;
-above is a fragmentary inscription; Greek;
-21¾ × 15½ × 3½ in.: Tottenham Court Road.” It
-was illustrated in an early volume of <i>Archæologia</i>
-(xi. p. 48). On the original drawing at the Society
-of Antiquaries is written: “This white marble
-slab was found by Mr. Miller among the ruins of a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_88'>88</span>house at Islington. It
-is now fixed up on the
-front of a warehouse in
-High Timber Street,
-near Labour-in-Vain
-Hill.” (This was south
-of Thames Street in
-the City.) The inscription
-is given by
-Hübner. With the
-writer in <i>V.C.H.</i>, we
-may doubt whether
-this slab is not an
-importation like the
-Arundel Marbles; but
-other works in white
-marble will be described
-in this section,
-and gladiators were
-well known in Londinium
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-042'>42</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-042'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i088a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 42.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-043'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i088b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 43.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the British
-Museum is a small
-stele with a well-carved
-relief of a man heavily
-draped in a dignified
-pose and classical taste,
-and also having a Greek
-inscription. This stone
-slab is little more than
-1 ft. wide by about
-2½ ft. high (Fig. <a href='#fig-043'>43</a>).
-It was obtained in
-1911, but it was drawn
-by Archer about eighty
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_89'>89</span>years ago. It was found in White’s Conduit
-Fields, that is, near Lamb’s Conduit Street.
-This, too, has a Greek inscription of which I can
-only make out the last word and a few other
-letters:</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class='under'>ΟC</span></div>
-      <div class='line'>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ΟΥ</div>
-      <div class='line'>.&nbsp;&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ε ΧΑΙΡΕ</div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c025'>The last word is Farewell. I have felt some doubt
-as to this really pretty little work being a London
-antiquity. My sketch is given from Archer’s drawing.
-Although he may have restored it to some
-degree, it is probable that it has suffered from
-decay since he drew it. Other Greek inscriptions
-have been found in Britain.</p>
-<p class='c016'>There is another stele at the Guildhall which
-is so similar in several respects to the one just
-described that it might have been carved in the
-same shop. It is described in the catalogue as a
-“Monumental slab, limestone, on which is represented
-a figure of a man and child; the former
-is clothed in a toga, the folds of which he is holding
-in his left hand; 26 × 13½ × 2¼ in.” That two
-slabs so much alike should be discovered in one
-city, is a strong argument in favour of their having
-originated there. Notice, further, how the little
-pediment over the British Museum slab resembles
-that of the slab of the soldier first described. Again,
-the wide, plain margins are like those of the Gladiator
-slab. The evidence seems to be in favour of our
-accepting all the four slabs described as truly London
-works.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the British Museum (the Roman corridor)
-is a tall inscribed slab of the headstone type, about
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_90'>90</span>6½ ft. high (Fig. <a href='#fig-044'>44</a>). We may see clearly that it is
-a descendant of the steles by noting a few little
-points. It has the side pilasters and a pediment
-on which some lumps carry on the tradition of
-acroteria. An inscription occupies the field where
-the steles have sculptured reliefs, and a lower space
-is occupied by a festoon.
-From the inscription, <span class='fss'>NA
-ATIENI</span>, it seems that it
-commemorated a man born
-in Athens. This slab is
-especially like a large stele
-at Cirencester which had
-two panels, the upper one
-having a relief and the
-lower an inscription. Proportions,
-pilasters, pediment
-are all like our
-London slab. Haverfield
-assigned the Cirencester
-slab to the end of the
-first century, and the
-London one can only be
-a little later. The inscription
-terminates with
-the early formula: H[<span class='fss'>IC</span>]
-S[<span class='fss'>ITUS</span>] EST.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-044'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i090.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 44.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>This slab is much
-weathered and it stands at the Museum in a
-bad light, where it is difficult to make out the
-details. Running stems, with flowers on the
-pilasters, are quite pretty (Fig. <a href='#fig-045'>45</a>), and, indeed,
-the whole thing has dignity. The lettering was
-free and doubtless more elegant than the painted
-forms now suggest.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_91'>91</span>Several larger memorial slabs have been found in
-London which had big reliefs of soldiers. One at
-the Guildhall and another at
-Oxford will be described under
-sculpture. There are two fragments
-in the British Museum
-which may stand for the type
-and be discussed here. One is a
-head a little less than life-size,
-part of a standing figure in a
-round-topped recess. Above is an
-inscription naming Celsus a <i>speculator</i>;
-it was found at Blackfriars
-in 1876 (<i>The Builder</i>). This much-injured
-fragment appears very
-rude, but the others of this class
-were competent works of sculpture.
-The second is only a head
-now in the upper gallery at the
-Museum; both were probably
-works of the first half of the second century. Four
-<i>known</i> examples of
-this type must represent
-many—perhaps
-dozens which once
-existed.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-045'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i091a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 45.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>At the Guildhall is
-a fragment of sepulchral
-sculpture, which
-may have been part
-of a larger monument
-rather than of a stele,
-but I will speak of it
-here. Just enough
-remains to allow of the restoration of the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_92'>92</span>scheme. A winged Cupid at the end of a
-panel which doubtless bore an inscription, would
-have been one of a pair. The Cupid holds
-an ivy-leaf, symbol of the grave, and above is a
-festoon with a bird perched on it (Fig. <a href='#fig-046'>46</a>). Two
-or three grave slabs at Chester with reliefs of
-sepulchral banquets have similar festoons and
-birds which must have had symbolic reference to
-an after-life.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-046'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i091b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 46.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>A much-battered fragment of relief sculpture
-at the Guildhall may, I think, be a remnant of
-a sepulchral banquet;
-it shows the upper
-part of a man in a
-recess with the point
-of what looks like the
-arm of the usual sofa-like
-bench behind
-him.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Chests and Coffins.</i>—In
-earlier Roman
-Britain bodies were
-cremated and the
-ashes disposed in urns, lead boxes, and in other ways.
-There is in the British Museum a truly magnificent
-urn of hard porphyry-like stone which was found
-in Warwick Square. At the Guildhall is part of a
-sarcophagus-like chest about 2 ft. by 2½ ft. (Fig. <a href='#fig-047'>47</a>).
-Its discovery was recorded by Price thus: “A
-coped stone of a marble tomb has been discovered
-near to the west door of St. Helen’s Church, Bishopsgate;
-associated with it was a coin of Constantine
-Junior, <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 317-340” (<i>London and Middlesex
-Archæol. Soc. Trans.</i>, vol. v. 413). The material
-has shining particles, and seems to be white marble.
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_93'>93</span>In this respect it should be compared with the
-gladiator relief already described, and the fine
-Clapton sarcophagus mentioned below. The
-association with the coin must have been accidental,
-for this chest cannot, I think, be later than the
-second century. It would have contained an urn
-holding burnt bones; compare a rude stone cist
-from Harpenden in the British Museum.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-047'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i092.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 47.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>An excellent account of London graves is given
-in <i>V.C.H.</i> Stow described the finds in Spitalfields
-in his day thus: “Divers coffins of stone, and the
-bones of men without coffins, and great nails of
-iron were found a quarter of a yard long. I beheld
-the bones of a man lying, his head north, and round
-about some such nails, wherefore I considered them
-to be the nails of his coffin.” Many plain coffins
-of stone have been found in the City and suburbs.
-In an old MSS. collection which I have, is the note:
-“About Dec. 1717, was taken up out of ye ground
-near ye new church of Rotherhithe, a stone coffin
-of prodigious size in which was ye skeleton of a
-man 10 foot long” (!). A Minute of the Society
-of Antiquaries (July 28, 1725) reads: “An ancient
-glass vase of bell-shape found in a stone coffin, 14 ft.
-under the ground by the portico of St. Martin’s
-Church [in the Fields]; ’tis now in Sir Hans Sloan’s
-collection.” The “vase” was doubtless one of the
-little <span class='c017'>⊥</span>-shaped bottles. Price described a stone
-coffin found in Fleet Lane nearly 8 ft. long, containing
-a skeleton in lime.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The wooden coffins must have been still more
-common. Conyers, about 1670, recorded the finding
-of one in an excavation at Fleet ditch. “About
-ye middle of the new ditch as low as ye bottom of
-ye old wall there were found an oak coffin turned
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_94'>94</span>black, of boards with bands, a man’s length from
-ye old ditch wall, upon the old wharfing, or, as
-I suppose, natural ground wharfed upon. In this
-coffin was a glass vial in ye fashion <span class='c017'>⊥</span> [an expanded
-base with long neck], and brass like a hinge, these
-lay amongst the bones, the glass I have by me”
-(Conyer’s MS.). This was evidently one of the
-chests described by Mr. Ward: “Wooden coffins
-or chests were in common use, as the presence of
-iron nails, iron or bronze bindings, hinges, and other
-mountings prove.” An oak coffin was found in
-Moorfields in 1873, the objects from which are now
-in the British Museum.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Two stone coffins are preserved in the Guildhall
-collection. Two containing lead coffins were found
-at Pie Corner, St. Bartholomew’s, in 1877 (<i>London
-and Middlesex Archæol. Soc. Trans.</i>, vol. v.). Lead
-coffins were usually ornamented, and will be further
-considered. It is probable that some of the coffins
-of wood and of stone were Christian burials.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The coffins of stone described were roughly
-wrought, and they were buried in the ground.
-Others, however, have been found which are handsome
-pieces of workmanship, and bear inscriptions.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-048'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i096a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 48.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Three well-decorated stone sarcophagi found in
-London are at the Guildhall, the British Museum
-and Westminster Abbey. The sarcophagus at
-the Abbey is the earliest in style. It was found
-under the green at the angle between the north
-transept and the nave in 1869, and now rests by the
-entry to the Chapter House. On the cover is a large
-cross which seems to have been cut on the old stone in
-the twelfth century. Yet the evidence seems to have
-been against reuse in Christian times. It was the
-opinion, however, of the discoverers that it had been
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_95'>95</span>moved from its original site, but it was found close to
-the presumed Roman road to the river bank. The
-front has a panel with an inscription in excellent
-lettering, giving the name of Valerius, a superventor
-in the army, and beginning <span class='fss'>MEMORIAE</span>.
-This form is found in two or three other British
-inscriptions, and was frequently used on tombs at
-Lyons. The Westminster inscription and the panel
-in which it is placed are of comparatively early
-style, and it is difficult to think that such work can
-be later than about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 200. On the other hand,
-it is said that the new mode of burial at full length
-in a sarcophagus was not adopted in Britain until
-about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 250. I do not suppose that our example
-is so late as this. The front may be compared with
-a slab in Edinburgh Museum, <i>c.</i> <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 160 (<i>J.R.S.</i>,
-ii. p. 128). The Lyons inscriptions of a similar
-type are also of the age of the Antonines. Altogether,
-I cannot think that the Westminster tomb
-is later than <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 200. It is possible that it may first
-have contained cinerated remains and not have been
-a sarcophagus proper.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-049'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i096b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 49.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The sarcophagus at the British Museum was found
-in Haydon Square, Minories, the site of a part of
-a cemetery where in 1797 “many curious fragments
-of Roman pottery as well as glass vessels were discovered,
-and two complete urns with bone ashes,
-etc., were taken up.” This stone sarcophagus
-contained a lead coffin, now also in the British
-Museum. At the Society of Antiquaries is an
-accurate drawing of both made at the time of the
-discovery. The cover was securely clamped down
-with iron (Fig. <a href='#fig-048'>48</a>). At the centre of the front is a
-simple medallion portrait head, the rest is filled
-with flutes (Fig. <a href='#fig-049'>49</a>). The outer face of the cover,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_96'>96</span>which slants up to a ridge, is carved with acanthus
-leaves (Fig. <a href='#fig-050'>50</a>), the inner slanting side is plain, and
-this shows that it stood in a building or against a
-wall. At the two ends are carved baskets of fruits,
-and these must be symbolical (Fig. <a href='#fig-048'>48</a>). This tomb
-had no inscription; it belonged to a time when
-inscriptions were few. Whether itself the tomb of
-a Christian or not, it is of a Christian type, and I
-should date it about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 340.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-050'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_97'>97</span>
-<img src='images/i097a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 50.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The sarcophagus now at the Guildhall was
-found at Clapton in 1867; it resembles that last
-described, and must be very nearly of the same
-date. It lay east and west, “the Christian orientation,”
-as Mr. Reginald Smith notes. The cover
-was attached to the lower part by strong iron straps
-(cf. Fig. <a href='#fig-048'>48</a>). It is described as white marble or
-oolitic limestone, and there are many sparkling
-particles in the material. The front, which is
-80 in. long, has a portrait bust at the centre in a
-circle, above a panel in which is the inscription,
-and the rest is filled with vertical flutings (Fig. <a href='#fig-051'>51</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-051'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_98'>98</span>
-<img src='images/i097b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 51.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The cover is lost, the back and ends are plain,
-and it probably stood in a building. The portrait
-relief is curiously early Christian in character. The
-fluting is exceptionally refined and effective. This
-is a truly beautiful work, and doubtless if it were in
-an Italian museum it would be much better known
-to Englishmen than it is. A full and excellent
-account of it is given by Price (<i>London and Middlesex
-Archæol. Soc. Proceed.</i>, vol. iii.), in which he compared
-it with some tombs in the Lateran Museum,
-showing that it is in the style of early Christian
-monuments <i>c.</i> 340-50. (The same paper contains
-descriptions of several plain stone coffins.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The inscription on the Clapton tomb was very
-short, hardly more than names, and it does not
-seem to have contained any expression of faith.
-The Haydon Square tomb had no inscription.
-This reticence is characteristic. “The historical
-inscriptions of this age can be counted on the fingers
-of one hand.... It is curious to find a noteworthy
-lack of ordinary sepulchral inscriptions of private
-persons in the fourth century; there are very few
-Christian tombs, but it is much more surprising
-to find a lack of those of the ordinary heathen type.
-Conceivably fourth-century tombs were handiest
-for the Saxon invader” (Sir C. Oman, <i>England
-before the Norman Conquest</i>). Christian inscriptions
-are very few in France also; there are not, I believe,
-half a dozen of the fourth century existing.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>This tomb and the other are good examples of
-the skilful way in which forms were obtained in a
-block of stone without cutting to waste; observe
-how the mouldings in Figs. 49 and 50 lie just on
-the surfaces. This is a lesson for our own days.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>I have felt that this able work in fine material could
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_99'>99</span>hardly have had its origin in Britain, but further
-consideration suggests that the balance of evidence
-is in our favour. We have seen that other works
-are in white marble; there are in the British
-Museum two or three fragments of white marble
-slabs, while in the London Museum there is a
-complete one. Several fragments of dado linings
-are also known. In the heyday of the mosaic
-pavements there must have been some “firm” of
-marble importers in London. The general resemblance
-of the Clapton sarcophagus to that
-found at Haydon Square is strongly in favour of
-their common origin. The cover was attached
-to the receptacle in a similar way with iron straps
-in both; in each case the flutes are separated by a
-sunk line. The man’s bust is very similar to the
-upper parts of the figures on the third and fourth
-steles above described. Altogether, I could suppose
-that both sarcophagi came from one shop, and that
-they were both the resting-places of Christians.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-052'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i100.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 52.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>A number of tablets which have been found
-must have been fixed in buildings or against walls.
-At the British Museum is a small fragment with a
-part of an animal incised, probably one of a pair
-facing a central object. (Compare the griffins
-on the enamelled plate found in London, in the
-British Museum.) Some of these tablets are of
-Purbeck and other native marbles, and this shows
-that we had competent marble masons settled here—probably
-the same as the mosaic workers.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A small tablet, found in Goodman’s Fields,
-about 12 in. by 15 in., now at the Society of Antiquaries,
-was described by Roach Smith as of native
-green marble; and a fragment in the British
-Museum, found in Philpot Lane, is of green marble.
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_100'>100</span>The former (Fig. <a href='#fig-052'>52</a>), judging by the wording of the
-inscription and style of the lettering, may be dated
-about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 100.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>On the whole, these Roman tombs had dignity
-and beauty, and a study of picked examples throughout
-Britain would be worth making. The lettering
-is admirable, and the inscriptions
-often have a quite
-human sound which is
-touching. The portrait
-reliefs are competent
-common work. We should
-now have to go to an R.A.
-for such things, and come
-away again without getting
-them. Some of the symbolic
-decoration speaks a universal language; the
-flowering scroll border and festoon of the slab,
-and the baskets of fruits on the sarcophagus, both
-in the British Museum, are more than ornaments.
-A stele at Colchester having a relief of a seated
-woman putting away her spinning into her work-box
-is really poetical. The sculpture is crude, but
-the idea is as fresh and beautiful as any tomb in
-the world can show.</p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_101'>101</span>
-  <h2 id='ch05' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER V</em><br /> <br />SOME LARGER MONUMENTS</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='c022'>“The Cemetery had for years been overcrowded with burned and
-unburned burials; rains had caused the mounds to settle and the ground
-had resumed its even surface.... I beg you to see that the earth is
-raised to a mound again, and to have a smooth slab placed upon it.”</p>
-<div class='c023'>—<span class='sc'>Sidonius</span>, <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 467.</div>
-<h3 class='c024'><span class='sc'>Jove and Giant Columns</span></h3>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c020'>A&nbsp;FEW of the more important sepulchral
-monuments have been reserved for special
-consideration. First among these I wish to
-discuss the fragments of what I suppose to have been
-examples of Jove and Giant columns, a class of monument
-frequently found on the Continent. These
-columns, it has been thought, were not naturalised
-in Britain. In <i>Archæologia</i>, lxix., Professor Haverfield,
-calling attention to an inscription at Cirencester,
-which seems to have formed part of a small
-column of the kind, said that except for this inscription
-no other evidence had been found in
-Britain for the existence of such columns. Again,
-in another place, after speaking of figures of the
-Mother Goddesses, he added, “We may ascribe to
-another immigrant the <i>Colonne au géant</i> found at
-Cirencester” (<i>Romanization</i>). A large number of
-these monuments has been found in north-east Gaul.
-The main element was a decorated column the
-capital of which supported a sculptured group of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_102'>102</span>“Juppiter and a fallen barbarian giant.” Such a
-column usually stood on a pedestal having an
-inscription to the god; around the pedestal were
-relief sculptures of several figures, and there were
-four busts on the capital. Professor Haverfield,
-whose description I have been condensing, agreed
-with a suggestion made by Mrs. Strong that a fine
-Corinthian capital at Cirencester, which has four
-busts set among the acanthus leafage, may have
-belonged to the Jove and Giant pillar. This,
-however, is negatived by the scale of the capital
-as compared with the inscribed
-stone, which is only about 1½ ft.
-square. Further, as he himself
-allowed, a second capital similar
-to the other exists, except for
-its upper part. Both the complete
-capital and the fragment
-were found on the site of the
-Basilica, and we may hardly
-doubt that both belonged to
-that building.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-053'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i102.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 53.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Jove and Giant pillars, as I have called them,
-have been exhaustively treated in a German work
-(<i>Hertlein</i>, 1910). Espèrandieu, in his volumes on
-Roman sculptures in Gaul, very fully illustrates
-two of these monuments, one at Cussy-la-Colonne,
-near Autun (2032), and another at Merten (4425),
-also a large number of fragments. He describes the
-Cussy column as having been about 44 ft. high
-(including the sculptured group) and 2 ft. in
-diameter; the bottom of the pillar was carved in a
-trellis pattern (Fig. <a href='#fig-053'>53</a>). The column at Merten
-was about 48 ft. high with a diameter of 2¼ ft.
-Under the number 4130, Espèrandieu says of a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_103'>103</span>square sculptured stone: “It is generally agreed
-that these ‘four-god stones’ are not altars but
-pedestals. They supported a second stone, usually
-of octagonal form, with representations of the Gods
-of the Week upon it. From this rose a column
-and capital, and, crowning all, a god riding and
-crushing under the hoofs of his steed a giant who
-terminates in two snakes.” Such columns had a
-religious significance, and “their frequency, above
-all on the banks of the Rhine, is surprising” (No.
-4425). A good résumé of what had been said of
-these monuments was given by Mrs. Strong in
-1911 (<i>J.R.S.</i>); the general conclusion was that
-the Jove of the pillar was a sun and thunder
-divinity, “A Romanised sun-god”; the columns
-embodied “a whole allegory of times and seasons.”
-“Hertlein interprets the columns as Irmin-säulen,
-symbols of the universe; columns such as, according
-to Teutonic mythology, supported the heavens, here
-typified by Juppiter as lord of the skies.” Some
-writers had preferred to see a Roman emperor
-riding over a barbarian.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the British Museum there is a carved fragment
-of a highly decorated column which, I have
-little doubt, belonged to a Jove and Giant column.
-This stone was found built into the lower part of
-the City Wall along the river bank. Roach Smith,
-in whose collection it was, described it first in 1844
-(<i>Archæol. Jour.</i>, vol. i.) as: “A portion of a decorated
-stone which appears to have formed part
-of an altar.” Later he visited the Jove and Giant
-column near Autun, and in describing it in <i>Collectanea
-Antiqua</i> (vol. vi.) he refers to our stone.
-Subsequently in the Catalogue of his collection he
-spoke of the stone as: “Fragment in green sandstone,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_104'>104</span>with a trellis pattern with leaves and fruit.
-It appears to have formed part of a sepulchral
-monument, and was taken from the foundations
-of a Roman wall in Thames Street.” In saying this
-he doubtless had the
-Cussy monument in
-his mind, for that was
-understood to be a
-sepulchral monument.
-Our fragment is from
-a circular shaft which
-must have been about
-2½ ft. in diameter. The
-surface is carved over
-with a pattern like a
-trellis of laths, in the interspaces of which appear
-leaves and bunches of grapes Fig. <a href='#fig-054'>54</a> is restored
-from the fragment).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-054'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i104a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 54.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-055'  class='figright id005'>
-<img src='images/i104b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 55.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>There is another stone in the British Museum
-which also probably formed part of a Jove and
-Giant column (Fig. <a href='#fig-055'>55</a>). This was found at Great
-Chesterford, an important Roman site in Essex.
-It is described as a “Basin with bas-reliefs of the
-Roman deities.” These figures have long ago been
-identified as four of the
-seven gods of the days of
-the week (Thos. Wright).
-The fragment was made
-into a basin in modern
-times; it is really half of
-an octagon, and on the
-top surface appear the sinkings for two big cramps
-which linked this to an adjoining similar stone
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-056'>56</a>). For what is known of it, see Roach
-Smith’s account in <i>Collectanea Antiqua</i> and the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_105'>105</span><i>Journal of the Archæological Association</i>, vol. iii.
-In the latter it is said that it is irregular and not
-semi-octagonal; but the breaking down of the
-upper part into the recesses which contain the
-reliefs gives the appearance of irregularity—that is
-all. The octagon was 3¾ ft. in diameter. One of
-the sides was blank. One-half of this blank side
-remains, and also half of
-the opposite side, which
-retains enough of the sculpture
-to show that the figure
-carried a spear over the
-right shoulder. The next
-figure, going clockwise, was
-Mercury; he had a mantle
-over his left shoulder and
-carried his wand; points
-remaining by his hair show
-that his cap was winged.
-The third figure was Jove,
-a mature figure with broad
-breast, bearded head, and
-long hair. The fourth
-figure, who carried a hand-mirror,
-was Venus. These
-figures agree very closely with a set of the planets
-arranged in similar order on a mosaic floor found
-at Bramdean, and by this comparison it is evident
-that the one with a spear was Mars. The eighth,
-or blank, side followed the figure of Venus, so that
-the series must have begun with Saturn, in the
-Roman way. We may now say that the eight
-sides contained figures of the Deities of the Days
-in proper order: Saturn, Sol, Luna, Mars, Mercury,
-Jupiter, Venus.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-056'  class='figright id004'>
-<img src='images/i105.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 56.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_106'>106</span>Espèrandieu illustrates two stones from a very
-similar monument found in France at D’Yzeures
-(iv. p. 136). These are the halves of an octagon
-about 3 ft. 7 in. across which was built up in courses.
-One of the stones comes from a lower course, the
-other from an upper. The vertical joints ran from
-an angle to an angle so that they should not cut
-through the sculptures on the sides. These reliefs
-were “possibly the Divinities of the Days of the
-Week.” We have also in England remnants of
-a similar sculptured octagon which was built up
-in courses. These are in Northampton Museum,
-and are illustrated in <i>V.C.H.</i> One of two stones
-shows the tops of the heads of a series of figures,
-the other stone has their feet. They are described
-as “Two fragments of an octagonal monument
-having figures in shallow niches, possibly the
-Deities of the Days of the Week” (Haverfield, vol. i.
-p. 181). Both these stones were of little height,
-the upper one only contained the crowns of the
-heads of the figures and flat curves forming the tops
-of the niches (compare Fig. <a href='#fig-056'>56</a>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>We are now in a position to restore the Chesterford
-octagon (Fig. <a href='#fig-056'>56</a>). The heads of the figures on
-the stone in the British Museum are not complete,
-for a bed joint runs just over the eyes, and the
-crowns of the heads must have been on another
-stone, as at Northampton. Two other courses, at
-least, beneath what is represented by the existing
-fragment, would have been required to complete
-the figures, and indeed their feet were possibly on
-a narrow base-course, as at Northampton. The
-Chesterford stone and the fragments at Northampton
-must represent important Jove and Giant
-pillars. The size of the former, it should be observed,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_107'>107</span>seems most suitable for a column shaft of
-about 2½ ft. in diameter, the size of the lattice
-column represented by the fragment in the British
-Museum (Fig. <a href='#fig-054'>54</a>), which probably, as said above,
-was itself part of a Jove and Giant column. There
-is thus high probability that there were important
-Jove and Giant columns, having pedestals sculptured
-with the Deities of the Days, at London,
-Chesterford and Northampton. If this is so, such
-columns must have been frequently
-erected in Britain, and we may look
-for evidences for the existence of
-others.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-057'  class='figright id014'>
-<img src='images/i107.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 57.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In vol. iii. of <i>Collectanea</i> Roach
-Smith illustrated a small highly decorated
-column found at Wroxeter, 13 in.
-in diameter. It was similar to the
-Cussy column in having a lattice
-pattern below and a scale pattern
-above. Here and there were little
-relief subjects—a Cupid and a youthful
-Bacchus with grapes. This was probably
-part of another Jove and Giant column,
-or at least of a single sepulchral column; there
-would hardly have been more than one so decorated.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Several pieces of small highly decorated columns
-have been found in London, which must, I think,
-have belonged to memorial pillars and not to
-edifices. One of these found in the Houndsditch
-bastion, only 9 in. in diameter, was decorated with a
-simple lattice pattern (Fig. <a href='#fig-057'>57</a>). Another is in the
-London Museum, which, in the part preserved,
-has a scale pattern (Fig. <a href='#fig-058'>58</a>). A third fragment,
-at the Guildhall, has again both lattice and scale
-patterns (Fig. <a href='#fig-059'>59</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-058'  class='figleft id003'>
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_108'>108</span>
-<img src='images/i108a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 58.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-059'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i108b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 59.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Jove and Giant columns were doubtless
-sepulchral, but they were also religiously significant.
-They were intended to suggest
-ideas of the conquest of evil
-powers and of renewal. Dr.
-Haverfield was, I think, mistaken
-in the passage quoted above in
-speaking of the giant as a barbarian;
-he was rather a power of darkness,
-and this is brought out by a piece
-of British evidence. Figures of
-four such creatures, each terminating
-in two serpents, fill the corners
-of a mosaic floor found at Horkstow;
-they support a large circle divided into two rings
-and a centre; in the outer ring
-are Nereids and swimming
-creatures, in the inner one little
-genii with baskets of flowers, etc.
-The rings are divided into four
-parts by radial bands, and the
-general suggestion must be of the
-seasons and the cosmic order. The
-snake-legged creatures in the
-corners are the <i>Aloadæ</i>, the giants
-who attempted to scale Olympus
-by putting Pelion on Ossa. They
-are here in their proper places in
-the chaos outside the circle of
-the ordered world, “the wheel of
-nature.” This pavement helps to
-explain the general idea which
-led to the erection of Jove and
-Giant pillars, and shows that these ideas were
-current in Britain. The column is the world-axis
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_109'>109</span>set round by planets and seasons; above, the
-power of light and order hurls back the giant of
-gloom and strife (see Daremberg and Saglio,
-<i>Aloadæ</i>). In the foreign examples of the sculptured
-groups which rested on the capitals of the
-columns Jove sometimes had a wheel as his weapon,
-and wheels have been found carved in Roman
-altars in Britain. “The sides of two large altars
-to Jupiter at Walton House bear the thunderbolt
-for Jupiter and a wheel, which possibly equates
-the Jupiter of these altars with the Gaulish ‘wheel-god’”
-(Ward). An altar at Housesteads invokes
-the sun-god. The Jove and Giant pillars are evidence
-of a time when the old mythological names
-had been refitted to express ideas of good and evil,
-cosmic forces, and supposed planetary influences.
-The mosaic floors, as we shall see, provide further
-evidence of what was “higher thought” in third-century
-Roman Britain.</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i110a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 60.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Mausolea.</i>—When the bastion of the City Wall
-in Camomile Street was destroyed, many sculptured
-stones from small but very richly decorated edifices
-were found. Price recognised that some of them
-must have belonged to an important sepulchral
-monument comparable with the Igel monument
-near Trèves. I saw, in 1912, some stones at Trèves
-which had a scale pattern cut on a roof-like slope,
-and soon after my return I noticed a stone of the
-same sort in the Guildhall Museum. Without
-having Price’s words in my mind I came to the
-conclusion that in the cemeteries of Londinium
-there must have been mausoleum-like monuments
-of the kind which the Museum at Trèves had
-shown me were common in the neighbourhood
-of that city. Several of these mausolea are now
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_110'>110</span>illustrated in Espèrandieu’s great work on the
-Roman sculptures of Gaul. In 1913 I offered a
-tentative restoration
-of a London monument
-of this type in
-the <i>Architectural
-Review</i>.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-061'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i110b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 61.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-062'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i110c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 62.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In Fig. <a href='#fig-060'>60</a> I have
-roughly sketched
-two stones at the
-Guildhall which evidently came from a mausoleum
-of the Trèves type, also a
-course from a fluted angle
-pilaster, showing part of an
-inscription. Compare No.
-5153 in Espèrandieu’s
-work, where we find a
-similar scale pattern, angle
-pilasters bonded in courses
-with masonry, and the
-lettering of an inscription
-coming close up to the
-pilaster. Another stone at
-the Guildhall has a capital
-of a small angle pilaster on a similar course. This
-capital has heads set
-amongst the leaves
-almost exactly like
-the capitals of the
-Igel mausoleum at
-Trèves (see Fig. <a href='#fig-061'>61</a>).
-Another stone at the
-Guildhall is part of a
-frieze in two bands,
-the upper one of festoons and the lower one of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_111'>111</span>trees, and dogs coursing hares (Fig. <a href='#fig-062'>62</a>). Similar
-hunting subjects are found on foreign monuments;
-the festoons and the scale of the
-work are also appropriate for a
-structure of the mausoleum kind,
-and these five stones may very
-well have belonged to the same
-monument (Fig. <a href='#fig-063'>63</a>). On another
-stone at the Guildhall is part of
-an inscription in widely-spaced
-lines containing the letters ...
-<span class='fss'>R LXX</span>, doubtless part of <span class='fss'>ANNOR
-LXX</span>, which actually occurs on
-the tall headstone in the British
-Museum. At least two mausolea
-are probably represented by the
-stones at the Guildhall. Like the
-Igel monument, they were probably
-the tombs of rich merchants.
-There must have been a large
-number of tombs of this type
-in Britain. Bruce and Roach Smith illustrated
-and described foundations of three tombs by the
-Roman road near High Rochester,
-one circular and two square; the
-first was possibly big enough to
-have been a tomb-house. At
-Bath, some years ago, I noticed
-a stone which could only have
-been part of a square monument
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-064'>64</a>). This had the
-tops of the niches cut like
-shells.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-063'  class='figright id014'>
-<img src='images/i111a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 63.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Another stone at the Guildhall, found like the
-others in the Camomile Street bastion, has a short
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_112'>112</span>length of a decorated angle column recessed as a
-“nook-shaft” and about a foot in diameter (Fig. <a href='#fig-065'>65</a>).
-This, I think, must have formed part of a similar
-monument. (This stone is
-not, I think, given by Price,
-but it appears in an illustration
-in <i>J.B.A.A.</i>)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The mausolea of Londinium
-must have been very
-similar to the monuments at
-Trèves, and it may not be
-doubted that they would
-have been coloured as some
-of those were coloured. (I
-have a note that sculpture,
-as well as the decorative
-carving, was coloured.) The
-braided work of Early Saxon
-monuments would have been “picked out” in
-colour in a similar way, and I believe that fragments
-which have been found prove this.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-064'  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i111b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 64.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-065'  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i112.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 65.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-066'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i113.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 66.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-<h3 class='c024'><span class='sc'>Altar-Tombs</span></h3>
-
-<p class='c026'>Another type of tomb, of which many examples
-exist in the Museum at Trèves, is an altar-like
-structure having a square body surmounted by a
-slab ending in two big bolster-like rolls covered with
-scale or leaf ornament (see Espèrandieu). Tombs
-of this type have been found in Pompeii. We
-have in the British Museum parts of a very fine
-monument of this class. One of two stones is a
-great roll, and another has an inscription in handsome
-letters. These were found together in the
-foundations of one of the bastions of the City Wall
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_113'>113</span>at Tower Hill, as described in <i>The Builder</i>,
-September 4, 1852. In the illustration which was
-reproduced before (Fig. <a href='#fig-033'>33</a>), a pile of other stones
-is shown, one of which, a moulding with a return,
-may have been the base of the same monument.
-The inscribed stone in the British Museum shows
-that the body of the monument was made up of
-four stones arranged as in the plan (Fig. <a href='#fig-066'>66</a>), and
-cramped together; the size of this part was probably
-7 by 5 Roman feet. It was not a sarcophagus,
-as the form seems to suggest, but a chest in which
-an urn containing ashes was placed. The examples
-at Trèves show that it was lifted on a high base.
-The covering part of our monument was made up
-of three stones of which one of the two end-pieces
-is in the Museum. The two end-pieces had large
-volute-like rolls similar to those on altars—for
-example, the little altar of Diana at Goldsmiths’
-Hall. On these altars the central part usually
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_114'>114</span>rises again between the rolls into a gable-like shape,
-and that this type was followed in our tomb is
-shown by several examples at Trèves, as well as by
-the existing end stone which was evidently one of
-three; the little relief decoration on the remaining
-edge is suitable to have followed from relief carving
-in the central stone (Figs. <a href='#fig-066'>66</a> and <a href='#fig-067'>67</a>). This tomb
-was a work of high quality, but it is badly shown;
-the two stones could be set up together so as to
-show the size and importance of the monument.
-If this were done and the Haydon Square and
-Clapton sarcophagi were shown with it, we should
-obtain a better understanding of the monuments of
-Londinium.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-067'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i114.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 67.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Other memorials had sculptured figures. The
-hexagonal base of one of these found at Ludgate
-in 1806 (see before p. <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>), and now at the Guildhall,
-bears an inscription in memory of Claudia
-Martina, aged nineteen years. A much-injured
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_115'>115</span>female head found with it is accepted as having
-belonged to the same monument, and a dowel hole
-on the pedestal confirms the idea that it supported
-a figure which was probably a portrait statue. It
-may be observed that the capping of the pedestal
-is cut with rolls in the tradition of the altar-tombs.
-The good form of the letters, and the formula
-beginning D.M. and ending H.S.E., date this
-monument about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 100. I give in Fig. <a href='#fig-068'>68</a> a
-sketch from a careful etching published by Thos.
-Fisher in 1807. The ornamentation of the altar-like
-top can hardly be made out now, and even
-the inscription cannot be read in the imperfect
-light of the Guildhall Museum. A careful copy
-based on a rubbing should be put on record, for the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_116'>116</span>surfaces of such stones are all the time falling away
-in dust.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i115.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 68.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Several large half-round coping stones have
-from time to time been found in the bastions of the
-City Wall; they cannot have been taken from the
-wall itself, and so probably formed parts of monuments.
-Espèrandieu shows such a coping to a
-dwarf wall surrounding a statue, and in the little
-sketch (Fig. <a href='#fig-069'>69</a>) I suggest such an arrangement.
-Many half-round copings from monuments have
-been found at Chester.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Several small inscribed memorial tablets suggest
-that there were some buildings of the “Columbarium”
-type where the ashes of the dead might
-be placed. When after about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 250 burial in
-coffins superseded the older way of burial, individual
-or family tomb-houses were erected to
-contain the sarcophagi, and several such would
-doubtless have been found outside the walls of
-Londinium. Tomb-houses were not uncommon
-in Britain; they were usually square or circular
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_117'>117</span>(T. Ward, <i>Roman Era</i>, p. 139). At Holmwood
-Hill, Kent, a circular buttressed building 30 ft. in
-diameter (<i>Archæol.</i> xxi., p. 336) seems to have been
-such a tomb-house. Of the stone sarcophagus from
-Haydon Square it has been observed that “as the
-back is quite plain it evidently stood against a wall,
-perhaps the back of a small tomb-house” (J. Ward).
-Even the back slope of the cover was left plain; and
-the back of the Clapton sarcophagus is also plain.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-069'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i116.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 69.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-<h3 class='c024'><span class='sc'>Tomb-Houses</span></h3>
-
-<p class='c026'>Some of the sculptured fragments found in the
-Camomile Street bastion, while doubtless parts
-of sepulchral monuments, as Price thought, are of
-too large a scale to have belonged to mausolea of
-the Igel type. Two of the stones evidently came
-from angle pilasters of considerable scale. As Price
-said: “The size and weight of the stones indicate
-that the edifice was of proportions to bear comparison
-with the sepulchres in the vicinity of Rome:
-such monuments were placed near the city gates.”
-One of the fragments just mentioned has a nude
-boy or Cupid carved against a background of foliage
-on one face, while the return of the same stone contains
-similar ornament without the boy. Probably
-on the front face there were several little figures
-one over the other. This treatment for a pilaster
-is found on the monuments of Trèves. The boy
-on the stone at the Guildhall carries an object
-which Price thought might be a trident, but it is
-rather a torch; amorini and torches had a sepulchral
-significance. These big stones must have formed
-part of the angle pilasters of a large square tomb-house.
-They are more than 1¾ ft. wide, and one
-is over 3 ft. high, and contains two units of the fine
-carved pattern of very similar character to the
-carving on the Haydon Square sarcophagus. I
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_118'>118</span>should doubt if it is much earlier, say, <i>c.</i> <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 300
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-070'>70</a>). The pattern is evidently a simplification
-of the scheme shown in
-Fig. 61 from a tomb sculpture
-at Trèves, illustrated
-by Espèrandieu.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-070'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i118a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 70.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>At the Guildhall is a
-niche-head cut out of one
-stone into an arch form
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-071'>71</a>). It came from
-the Camomile Street
-bastion and very possibly
-formed part of a monument—perhaps
-a built-up
-niche surrounded a larger
-scale figure than the usual
-reliefs of the steles. Price
-associated this niche-head
-with the stele now at the
-Guildhall, but that was
-rather all in one stone
-(see my restoration in <i>Arch. Rev.</i>, 1913). A man’s
-head of larger size than that of the stele and
-separate from any
-background was
-found at the same
-time as the niche
-fragments, and the
-figure to which it
-belonged may have
-stood in the niche.
-Possibly, however,
-the stone formed
-the head of a small doorway. Another monument
-at the Guildhall is a crude and late sculpture of a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_119'>119</span>lion seizing some other animal. Many similar
-groups have been found in Britain and abroad. It
-would have had some symbolical significance.
-“Mythological” figures, such as Hercules and
-Atys, seem also to have been used for tombs.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-071'  class='figright id005'>
-<img src='images/i118b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 71.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>This examination of the few broken remnants
-of monuments that have been accidentally preserved,
-which obviously represent but a small
-percentage of those once existing in the cemeteries
-of Londinium, brings out a new criterion for an
-estimate of the dignity and opulence of the Roman
-city. To this evidence we may add the extent of
-the walls and the importance of the port, and the
-fact that the city was the key of the road system
-of the country. It was probably a seat of the
-Governor; in the Constantinian age it became a
-bishopric and a mint town. Then we have the
-quantity and costly nature of the imports which
-are known to us from objects in our museums—an
-immense quantity of Samian pottery, decorated
-glassware, silver, fine bronzes, etc. We also see
-how closely the monuments of London resembled
-those of Trèves, the later capital of Western Europe.
-Altogether I get the impression that Londinium
-must have been one of the most important commercial
-cities in the West. In the rote education
-of our schools, the great facts of our history are too
-much buried under an avalanche of minor details,
-and mere dates and names. If we can get a story
-written about Roman London, one scene must be
-set among the Tombs.</p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_120'>120</span>
-  <h2 id='ch06' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER VI</em><br /> <br />SCULPTURE</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='c022'>“Fantastic and even grotesque, it possesses a wholly unclassical fierceness and vigour, and not a few observers have remarked that it recalls not the Roman world, but the Middle Ages.”</p>
-<div class='c023'>—<span class='sc'>Haverfield</span> on the Corbridge lion.</div>
-<h3 class='c024'><span class='sc'>Imperial Statues</span></h3>
-<div id='fig-072'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i121.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 72.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'>A&nbsp;FEW broken fragments only remain to us,
-but they are sufficient to suggest to our
-imaginations the sculptures of Londinium.
-The finest work of sculpture found in London is
-the magnificent head from a bronze statue of the
-Emperor Hadrian, which was taken from the river
-near London Bridge in 1834. The head, with the
-neck, is 16½ in. high. It is really a masterly work of
-art, of Hellenistic character, and may, I think, be
-Alexandrian. The treatment of the head and beard
-is surprisingly like that of the marble Hadrian from
-Cyrene in the British Museum. Here we have
-the close-clipped beard and moustache; also the
-double row of curly locks of hair over the forehead
-from ear to ear, and the hair close cut behind, an
-arrangement suitable for the support of a wreath.
-The beard is again similar on a bronze head of a
-man found at Cyrene, in the British Museum.
-The projecting ears of the head of Hadrian are like
-the ears of the bronze head of Augustus in the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_121'>121</span>British Museum, found in Egypt. That the
-bronze head of Hadrian represents a statue and an
-erect figure is shown by the facts that one shoulder
-is higher than the other and the axis of the head
-and neck is bent. The figure must, I think, have
-had the left arm uplifted. The statue must have
-been a splendid object in some public place—possibly
-the square of the Forum, or on the bridge.
-In a cast, when seen close by, it looks lumpy and
-even dull, but the original bronze as set up in the
-Museum is not only powerful but vivid; notice
-the sharp eyebrows, the way the nose is set into the
-brow, the line on the forehead, and the strong
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_122'>122</span>expressive mouth (Fig. <a href='#fig-072'>72</a>, from Roach Smith).
-There is also in the British Museum a bronze hand,
-found in Thames Street, which seems similar to
-the head in scale and excellence of workmanship;
-moreover, faults in the casting have been repaired
-in a similar way on the neck and the wrist. Roach
-Smith seems to have thought that the head and
-the hand did not belong to the same statue. Speaking
-of the head he said: “It belonged to a colossal
-statue, two of which we may probably reckon
-among the public embellishments of London, for
-excavations in Thames Street, near the Tower,
-brought to light a colossal bronze hand 13 in. in
-length, which has been broken from a statue of
-about the same magnitude, and, apparently, judging
-from the attitude, from a statue of Hadrian
-also. The posture is similar to that of the marble
-statue in the British Museum.” Dr. Haverfield
-says of the head: “It appears to have belonged to
-a colossal statue of the emperor; the forehead is
-too short; the ears set out too obliquely; and
-the back of the head projects too strongly; the
-beard, too, is more closely cut than Hadrian usually
-wore it.” In another place he speaks of it as “a
-life-size head of the emperor Hadrian; whether it
-belonged to a colossal statue of the emperor I do
-not know, nor does it much matter”(!). In one
-aspect, Dr. Haverfield was a champion of things
-Roman in Britain; in another, he, as will be seen
-in regard to the mosaics, generally spoke slightingly
-of their quality.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>I may now sum up my conclusions. The head
-belonged to a standing statue. The hand, found
-separately, may have belonged to the same statue;
-it probably drooped and held a roll. The head
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_123'>123</span>has the characteristics of Hellenistic art. The
-expression is alert and eagle-like; the close-cropped
-beard already appears on the head of Mausolus in
-the British Museum, and seems to have been maintained
-as an Alexandrian tradition. The statue
-was doubtless imported and may well have been
-brought from Alexandria, a chief centre of bronze
-casting. Notice that repairs are executed in an
-exactly similar way on the head of “Aphrodite,”
-brought from Armenia and probably an Alexandrian
-work, <i>c.</i> 200 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> A little silver image of Harpocrates,
-also found in the Thames, is, I think, certainly
-an Alexandrian work. The bronze statue
-would have been set up as a memorial of the
-Emperor’s visit to Britain in 121. A “big brass”
-was struck in honour of the same event, inscribed
-<i>Adventus Augusti Britanniæ</i>, and the profile portrait
-on the coin is very like our head. It has the clipped
-beard and bears a laurel wreath. Hadrian was the
-first of the emperors to wear a beard, and we may
-take our bronze as evidence that he began with the
-clipped fashion. Not much attention has been
-given to this head as an early portrait of the emperor,
-but it is important from that point of view. Compare
-it with a small bronze bust of a later time
-found at Winchester and also in the British Museum.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Other remnants of large bronze statues have
-been found in London. Two fragments at the
-Guildhall are thus described: “(19) Arm of a
-bronze statue broken off below the elbow, 19 in.
-long; (21) Left hand of a statue, bronze, of heroic
-size, with traces of gilding, 9½ in. long. Found in
-a well to the east of Seething Lane.” From a
-notice in <i>The Builder</i> (May 3, 1884), it appears that
-the latter was found with coins of Nero and
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_124'>124</span>Vespasian during the construction of the Metropolitan
-Railway. An article in the <i>Journal of the
-Archæological Association</i> (vol. xxiv.) discusses other
-fragments of bronze statues. There must be
-evidence for the existence of four or five large
-bronze statues in Londinium. A bronze leg of a
-horse at the Society of Antiquaries, found in
-Lincoln, shows that equestrian figures—probably
-of emperors—were also known in Britain (cf. the
-Marcus Aurelius in Rome).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Other Portraits.</i>—In the Guildhall is a tomb with
-a relief of a soldier, larger and in higher relief than
-usual, which was found in the Camomile Street
-bastion, and probably occupied a place in the
-cemetery by Bishopsgate. This figure of a <i>signifer</i>
-is a little battered, and this accentuates a certain
-grimness of expression, but it is really a masterly
-work of unflattered portraiture. There cannot
-be many existing presentments of a Roman man
-more real; this has the face of a functionary, and
-the details of the costume are made out with careful
-accuracy. The mantle, or cape, partly stitched
-together in front, was like a chasuble. It was
-the <i>pænula</i> on which there is an excursus at the
-end of Becker’s <i>Gallus</i>. The sword had one of the
-ivory or bone hilts of which there is an example in
-the British Museum—every detail was evidently
-carefully studied from fact. Soldiers on the Trajan
-Column bear similar swords. It is probably an
-early second-century work. (The Colchester
-centurion (<i>c.</i> 100) has a similar sword-hilt.<a id='r1' /><a href='#f1' class='c027'><sup>[1]</sup></a>) When
-we learn to value and make due use of our antiquities
-a copy of this relief should be set up to stand for
-the fact of Roman rule in Londinium. I gave a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_125'>125</span>restoration of the whole slab in the <i>Architectural
-Review</i>, 1913; it has been wrongly restored in
-Price’s volume on the Camomile Street bastion.</p>
-
-<div class='fn'>
-
-<div class='footnote' id='f1'>
-<p class='c025'><span class='label'><a href='#r1'>1</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, <i>Gladius</i>.</p>
-</div>
-
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The relief of the Colchester centurion, Favonius
-Facilis, is really a fine work, one of the most perfect
-representations of a centurion which exist (cf.
-Daremberg and Saglio). The niche in which the
-figure stood had a shell represented on its rounded
-top; only the hinge-end
-of the bivalve appears
-at the apex, and the rest
-may have been indicated
-by painting.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-073'  class='figright id005'>
-<img src='images/i125.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 73.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>At Oxford there is a
-soldier’s memorial stone
-with a sculptured relief
-of a similar kind to the
-centurion of Colchester
-and the <i>signifer</i> just
-described. It was found
-at Ludgate Hill when
-Wren rebuilt St. Martin’s
-Church (Fig. <a href='#fig-073'>73</a>). According
-to <i>V.C.H.</i> the
-soldier carries a dagger
-in his right hand. This
-object is so long that Pennant called it “a
-sword of vast length like the claymore.” In
-fact, it is a rod held exactly as the Colchester
-centurion holds his stick, and I suppose it was a
-rod of office of some kind. The scroll the
-man carries in his left hand also suggests that he
-was more than a “private”; so also does the
-monument itself, which must have been costly.
-Roach Smith properly speaks of “stick and roll.”
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_126'>126</span>There is a good drawing of this monument in the
-Archer collection at the British Museum. I give
-here a sketch made from the original
-at Oxford. The figure is injured, but
-it was skilfully cut and gracefully posed.
-I should date it in the first half of the
-second century. At the Guildhall is a
-head larger than life-size found in the
-Camomile Street bastion, which, although
-battered, shows character (Fig. <a href='#fig-074'>74</a>). The discovery of a marble bust
-of a girl, near Walbrook, was recorded in <i>The
-Builder</i> of March 12, 1887.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-074'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i126.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 74.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Roman Gods and Impersonations.</i>—It is hardly
-brought out in the history books that the inhabitants
-of Britain possessed a great classical
-inheritance. I would say possess, but we do not
-seem to have determined whether we are British
-or only English. For a thousand years before the
-Teutonic invasions of the fifth century <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> Britain
-had been in touch with Greek and Roman cultures,
-and for centuries before that again some overflow
-from Mediterranean lands had reached this island,
-and the Celts themselves were a great European
-race. During five centuries from 100 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> to
-<span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 400 Britain became fully Romanised. After
-that time it was probably only some small balance
-of forces which gave us a Teutonic language, while
-France under somewhat similar circumstances retained
-a Latin tongue. Greek gods and, doubtless,
-Greek stories were known here long before the
-Roman occupation, as the British coins (the most
-beautiful money ever coined in these islands) show.
-Already when Ptolemy wrote his geography, Hartland
-Point, in Devonshire, was the promontory of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_127'>127</span>Herakles, and this is evidence which, together with
-figures of Hercules on the British coins, strongly
-suggests that some Hercules story became localised
-in Britain. Possibly, as the seas beyond the
-Gibraltar Straits became better known, the “Pillars
-of Hercules” were shifted to the headland facing
-the Atlantic. Hercules rescuing Hesione appears
-as a subject on Castor pottery. “This, and the
-corresponding scene of Perseus and Andromeda,
-were popular in Britain and Gaul,” says Dr. Haverfield,
-and adds: “Whether the scenes conveyed any
-symbolic meaning in these lands I should greatly
-doubt.” I incline the other way. It is to be
-remarked that several altars dedicated to Hercules
-have been found in Britain: one at Corbridge is
-inscribed in Greek to the Syrian Hercules—that is,
-the same who had the famous temple at Gades.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>During the Roman rule, the Olympian gods and
-minor classical genii were, of course, fully adopted,
-and the monuments show interesting transitions
-of thought. Jove became a single supreme deity,
-while the most of the other chief gods were associated
-with the planets and the days of the week—1
-Sol, 2 Luna, 3 Mars, 4 Mercury, 5 Jupiter, 6
-Venus, 7 Saturn. This stage of thought is represented
-by the Jove and Giant Pillars before
-described.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-075'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i128a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 75.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>On the fragment from Chesterford at the British
-Museum we have Mercury with his wand, Jupiter
-with bearded face, and Venus with a mirror.
-These figures can be completed by comparison
-with others. There is a relief of Mercury at
-Gloucester. Another, illustrated by Espèrandieu,
-is of the same sort; he seems always to have carried
-a pouch in his right hand (Fig. <a href='#fig-075'>75</a>). At the Goldsmiths’
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_128'>128</span>Hall is a little altar having a relief of Diana
-on the front, a group of sacrificial utensils on the
-back, and simple reliefs of two trees on the returns.
-The figure is charming, graceful and
-well proportioned. The pose and
-setting in the panel are very similar
-to the soldier relief at Colchester,
-and I should date it about the same
-time, <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 100-150. The figure is
-very like a small bronze found near
-St. Paul’s, of which Allen gave an
-illustration; that also held a bow,
-and with the lifted right hand took
-an arrow from the quiver behind her
-shoulder. The objects carved on the
-back of the altar are a table of offerings
-(compare the leg of a piece of
-furniture in Leicester Museum), a jug and probably
-a dipper (Fig. <a href='#fig-076'>76</a>). Archer, who published etchings
-of the reliefs, thought he saw a hare here, but this
-was a misreading of the obscure forms. This altar
-must have belonged to some temple or shrine.
-As Dr. Haverfield says of a somewhat similar relief
-of Diana found near Bath: “We
-need not doubt that passers-by worshipped
-Diana of the Romans.”</p>
-
-<div id='fig-076'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i128b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 76.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>At the Guildhall is the upper part
-of a terra-cotta image of Ceres, and
-fragments of a Hercules, perhaps from
-a tomb, were found at Ludgate in
-1806. There are many small bronze
-figures in our museums—altogether
-quite a Pantheon could be made up of images
-found in Britain, and these, I feel, belong to us
-in a special way.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_129'>129</span>In the form of impersonations of the days, the
-seven gods might still be available in a modern art
-language if we had sufficient sense to construct such
-an Esperanto.<a id='r2' /><a href='#f2' class='c027'><sup>[2]</sup></a></p>
-
-<div class='fn'>
-
-<div class='footnote' id='f2'>
-<p class='c025'><span class='label'><a href='#r2'>2</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>I may say here that I have made some collections for
-a sort of Art-language Dictionary, attempting to register such
-forms and symbols as might be available for modern use, but I
-suppose nothing will come of it.</p>
-</div>
-
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The Roman impersonations of places and ideas
-are nearer to us than the gods, and they indeed
-belong to universal poetry. Chief of these is
-<i>Britannia</i>, the “Sacred Britain” of the inscriptions.
-This impersonation was “revived” (we may truly
-say so in this case, for it had life and reality in it)
-for our coins in the seventeenth century. It is
-astonishing evidence of the paralysis of modern
-architectural thought how little use has been made
-of this noble imagination which ultimately derives
-from the gold and ivory Athene of Phidias, and yet
-is our very own. A seated variant of the standing
-Athene was made to represent the goddess Rome,
-and this in turn was the source of our <i>Britannia</i>.
-Next in importance were the impersonations of
-cities, and every city and station had a representative
-figure which stood for its spirit, its genius, itself.
-Our French friends, in their images of the City of
-Paris or of Strasbourg, still make use of the idea, but
-we have ceased to know that a city is more than
-a congested area where landlords hire out what
-they call houses. I wonder if London were given
-an image whether it might not acquire a new sense
-of soul.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the London Museum is a pretty and well-sculptured
-figure which is, I think, a city impersonation
-and may be <i>Londinium</i>. It is one of two
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_130'>130</span>sculptures in marble which seem to have been
-found about 1887, together with a Mithraic relief,
-on the bank of the Walbrook. It was at first
-identified as Fortune, but Dr. Haverfield objected
-that Fortune would have been a female figure, and
-he suggested “<i>Bonus Eventus</i>, or a genius”; at the
-London Museum it is entitled <i>Bonus Eventus</i>. It
-would be hardly possible to bring forward any
-nearly similar figure with such a designation; on
-the other hand, a genius of Rome having a striking
-resemblance to our figure is one of the commonest
-types of the later coinage. Our figure, a graceful
-youth, holds a great cornucopia against his left
-shoulder and pours with his right hand a libation
-on an altar from a patera; a serpent rising from the
-altar winds around his wrist; by his left leg is the
-prow of a ship. He has two wreaths or collars
-around his neck and is partially draped; his mantle
-seems to have fallen from his head like a veil, and
-this suggests that he wore a mural crown or a
-modius. Now the genius of the Roman people on
-the coins was represented with a modius on his
-head, a horn of abundance in his left hand, and a
-patera from which he pours, in his right. Such a
-figure occurs on several coins which bear the Mint
-mark of London and the legend <i>Genio Populi Romani</i>.
-It is quite possible that our statue may be the genius
-of Londinium itself. It is known that our British
-Roman towns had impersonations wearing mural
-crowns—a fragment of such a figure has been found
-at Silchester. Our figure is clearly of the nature
-of Fortune, and the impersonations of towns were
-their Fortunes. The ship and the horn of plenty,
-piled up with fruits, corn and articles of commerce,
-are especially appropriate for a busy port. I
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_131'>131</span>suggest that this figure might, and should be,
-adopted as the impersonation and image of the City
-of London.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>I had already written this
-when I found a figure illustrated
-in Bruce’s book on the
-Roman Wall, which is a close
-parallel to our figure. It was
-found at Netherby, and is
-described thus: “The best
-piece of sculpture belonging
-to this station represents
-the Genius of the Castrum
-wearing the mural crown
-and engaged in the grateful
-task of pouring an offering
-to the superior powers”
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-077'>77</a>). The resemblance
-of this figure
-to that
-in the London Museum proves, I
-think, that that is the genius of
-a place, as does also the serpent
-which rises from the altar. An
-altar “To the Genius Loci,” found
-at Chester, represented the genius
-holding a cornucopia. Compare
-two altars figured by Lysons (<i>Reliq.</i>,
-pl. lviii.) of similar figures apparently
-male, each with patera, altar,
-snake and cornucopia. Fig. <a href='#fig-078'>78</a> is
-one of those in the British Museum.)</p>
-
-<div id='fig-077'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i131a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 77.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Wren, in an early design for the Monument,
-proposed that it should be surmounted by a civic
-impersonation.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-078'  class='figleft id003'>
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_132'>132</span>
-<img src='images/i131b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 78.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In Roman days every place and almost every
-field had its <i>genius loci</i>—an idea which we still
-timidly preserve as a
-“figure of speech.”
-Many British inscriptions
-and sculptures relate to
-Silvanus, Rivers and
-Fountains; to the Deities
-of the Fields of Britain
-(think of that now!), to
-Nymphs of the Springs
-(think again of ours choked
-with tins and old shoes),
-and to the God of Ways
-and Paths (perhaps such
-an image would do some
-good at Liverpool Street
-and King’s Cross).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-079'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i132a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 79.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The other marble
-sculpture found with the
-Genius is the torso of a river god of a well-known
-type—and very well carved. The figure reclined
-supported by his left arm; the right hand carried
-a long water reed which rested against his right
-shoulder (Fig. <a href='#fig-079'>79</a>). The
-head, with long curling
-hair and beard, is in a
-tradition which derives
-from the Zeus of Phidias,
-and the body had its
-prototype in the reclining
-figures of the
-Parthenon pediments.
-Some reliefs of similar river gods occupy the spandrels
-of the Arch of Constantine. Bruce illustrated a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_133'>133</span>very similar figure which represented the North
-Tyne (Fig. <a href='#fig-080'>80</a>). We have every right to assume
-that the torso in the London Museum may be called
-the Thames. There is some reason, from the
-conditions of discovery, to think that this figure
-and the Genius before described occupied places in
-a Mithraic cell by the Walbrook. That a river
-impersonation and a genius of locality should be so
-found together strengthens the evidence that they
-represented London and Father Thames. Modern
-figures of the Thames and other rivers existed in
-seventeenth-century London.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-080'  class='figright id004'>
-<img src='images/i132b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 80.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Mithras, etc.</i>—At the London Museum is a
-Mithraic relief, rough and small, but a valuable
-document. In the centre is Mithras and the bull,
-surrounded by the circle of the Zodiac. “Outside
-in one upper corner the Sun drives up his
-four-horse chariot, and in the other the Moon
-is driving her car downwards. Beneath are two
-winged heads, probably symbolising the Winds”
-(Haverfield). These heads are very well carved
-and quite pretty; so are the Zodiac signs. This
-is one of many cases of the similarity of monuments
-in London and at Trèves. On the celebrated Igel
-monument is found another Zodiac, the signs of
-which (so far as they exist) are practically identical
-with those on our stone. In the spandrels are
-“heads of wind-gods, emblematic of the four
-cardinal points.” These heads are winged like
-those on the London stone, and the comparison
-allows us to be sure of the interpretation of the
-latter: the rising Sun is East, the setting Moon is
-West, the bearded head is North, and the youthful
-one South.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A small figure found in Bevis Marks, and now in
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_134'>134</span>the British Museum, is usually identified as Atys.
-I have some doubt whether it was not rather
-Silvanus; but it may be a grave monument, and for
-such a purpose a figure of Atys would be appropriate.
-A small figure of Hercules at the Guildhall was also
-probably, as before said, a tomb sculpture.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the London Museum is another small sculpture,
-this time in relief, of a figure seemingly in countryman’s
-costume, standing in a roughly-formed niche
-or rock recess. By his side is some implement like
-a yoke, but I cannot suggest any explanation. It
-has “character,” and I should like to know what it
-means. It was found in Drury
-Lane.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-081'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i134.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 81.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Bagford, in his letter to Hearne
-(1714), mentions a Janus head dug
-up at St. Thomas Watering on
-the Dover Road by Bermondsey,
-also a glass urn at Peckham, and
-several other Roman things at
-Blackheath. The Janus head
-was about a foot and a half
-high, and seemed to have been fixed to a square
-column or terminus. It was illustrated by Horsley.
-One of the two faces was Jupiter Ammon with
-ram’s horns, the other was female.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>I cannot here do more than mention the dozens
-of small bronzes, some of high excellence, which
-have been found in London; doubtless most or
-all of these were imported. Mr. Chaffers saw a
-beautiful bronze of an archer with inlaid eyes of
-silver taken out of the mud in Queen Street, Cheapside,
-in 1842. A pretty bronze relief of Hope was
-found in Thames Street in 1840 (<i>V.C.H.</i>). I must
-just refer to a delightful little bronze Genius,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_135'>135</span>found at Brandon, and now in the British Museum,
-which holds a double horn of plenty. This, again,
-is probably a locality genius. Many of the small
-clay lamps found in London have pretty reliefs on
-them, such as a figure of Victory, a head of Luna
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-081'>81</a>), a bird, or an animal. Altogether we
-have quite a large gallery of classical imagery of
-our own.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-082'  class='figleft id016'>
-<img src='images/i135.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 82.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Ornament.</i>—Carved decorations were for the
-most part rude and rapidly cut, but they
-show some fresh thought and are very
-different from the defunct details which
-now pass for “classic.” At the Guildhall
-is part of a frieze of small scale (Fig. <a href='#fig-062'>62</a>)
-which has running animals alternating with
-trees. This suggestion of the forest was a
-popular motive of the time, and is found
-frequently on our native-made Castor
-pottery. Haverfield suggested that it might
-be a Celtic motive, but it is found on
-Samian pottery, and Espèrandieu illustrates
-a similar frieze of higher quality
-found at Mainz. All the Roman architectural
-carvings found in Britain, it may
-again be said, very closely resemble
-works found in Gaul, and especially at Trèves.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i136a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 83.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-084'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i136b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 84.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The wide pilaster at the Guildhall (Fig. <a href='#fig-070'>70</a>), also
-mentioned before, has a boldly designed relief
-of foliage arranged in a series of oval forms, one
-over the other. The interior of each unit is filled
-by the leafage being bent downwards. The same
-scheme occurs on a mosaic floor found in Dorsetshire,
-now in the British Museum (Fig. <a href='#fig-082'>82</a>). Fine
-Corinthian capitals have been found at Cirencester
-and Bath; even in these we find the spirit of experiment
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_136'>136</span>constantly at work. An example sketched
-at Angers in France is given in Fig. <a href='#fig-083'>83</a>. The most
-elegant piece of architectural decoration executed
-in Britain, which is known to me, is a frieze found at
-Bath, which is somewhat singular in bold freshness
-of treatment (Fig. <a href='#fig-084'>84</a>). Again, this can be explained
-by comparison with a mosaic pattern. At first
-sight it seems an ordinary piece of scroll work, but
-examination reveals that the alternate elements
-were complete circles. This frieze is broken at a
-point which might seem to leave room for a little
-doubt as to this, and my figure is slightly restored;
-but the border of a mosaic floor found at Frampton
-furnishes us with a complete example of the same
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_137'>137</span>treatment, and this excludes any doubt (Fig. <a href='#fig-085'>85</a>).
-Fig. 86 represents a more ordinary scroll frieze from
-Chester, but even this is brightened by the little
-birds set in the corner spaces. Fig. <a href='#fig-087'>87</a> is the soffit
-of a corona member from Bath, also alive and
-inventive.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-085'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i137a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 85.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i137b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 86.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>All this is very different from the “Roman style”
-of books and the commentaries on Vitruvius. We
-may see in such provincial Roman works an early
-stage of Romanesque art and even the beginnings
-of Gothic. Again, the fragment of a column at
-the British Museum, carved over with a lattice
-pattern having foliage in the interspaces, is particularly
-interesting as an example of an “all-over”
-diaper pattern, and a prototype of Romanesque
-carved shafts. At Trèves there are many examples
-of much more elaborate diaper patterns of the same
-type. Such continuous surface decorations speak
-rather of what was to be in the romance ages than of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_138'>138</span>the past of classical art. Even the series of acanthus
-leaves arranged like tiles on the “roof” of the
-sarcophagus found at Haydon Square shows adaptive
-invention and pleasure (that is what it comes to)
-in the doing (Fig. <a href='#fig-050'>50</a>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>If ever we awake to make use of our inheritance
-and set about civilising London, we might yet gain
-something of value from the Roman sculptures
-which have been discussed. A replica
-of the splendid head of Hadrian might
-be joined on to a bronze cast from one
-of the figures of the emperor in the British
-Museum and re-erected, resurrected, as a
-visible symbol of the Roman age in Britain
-and London. Set on a tall pedestal, it
-would make a noble monument. Copies
-of the Ludgate Hill Soldier and of the
-“Signifer” at the Guildhall, we might
-place against each side, and the reclining
-River God—the Thames—in front, with
-an enlargement of the Genius Loci at the
-London Museum above it. Such a monument
-would be something to tell the
-children about, and it might even move
-the business men to occasional thoughts
-outside the fluctuations of stock.</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id014'>
-<img src='images/i138.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 87.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Symbolism.</i>—Romano-British sculpture was certainly
-not over-refined; indeed, much of it was
-just the opposite. But ideas were embodied,
-and many of the things had simple and poetic
-meanings. The power of making impersonations
-is specially to be noted, whereby an image stood for
-a thing as definitely as its name—Sun, Moon and
-Planets, Seasons, Winds and Waters, Countries,
-Cities and localities, events and wishes. Fragments
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_139'>139</span>of a set of reliefs of seasons found at Bath, represented
-by nude boys carrying flowers, a reaping-hook,
-etc.; the winged heads of Winds; and the
-rising and setting Sun of the Mithraic panel at the
-London Museum talk a universal language.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Some study of the sepulchral monuments of
-Roman Britain gives many indications of the thought
-of the time. The coming in of the coffin, and then
-of the double coffin of lead and stone, suggests
-some concern as to an awaking after the sleep of
-death. The lack of late funeral inscriptions is
-another indication of transition. The old mythology
-was softened and the characters were
-allegorised and reinterpreted in harmony with
-the mystery cults. We have seen that the Jove
-and Giant columns suggested triumph over evil.
-Mrs. Strong has dealt with this subject in regard to
-continental monuments (<i>J.R.S.</i>, 1911): “There
-is frequent preoccupation as to survival on these
-tombstones.” The cult of Atys was revived under
-Mithraism, as appears from “countless gravestones
-... an expression of hope, of resurrection; so,
-too, his pine-cone must be symbolical of the belief;
-there are numerous examples in <i>Britannia</i>.” In the
-Roman corridor at the British Museum is a fragment
-from the North of England, described as the
-upper part of a niche, which can hardly be other
-than the top of a grave slab; on it are two peacocks
-between three pine-cones. Peacocks were symbols
-of immortality. The baskets of fruit carved on the
-Haydon Square tomb could only have one meaning.
-Compare a Gaulish tomb illustrated by Espèrandieu
-(iii., No. 1789), on which is carved a peacock pecking
-at the fruit from such a basket, which is upset
-towards it. The sepulchral banquet symbolises
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_140'>140</span>some sort of paradise. In examples of these at
-Chester, we find birds perched on festoons above
-the main subject, and we have found an example
-of birds and festoons in London.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The group before mentioned of a lion seizing
-another animal was in some way “apotropaic”—that
-is, it warded off evil influences like a horseshoe
-on a door. At Colchester is a group of a
-sphinx having a skull between its paws, which is
-much finer in style (compare Espèrandieu, No.
-4675). Probably there were similar tombs in
-London; in the British Museum is a pretty little
-bone carving of such a sphinx.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A grave slab at Cirencester has a sphinx and
-two lions carved on it as acroteria. A somewhat
-similar slab, found in the north by the Roman
-wall, has two lions with skulls. A lead coffin of
-specially fine workmanship, found at Sittingbourne,
-but doubtless made in London, now shown at the
-British Museum, has pairs of lions guarding a vase
-(compare Espèrandieu, 4715), and little medallions
-of the Gorgon’s head on it (Fig. <a href='#fig-152'>152</a>). The most important
-example of apotropaic sculpture in Britain
-is the great Gorgon’s head in the pediment of the
-small Corinthian temple found at Bath.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The apotropaic nature of this sculpture has not,
-I think, been brought out. It has been explained
-as a symbol of Minerva, and the building has been
-called the Temple of Minerva; but for this there
-is no evidence. (I may say here that Lysons
-assigned to this building a fragment of an inscription
-which mentions repairs, but I do not think that this
-fragment should be separated from another which
-clearly belonged to a second building. Since writing
-this, I find that Mr. Irvine had already made a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_141'>141</span>similar observation. Wonder has been expressed
-that this head should be bearded, but this appears
-to be the Italian tradition.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In any story of life in Roman London, some
-of the atmosphere of mixed faiths and symbols
-suggested in Kingsley’s <i>Hypatia</i> should appear.</p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_142'>142</span>
-  <h2 id='ch07' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER VII</em><br /> <br />THE MOSAICS</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='c022'>“Here is grandeur of form, dignity of character, and great breadth of treatment which reminds me of the best Greek schools. Were I a painter I should venture to enlarge upon the quality and distribution of colour.”</p>
-<div class='c023'>—<span class='sc'>Westmacott.</span></div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'>SOME screen appears to be set up between
-us and our Roman works of art. Even the
-mosaics, which we might have supposed
-would have been interesting—even fascinating—seem
-to be regarded as mere museum objects and
-subjects for antiquarian tracts. So far as I know
-there is only one book which considers them as a
-whole (Morgan’s <i>Romano-British Mosaics</i>), and this
-is rather a full index than a discussion of their
-artistic qualities. An excellent chapter in Ward’s
-<i>Roman Buildings</i> should be mentioned. Even professional
-scholars apologise for them. Dr. Haverfield
-wrote: “They have the look of work imitated
-from patterns rather than of designs sketched by
-artists.”... “We admire them mainly, I think,
-because they are old and expensive. Few Romano-British
-mosaics are real works of art.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Against such a judgment I will call three
-witnesses—Westmacott, the sculptor, as above,
-William Morris, the master pattern designer, and
-Mr. Alfred Powell. Morris says: “This splendid
-Roman scrollwork, though not very beautiful in
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_143'>143</span>itself, is the parent of very beautiful things. It is
-perhaps in the noble craft of mosaic that the foreshadowings
-of the new art are best seen. There is
-a sign in them of the coming wave of the great
-change which was to turn late Roman art, the last
-of the old, into Byzantine art, the first of the new.”
-Mr. Powell, who repaired the Orpheus Pavement
-at the Barton, Cirencester, and became thoroughly
-acquainted with the powerfully-drawn animals on
-it, says: “These creatures of the forest have been
-set out here in the tiny scraps of coloured stone with
-an ease and mastery that is remarkable. There is
-grace in their gesture that has seldom been reached
-in the art of even the highest period of the life of
-a nation.” The Woodchester Orpheus Pavement,
-which, judging from points of resemblance in design
-and details (a horned and bearded griffin, for instance),
-must have been by the same master, was a
-magnificent work, as, indeed, the fragment of its
-splendid border in the British Museum is enough
-to show.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Completer lists of London mosaics than I can
-attempt here have been given in other places (see
-Morgan’s <i>Romano-British Mosaics</i>, C. Roach Smith’s
-<i>Roman London</i>, and <i>V.C.H.</i>). Here and there all
-over the city at depths of from about 8 ft. to 20 ft.
-pavements have been found submerged by the
-rising levels of the ground. Scores have been noted,
-many must have been destroyed without a record,
-and doubtless some yet lie hidden to-day. In
-an old MS. Common-place Book I have is the following
-note: “On Wed., Aug. 15, 1733, some
-bricklayers digging foundations in Little St.
-Helen’s, Bishopsgate, discovered a Roman pavement,
-which by ye inscription [?] had been laid
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_144'>144</span>about 1700 years ago. It appeared a very beautiful
-prospect, being in mosaic working, the tiles not
-above an inch square.”</p>
-
-<div id='fig-088'  class='figcenter id017'>
-<img src='images/i144.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 88.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>My purpose is to record a few fresh observations,
-to bring out by grouping and comparison some
-general inferences and indications of date, to evoke,
-if I could, some clear idea of the buildings to which
-such things belonged, and to prepare the way for a
-full study of these remarkable works.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>The Bacchus Mosaic.</i>—The central panel and
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_145'>145</span>fragments of borders of this mosaic are in the
-British Museum. A careful original drawing of
-the whole is at the Society of Antiquaries, and an
-admirable engraving by Fisher was published in
-1804 (Fig. <a href='#fig-088'>88</a>). It was found in 1803 under East
-India House, Leadenhall Street. The patterned
-part of the pavement occupied a square of about
-11 ft., “the whole was environed by a margin consisting
-of coarse red tesseræ an inch square traced
-to the extent of 5½ ft. on the N.W. side—[note
-that it and the building it occupied was diagonal
-to the points of the compass]—but could not be
-followed further. The room could not have been
-less than 22 ft. square; but was <i>in all probability
-considerably larger</i>.”</p>
-
-<div id='fig-089'  class='figcenter id017'>
-<img src='images/i145.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 89.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_146'>146</span>The central panel of Bacchus reclining on a
-Tiger, at the Museum, has been restored and
-repolished. It may not now seem very attractive,
-but it is most competent in the balance of the
-forms and the strong, even fierce, drawing of the
-tiger; its bold eye, gleaming teeth, powerful paws,
-and the baggy skin of the legs are wonderfully
-truthful (Fig. <a href='#fig-089'>89</a>). Notice that Bacchus carries a
-wine cup; this is the essential part of the design
-of the mosaic which doubtless was the floor of the
-central hall of an important house. The brighter
-coloured tesseræ are of coloured glass.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-090'  class='figcenter id010'>
-<img src='images/i146.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 90.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>The Bacchante Mosaic.</i>—One of the finest of the
-London mosaics was found under the old Excise
-Office, Broad Street. I have an original drawing
-of it by Fairholt, dated March 1, 1854 (Fig. <a href='#fig-090'>90</a>).
-The best authorities are two large original coloured
-drawings, one by Archer in the British Museum
-and the other at the Society of Antiquaries. The
-central panel had a white ground and black border;
-the Nymph had reddish flesh and a light greenish
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_147'>147</span>scarf; the Panther seems to have been a grey-buff
-spotted black. There was much black and white
-in the pattern work, and some of the fillings were of
-black and white triangles.</p>
-
-<div  class='figright id009'>
-<img src='images/i147.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 91.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>It was described at the time of finding as having
-formed a square of 28 ft.; it was diagonally about
-north and south and 15 ft. below the surface. The
-central subject was “Ariadne or a Bacchante reclining
-on a panther.” In <i>V.C.H.</i> it was said to
-be “Europa on the Bull,” but the drawings agree
-with the former description.
-The composition
-is very similar to the
-Bacchus, and doubtless
-a wine cup was held by
-the Bacchante also.
-Notice that vases appear
-elsewhere in the design.
-The panel was about 2½
-ft. square. This fine floor
-was taken to the Crystal
-Palace, where it seems to
-have disappeared. From
-its size and subject we
-may suppose that it was the floor of the central dining-hall
-of some big house. The drawing and balanced
-design of the central group is wonderfully skilful as
-space filling. Fig. <a href='#fig-091'>91</a> is based on original drawings
-of the floor at the Society of Antiquaries and the
-British Museum and a sketch in the Wollaston
-Collection at South Kensington. This mosaic should
-be compared with a floor found at Bignor, which is
-very similar in its details, and probably, I think, by
-the same artist. There the centre is occupied by
-Jove’s eagle and Ganymede, the cupbearer to the gods.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_148'>148</span><i>Vase-Panel Mosaic.</i>—In his account of discoveries
-at Bucklersbury, Price describes a floor
-found in St. Mildred’s Court which must have
-been one of the finer kind. “A square enclosed
-a circle containing a vase in brown, red and white
-with the addition of bright green glass. Around
-the vase there appeared portions of a tree with
-foliage; also an object resembling an archway
-with embattled figures and other objects, the meaning
-of which is difficult to describe without an
-illustration. Around the whole were two simple
-bands of black tesseræ separating the circle from an
-elaborate scroll of foliage and flowers, analogous to
-that on one of the pavements at Bignor. At each
-corner was a flower showing eight petals of varied
-colours. From the centre of each sprang two
-branches, which united in a leaf in form like that
-within the scroll. The entire design is bordered
-by the guilloche in seven intertwining bands of
-black, red, brown and white tesseræ. A drawing
-of this interesting floor was in the possession of
-Mr. G. Plucknett.” The central panel must have
-been a formal landscape—a large wine krater
-backed by a tree and an arcade with figures on the
-parapet. In another place Price names it again
-amongst mosaics which had glass tesseræ; probably
-the tree was of green glass. This pavement also
-doubtless occupied a dining-hall. In an earlier
-account (<i>London and Middlesex Archæol. Soc.
-Proceed.</i> iii.) Price says: “When perfect it was
-of some extent, resembling those discovered at
-East India House and the Excise Office. In the
-centre was a vase similar to those at the Excise
-Office, and around it a scroll of foliage beautifully
-arranged. The fragments were packed in
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_149'>149</span>cases and sent to the workshops of Messrs.
-Cubitt.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>An Orpheus Mosaic (?).</i>—Roach Smith reported
-the existence, below Paternoster Row, of what must
-have been an exceptionally fine pavement, which
-was broken up before any proper record of it could
-be made. This “superb pavement extended at
-least 40 ft.; towards the centre were compartments
-in which in variegated colours were birds and beasts
-surrounded by a rich guilloche border.” The
-wording suggests a square room, and the two former
-examples show that large square rooms existed in
-London. In the villa at Woodchester the chief
-central room was nearly 50 ft. square; the pavement
-had “a central circular compartment; within
-the border was a wide circular band containing
-representations of animals, inside was a smaller
-band containing birds; on the southern side was a
-figure of Orpheus.” The description of the London
-mosaic suggests that it, too, had for subject Orpheus
-charming the beasts. It was found about 1840 at
-a depth of 12 ft. In 1843 part of a mosaic floor,
-“with birds and beasts within a guilloche border,”
-was found at a depth of 12½ ft. below the offices of
-the Religious Tract Society at the corner of Cannon
-Row (<i>V.C.H.</i>). Is it not probable that this was
-another part of the pavement described by Roach
-Smith?</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Inscribed Floor.</i>—A mosaic pavement found in
-Pudding Lane as lately as 1886, and bearing an
-important inscription, was destroyed before any
-sufficient record of it was made. A printed version
-of the lettering was given in the <i>Archæological
-Journal</i> of the same year by Dr. Haverfield, with
-some comments. (Also see <i>S.A. Proceedings</i>, xiv. 6,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_150'>150</span>and <i>V.C.H.</i>) In the collections of the Society of
-Antiquaries I find a sketch of it by Henry Hodge, a
-careful draughtsman of the time. This drawing is
-said to have been made “from a sketch by I. W.
-Jolly and fragments,” so that its strict accuracy is
-questionable. It appears that it was complete on
-the right but imperfect on the left-hand side. On
-the right some parts of the pattern covering the rest
-of the floor and a border are shown and some
-dimensions are given. It looks as if the panel was
-about 5 ft. across and was the centre of a strip 7 ft.
-or 8 ft. wide. The letters were about 3 in. high,
-black on a white ground; the last four seem to
-have been D. S. P. D.—<i>de sua pecunia dedit</i>—and
-this would imply that the mosaic belonged to a
-temple. The destruction of these mosaics is a sad
-witness to the nineteenth-century type of intelligence.
-Of all of them only the fragments of the
-Bacchus pavement are now known to exist. I should
-like to find out what became of the Bacchante
-pavement sent to the Crystal Palace, and whether
-the vase mosaic is still in packing cases at Messrs.
-Cubitt’s. I wonder, too, what became of Mr. G.
-Plucknett’s drawing, and wish I could get tidings of
-it. The great pavement in Paternoster Row seems
-to have been destroyed without even a drawing
-being made; while the sketch taken by Mr. Jolly of
-the inscribed floor has, so far as I know, been burnt.
-And this was the high age of university education!</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Bucklersbury.</i>—The most perfect of the existing
-mosaics is the complete and restored pavement
-with an apsidal end found in Bucklersbury. A good
-account of it while yet in its place is given in <i>The
-Builder</i> (1869): “It lies fresh and bright as when
-it was first put down.... It is to be hoped that
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_151'>151</span>some pains will be taken to trace the remaining
-walls of the building to which this speaking pavement
-belongs.” Here, again, although the apartment
-was not large and the ornamental mosaic
-was more than a central panel, there was a broad
-border of the coarse tesseræ. Besides having been
-a saving, the contrast of the plain red with the
-variegated central area seems to have been liked.
-The interlacing squares of this pavement resemble
-those of the Excise Office floor, and its central rose
-is like a panel in the same floor. An angle-filling is
-similar to a quarter of the central pattern filling
-the centre of the small India Office pavement,
-which, again, had interlacing squares. A single
-cross-like pattern filling a panel in the British
-Museum is again like that of the India House mosaic.
-Many such references could be carried much
-further, not only in regard to London pavements,
-but including the country ones also. I reach the
-conclusion that they are for the most part nearly
-of the same date, and that many were by the same
-artists.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Fenchurch Street.</i>—A fragment of what must have
-been a fine floor was found in 1859 and is now in
-the British Museum. It is part of a panel which
-contained a vase and two birds. An illustration
-given in Price’s <i>Bucklersbury</i> shows that there was a
-margin of coarse tesseræ beyond, and that the panel
-must have been one of a series making up a handsome
-border. A fragment of a floor with a wide border
-divided into panels has lately been found at Colchester.
-Roach Smith described the former as “what
-would seem to have been an extensive pavement,”
-and he calls the bird a peacock. A good coloured
-drawing, in the Archer collection, of the fragment
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_152'>152</span>shows the bird’s neck a bright blue; the blue
-tesseræ were of glass. Fig. <a href='#fig-092'>92</a> is from Price, but I
-have dotted in on the top right-hand corner the
-line of a more modern building from Roach Smith’s
-illustration. This is one example of many cases in
-which more recent walls have been carried up from
-the Roman level and square with a Roman building.
-(A in fig., and compare Fig. <a href='#fig-090'>90</a>.)</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id011'>
-<img src='images/i152.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 92.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i153a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 93.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i153b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 94.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i153c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 95.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Birchin Lane, etc.</i>—In 1785 a small piece was
-discovered here of “a fine tesselated pavement of
-very small bricks and stones; of this, only one
-corner appeared, which is composed of black, green,
-and white stones and brick, forming a beautiful
-border.” Another account says that “the tesseræ
-measured about one-quarter of an inch and were
-of various colours.” I am particular about this,
-for the bright colours were doubtless of glass. I
-find a contemporary drawing of this fragment in
-the Guildhall Library, from which it appears that
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_153'>153</span>there was a fair blue besides the colours mentioned.
-(Fig. 93; compare Fig. <a href='#fig-092'>92</a> and a border illustrated
-by Mr. Ward.) Outside it were big red “brick”
-tesseræ. There is in the Guildhall Museum a
-fragment of another mosaic found in Birchin Lane.
-It is part of a star-shaped all-over pattern of a
-well-known type (the Barton Cirencester, etc.).
-Fig. 94 A shows the fragment, and Fig. <a href='#fig-095'>95</a> is a diagram
-of the complete pattern. Another piece at the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_154'>154</span>Guildhall has a sea-monster of small scale but most
-skilful execution. The place of finding is not
-noted, but it is probably a fragment discovered in
-Birchin Lane in 1857, described in <i>V.C.H.</i> as part
-of a pavement “representing a sea-horse.” Two
-other small pieces in the same museum are very
-similar in colour and quality, and may have come
-from the same source. One of these seems to have
-belonged to a pavement of square panels of knot-work
-framed in scroll bands (Fig. 94, B), or it may
-have been part of a panelled
-border similar to Fig. <a href='#fig-092'>92</a>. Morsels
-of painted plaster were also found
-in Birchin Lane, where there must
-have been a good house.</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i154.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 96.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>A fragment of mosaic at the
-London Museum comes from another
-all-over star-pattern similar
-to that at the Guildhall, but this
-piece was next to the outer border
-of the pavement. This fragment
-is of particularly beautiful colouring—quite
-a purple floor. I give
-a sketch of the fragment in Fig. <a href='#fig-096'>96</a>; it must have
-come next the border of a pattern like Fig. <a href='#fig-095'>95</a>.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Threadneedle Street.</i>—Several pieces of London
-mosaic are shown in the Roman corridor at the
-British Museum, but not very effectively. Two
-are exhibited as given by Mr. E. Moxhay, but it is
-not added that they were found in Threadneedle
-Street in 1841. One is part of a passage and the
-other is a square from the centre of a room. (See
-illustrations in Roach Smith’s <i>Roman London</i>, from
-which Fig. <a href='#fig-097'>97</a> is taken.) Another piece found at
-East India House, Leadenhall Street, is not set
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_155'>155</span>up rightly. The pattern is of two interlacing
-squares; the margin should not be parallel to
-either of these, but it should touch two of the points
-of the star form. (Fig. <a href='#fig-098'>98</a>. See Sir W. Tite’s illustration
-in <i>Archæologia</i>; compare also the Bucklersbury
-pavement at the Guildhall.) This floor came
-from the same level as the Bacchus mosaic and not
-far away from its position; probably the small
-chamber to which it belonged was part of the
-building which contained the large square hall of
-the Bacchus mosaic.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id013'>
-<img src='images/i155.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'>FRAGMENT OF ROMAN TESSELLATED PAVEMENT DISCOVERED AT THE DEPTH OF 14 FEET UNDER THE FRENCH PROTESTANT CHURCH IN THREADNEEDLE STREET. APRIL 1841.<br /><span class='sc'>Fig. 97.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_156'>156</span><i>The Bank.</i>—A fourth piece in the Museum is a
-square panel from Lothbury. Allen describes it
-as “An ornamental centre, measuring 4 ft. each
-way, of an apartment 11 ft. square; beyond this
-were tiles of an inch square extending to the sides
-of the room.” It is another example of the plan
-of having a comparatively small central panel liberally
-framed in much plain red work. The device
-in the centre is a cruciform pattern. I can hardly
-think that from, say, 250 <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> it would not have
-been recognised as a cross
-indeed. Compare the small
-cruciform centres of two
-squares of mosaic exhibited
-close by.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-098'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i156.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 98.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The floor mosaics at the
-British Museum are dispersed
-in two galleries and
-a staircase, and even so
-each one is badly presented.
-Fragments of the Bacchus
-floor are shown without any
-key-plan of the whole. Of
-five on the north wall of the
-Roman gallery, the place where only one was found is
-told. The interesting little Orpheus mosaic discovered
-at Withington is shown by three single fragments,
-although an excellent restored engraving was published
-in <i>Archæologia</i> when it was found. I wish
-space could be found for setting them in their due
-relation and completing the composition in outline.
-The surface requires careful cleaning and some
-repolishing. The floor from Thruxton on the north
-staircase has lost its centre since it was engraved.
-The engraving itself is shown in the gallery a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_157'>157</span>hundred yards away, without any reference from one
-to the other. In this case, I think, the centre should
-be painted in on the plaster filling of the original.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>These mosaics must have been drawn out on
-the levelled beds prepared to receive them by
-the master artist and filled in by him and his
-assistants. The preparation for such a floor is
-made clear in the description of a London mosaic
-found in 1785: “This pavement, as well as most
-of the rest, was laid in three distinct beds; the
-lowest very coarse, about 3 in. thick, and mixed
-with large pebbles; the second of fine mortar, very
-hard and reddish in colour, from having been
-mixed with powdered brick; this was about 1 in.
-in thickness, and upon it the bricks [tesseræ] were
-embedded in fine white cement” (<i>Archæol.</i>, vol.
-viii.). The Bacchus pavement described before
-“was bedded on a layer of brickdust and lime of
-about an inch.” Powdered brick (tile) and lime
-made a strong cement which would finish perfectly
-smoothly and provide an inviting surface to draw
-and work upon.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Several mosaics while not quite plain were
-simpler in design and perhaps coarser in execution
-than those already described. A star-shaped
-fragment found in Bishopsgate Street, illustrated
-by Roach Smith, was of black and white tesseræ.
-It was probably the central panel of a floor, as
-Roach Smith said. A mosaic found at Lincoln
-had a similar star-shaped panel at the centre.
-About 1840 a tessellated pavement was found in
-Bishopsgate-Within “of black and white tesseræ
-in squares and diamonds” (<i>V.C.H.</i>). In Bush
-Lane “a pavement of white tesseræ” is recorded.
-On the site of the Guildhall “irregular cubes of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_158'>158</span>dark-grey slate and white marble” were found
-(<i>Journal B.A.A.</i> xix.).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Another pavement, found in Lombard Street
-in 1785, was “composed of pieces of black and white
-stone one-third of an inch square, probably
-deposited in regular order” (<i>Archæol.</i> viii.).
-These black and white mosaics were doubtless like
-the counter-changed patterns found at Wroxeter,
-Silchester, etc. At the latter the Christian church
-had a square space for the altar paved in this
-way. Several years ago I drew a fragment of an
-identical design at Lincoln. This was probably
-a fourth-century fashion. The others may be a
-little earlier generally, but they overlapped into the
-Christian period.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Many floors have been found in London which
-were wholly of coarse tesseræ of red, or of a few
-simple colours accidentally distributed. One of
-these is described as of irregular tesseræ about 2 in.
-by 1½ in., mostly red, but some black and white.
-A room 17½ ft. by 14 ft., in Leadenhall Street, had
-coarse tesseræ red, black and white, 1¼ in. square,
-and a similar floor “of red bricks about an inch
-square with a few black ones and white stones”
-was found in Lombard Street. Some floors found
-at Silchester had circular and polygonal tiles used
-with mosaic cubes filling up the interspaces. At
-Bath, if I recollect aright, there are fragments of
-pleasant floors in which larger irregular pieces of
-marble are set here and there in a floor mainly
-of large red tesseræ.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>At Silchester a polishing tool is said to have been
-found, being a lump of marble with an iron socket
-for the attachment of a handle (Middleton’s <i>Rome</i>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A general comparison of the British mosaics
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_159'>159</span>brings out the resemblances between the members
-of certain groups. The similarity of the Cirencester
-and Woodchester Orpheus pavements has
-already been mentioned. The London floor found
-at the Excise Office was very like the mosaics at
-Bignor in both the patterns and figure work. The
-same pavements resemble others found at Silchester,
-and also the Cirencester and Woodchester
-mosaics. A pavement found at Stonesfield, near
-Woodstock, had a wreath of foliage springing from
-a head similar to that of Woodchester. It is obvious
-that elaborate works in isolated villas cannot
-have been home-made, and it is likely that this
-group at least was the work of craftsmen established
-in some central city. No centre is so
-likely as Londinium, a wealthy town, the most
-conveniently placed for the importation of materials.
-We think of these works as “decadent,” but really
-there was a new life in them. The centre of origin
-of the later type seems to have been Alexandria,
-and similar works to our own are found in Asia
-Minor, North Africa and Gaul. The use of glass
-in these mosaics is likely to have been an Alexandrian
-innovation. Price gives a list of five London
-mosaics in which glass was used, and I may add the
-fragment at Birchin Lane described above. Glass
-was also used at Cirencester and Woodchester: the
-purple tesseræ in the fine border of the latter in the
-British Museum must be glass.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-099'  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i160a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 99.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-100'  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i160b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 100.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Taking into consideration the great similarity
-of mosaics found in the East—those from Halicarnassus,
-for instance, now in the British Museum—to
-those found in the West, the character of the
-patterns, the mystical nature of some of the figure
-designs, and the swift ability of the workmanship,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_160'>160</span>I am drawn to the conclusion that the craftsmen
-are likely to have been Greeks. Some confirmation
-of this is to be found in the fact noticed by Wright,
-that the Greek H sometimes appears for E in the
-few mosaic inscriptions which exist. Mosaics must,
-I think, have been works of the prosperous Constantinian
-age. The floor at Frampton had a XP
-monogram on it (Fig. <a href='#fig-099'>99</a>); the Orpheus pavement
-at Horkstow, accepted as Christian by Cabrol, had
-crosses (Fig. <a href='#fig-099'>99</a>); and a second one at Winterton
-has a red cross by one of the animals; the pavement
-at Thruxton, in the British Museum, has
-crosses set in the border in what seems to be a
-significant way (Fig. <a href='#fig-100'>100</a>). The other details on
-this figure also have a Christian look; the top one
-is from Bignor, the bottom one from Frampton.
-Fig. 101 is from the Orpheus mosaic at Withington.
-If the Orpheus pavement at Frampton was Christian,
-the others are likely to have been so too.
-At least, they symbolise the Harmony of the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_161'>161</span>Universe; they are not “mythological.” These
-pavements are evidence of the cosmopolitan nature
-of Romano-British culture.</p>
-
-<div  class='figright id009'>
-<img src='images/i161a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 101.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figleft id018'>
-<img src='images/i161b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 102.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-103'  class='figright id009'>
-<img src='images/i161c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 103.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Any idea of thought in decoration is difficult for
-us to apprehend. The
-records of the pavements
-which have been
-found in Britain deserve
-study from this
-point of view. The
-whole art of the time
-witnesses not only to the professional skill of artists,
-but to the thoughts and desires of the provincial
-Romans—and natives too, doubtless—who demanded
-such works. They speak of a time
-when the old beliefs had been for a large part
-allegorised and fitted into a sort of poetic
-cosmogony; the designs often dealt with the
-order of Nature. Many interesting details
-are to be found in these mosaics; Fig. <a href='#fig-102'>102</a> is
-a sundial which appears with a celestial sphere
-on the pavement at Bramdean. The fragment
-of inscription (Fig. <a href='#fig-103'>103</a>) is from Thruxton. Large
-square mosaics which seem to have been the floors
-of central halls have been mentioned. In two
-cases, such floors found
-in Britain had sunk water
-basins at their centres.
-At Woodchester four
-columns were placed about
-the central space, and there was doubtless an opening
-in the roof above. Such a central hall would
-have been an <i>Atrium</i>, and this helps to explain the
-planning of Roman houses in Britain.</p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_162'>162</span>
-  <h2 id='ch08' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER VIII</em><br /> <br />WALL PAINTINGS AND MARBLE LININGS</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'>BY putting together, in our imagination, the
-mosaic floors, the fragments of wall paintings,
-and the marble linings, we can gain
-a fairly certain knowledge of what the finer Roman
-interiors in Londinium were like, and we may further
-add to the impression by remembering the many
-precious objects in silver, bronze, pottery and glass,
-which are in our museums. Broken remnants of
-wall paintings have been found in large quantities,
-and pieces are preserved at the British, the Guildhall,
-and the London Museums, also at the Society of
-Antiquaries. Some account of several of them was
-given by Roach Smith in his <i>Illustrations of Roman
-London</i>, from which Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a> is reduced. The fragment
-(5, Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a>), now with the others in the
-British Museum, is part of a pilaster-like strip about
-8 in. wide, of foliage springing symmetrically on
-each side of a central vertical stem; it is on a dark
-ground, and marginal lines divide it off from a red
-space which covered the main surfaces of the wall.
-This “pilaster” was doubtless one of several. The
-morsels (6 and 7, Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a>) evidently belonged together;
-the one-sided nature of the design suggests
-that it was next the angle of a room; and the loop
-in the upper part of 7 looks like the end of a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_164'>164</span>festoon; 9 is somewhat similar; and the others
-may all have belonged to “pilaster” strips.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id017'>
-<img src='images/i163.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 104.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The method of dividing up the wall space with
-strips of plain colour or with “pilasters” was very
-general. A simpler scheme was to have marginal
-borders only, and these were frequently of considerable
-width, made up of many bands and lines
-of colour. Dadoes were very general, sometimes
-only a plain band of colour or a horizontal bar
-running into the margins; at other times they were
-fully decorated: two examples lately illustrated
-in <i>Archæologia</i>, from Caerwent and Silchester, are
-really fine work. The latter had a
-row of “panels,” alternating square
-and round, set with leaves and ears
-of corn, on a red ground between
-dark top and bottom bands.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Stripes and Margins.</i>—A piece of
-wall of considerable height was
-found at Bignor, having a quadrant
-skirting at the bottom, a plain dark
-band as a low dado, and the space
-above divided into panels. At Cirencester a fragment
-was found which showed a band of fair
-yellow, edged with margins of white separating
-spaces of a cool grey-green. At the Society of
-Antiquaries is a piece of plaster showing fine red
-and green spaces, divided by a white band and
-a black line—very simple, but beautiful colour
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-105'>105</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-105'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i164.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 105.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Of a great number of fragments in our museums
-one cannot determine if they only represent margins
-or whether they may have come from vertical strips.
-A piece of plaster from Silchester shows a broad
-band of red, then two white lines separated by one
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_165'>165</span>of black, and then a surface of grey, except for other
-thin black lines. A piece of plaster at the Guildhall
-had a dark green band, probably 3 in. or 4 in. wide,
-then a strip of rather transparent crimson 1½ in.
-wide, finished against a yellow line, then an interval
-of white 1 in. wide, followed by the green again
-1¼ in. wide and a yellow line, then 2 in. of white
-and a single yellow line followed by a white area.
-This was certainly a margin, and here we get an
-example of a method of gradating the border into
-the general field. In 1785 “some large pieces of
-painted stucco” were found in Lombard Street
-(<i>Archæol.</i> viii.). Drawings made at the time are in
-the Guildhall library. A piece was banded green
-and black, with the addition of thin marginal lines.
-Two of the pieces were from borders having lines
-with additional touches. One had merely groups
-of comma-like hooks springing from the
-line
-<img src="images/in-line-p165.jpg" alt='' height="24" />,
-and the other, little fleur-de-lis forms on a white
-band edging a bright blue space. These were, I
-think, coarser variants of the treatment shown in
-6, Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a>. The margins were sometimes “shaded”
-like mouldings; there are one or two examples
-of this treatment at Silchester.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Pilasters.</i>—In some cases the ornamental vertical
-strips may not have been contained within pilaster-like
-forms. A fragment in the British Museum, which
-has an umbrella-like calyx to a number of springing
-stalks, may be one of these (Fig. <a href='#fig-106'>106</a>). It is on a
-brown-red ground, and there are some other small
-fragments with leaves on a similar colour. The cast-shadows
-make me think that it was independent of
-a pilaster. The colour and workmanship appear
-very similar to the festoon of foliage from Southwark,
-described below; probably such uprights usually
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_166'>166</span>upheld festoons. The head rising from a calyx
-illustrated by Roach Smith came from another
-similar vertical composition (8, Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a>). Two small
-pieces at the Guildhall represent a similar upright
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-107'>107</a>). Again, in the British Museum is a very
-simple vertical upright, something like a prolonged
-ear of corn (9, Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-106'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i166a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 106.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-107'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i166b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 107.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id002'>
-<img src='images/i166c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 108.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i166d.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 109.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id002'>
-<img src='images/i166e.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 110.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Figs. 108, 109, 110, at the British Museum, are
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_167'>167</span>from pilasters. Fig. <a href='#fig-110'>110</a> is a restoration of 3, Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a>.
-Fig. 111 is a small fragment at the Society of Antiquaries;
-this, too, probably came from a vertical
-stem or a pilaster. Sometimes the pilasters imitated
-marble.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Dadoes.</i>—A sketch at the Society of Antiquaries
-shows the walls of a plain little room found in
-Leadenhall Street, which had pink margin bands
-along the skirting and up the angles, and another
-pink stripe about 2 ft. above the floor. The general
-surface was white.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id019'>
-<img src='images/i167a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 111.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-112'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i167b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 112.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Other dadoes seem to have been divided up into
-small plain “panels” or diagonal lattices. At
-Silchester there is a fragment with a green band,
-about 1¼ in. wide, crossing another at right angles,
-having a red line parallel with the green band with
-a “blob” at the angle. This seems to have represented
-a dado treatment (Fig. <a href='#fig-112'>112</a>). At the
-British Museum are pieces of plaster painted with
-narrow red bands on a green ground, apparently
-parts of a plain lattice pattern. At the Guildhall
-is a small piece of plaster having a blue band edged
-by a white line and with a yellow line beyond the
-red ground, and another at right angles (Fig. <a href='#fig-113'>113</a>).
-This is probably part of a dado; there may have
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_168'>168</span>been little subjects or sprigs in the square spaces.
-This is a notable example of adding “pearling”
-to the edges of bands or the lines, a favourite method
-of the painters of Londinium, as several of the other
-sketches show.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-113'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i168.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 113.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>A large fragment of decoration at the British
-Museum imitates marble. A circle of green speckled
-“porphyry” has a margin of red “porphyry,” with
-figured “marble” of pink-yellow beyond. The
-circle is defined by scratched lines drawn on the
-plaster by a compass as a guide for the decorator.
-This was doubtless part of a dado for which the
-size of the circle is entirely suitable. Further,
-fragments of a similar dado were found at Cirencester
-in position at the foot of a wall. This is
-described by Buckmann and Newmarch, but they
-did not recognise the marbling as such. One square
-panel contained a circle speckled “dark pink and
-black”; the panels on either band were yellow
-with wavy markings. Here, again, porphyry and
-marble were imitated. At Silchester, fragments of
-marbling have been found, and in the Rochester
-Museum are many other pieces. Most of these
-would have been from dadoes. A wall was discovered
-in January 1922, in the centre of Gracechurch
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_169'>169</span>Street, the plaster of which “still retained the lower
-part of square panels painted in black outline, with
-a simple ornamentation around, and the painted
-plaster gave the impression that it had been coloured
-in imitation of marble.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Two fragments at the British Museum, which
-were illustrated by Roach Smith and Wright,
-are covered with a diaper arranged thus,</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'>× × ×</div>
-      <div class='line'>× × ×</div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c025'>with little flowers and figures in the intervals.
-These must, I think, have come from a dado. The
-little figure on one of the pieces is now broken,
-but a sketch by Fairholt in the Victoria and Albert
-Museum shows it complete with a level band at the
-top. It is so engraved by Thomas Wright, and I
-think that part must have been broken off since it
-was drawn rather than that the drawing was restored.
-Wright says that these fragments were from a large
-building near Crosby Square. This pattern is on
-a fine red ground.</p>
-<p class='c016'>At the Guildhall Museum is a piece which is
-fortunately larger than ordinary, and allows for the
-pattern to be restored (Fig. <a href='#fig-114'>114</a>). The ground was
-covered with circles, small and great, the latter
-containing sprigs of flowers, all on a dark ground.
-This, I suppose, was also from a dado. The larger
-outer circle is made up of curious forms, which
-comparison shows were rose-petals. A fragment
-found in the Lombard Street excavations of 1785,
-of which there is a drawing in the Guildhall Library,
-shows segment of two circles, one within the other,
-red on bright blue, and apparently part of a powdering
-of small double circles. In the cloister of
-Lincoln Cathedral there used to be preserved, or at
-least kept, a large piece of a dado having a big
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_170'>170</span>rhombus with Amazon-shield forms at the ends,
-set within a long rectangular panel; this was of
-good workmanship and possibly of the second
-century.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-114'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i170.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 114.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Foliage.</i>—In the London Museum is a morsel
-of pilaster, about as big as an open hand, having
-small leafage painted on a brown-red ground. The
-leaves are sharp and struck in in a masterly way;
-it is really beautiful (Fig. <a href='#fig-115'>115</a>). The leaves spread
-from a central stem or line, and it is a part of a
-suspended festoon, I think, rather than of a growth
-of foliage. This must be the fragment found in
-Southwark. “The débris of Roman villas, with
-pavements, ornamental bowls, and pieces of painted
-plaster have been found. One of these last, in Mr.
-Syers Cuming’s museum, has on it a slender stem
-with green leaves on a dull red field” (Mrs. E.
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_171'>171</span>Boger, <i>Southwark</i>, 1895. Mr. Cuming was a well-known
-antiquary).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-115'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i171.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 115.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the British Museum are, as said above, two
-fragments of a scheme of decoration, which seems
-to have consisted of festoons hanging from slender
-uprights (6 and 7, Fig. <a href='#fig-104'>104</a>). Fig. <a href='#fig-116'>116</a>, from the
-Guildhall, is, I suppose, a variety of vertical stem,
-but it may be part of a festoon.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Figures.</i>—Some walls had figures in panels or set
-singly on the general ground. At the Guildhall is
-a morsel of plaster containing parts of two small
-dancing figures, which occupied a panel not more
-than 8 or 9 in. high (Fig. <a href='#fig-117'>117</a>). From the composition
-it appears that there would have been three
-figures altogether, filling a square panel (Fig. <a href='#fig-118'>118</a>).
-The central figure is of a darker hue than the others,
-and apparently the face is male; probably it is
-a faun with two nymphs. The painting of this is
-of high competence, and in full Pompeian tradition.
-The little panel, one of a series, would have been
-set at the centre of a wall division. Roach Smith
-illustrated the head of a figure of Mercury on a red
-ground; this was probably a single figure painted
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_172'>172</span>on a general ground and not included in a panel.
-Evidences for figures of full size have also been found.</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id014'>
-<img src='images/i172.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 116.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>A good foot on a blue ground and a piece of
-drapery of large scale of fine execution are in the
-British Museum: these are said to have come
-from Leadenhall Street (The Basilica?). Wright
-describes some fragments found at Great Chesterford,
-Essex. “A considerable variety
-of rather elegant patterns, among
-which were some representing portions
-of the human figure. The most remarkable
-of the latter was the foot of
-a female, as large as life, with drapery
-flowing round it. In one of the larger
-rooms of the villa at Combe End, in
-Gloucestershire, the lower part of the
-wall remained covered with fresco
-painting, on which were a row of
-feet, also as large as life, which
-had belonged to some grand paintings.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Parts of inscriptions have also been
-discovered. A morsel was found on
-Tower Hill of “white wall painting
-with the letters [large capitals] S V P
-in reddish colour.” At Woodchester, some fragments
-“were painted with large capital letters
-which had formed part of inscriptions” (Wright,
-p. 195).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Cast-Shadows.</i>—It was the practice in figure and
-foliage painting to boldly reinforce the forms with
-cast-shadows (see a fragment of a figure in Roach
-Smith’s <i>Illustrations</i>, pl. 14). A piece of a foliage
-tendril or festoon in the Rochester Museum, from
-the villa at Darenth, has cast-shadows. This is of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_173'>173</span>long, delicate, grey-green olive leaves on a red ground,
-and the sharp shadow below forces it into prominence.
-Several of the ornamental patterns found
-in London were reinforced by shadows. A striking
-example is the large scroll foliage pattern from
-Leadenhall Market, where separate shadow lines
-and touches are laid almost like a secondary pattern.
-This, I think, from the scale of the work, must have
-been part of the decorations of the Civil Basilica
-described in Chapter II.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-117'  class='figcenter id017'>
-<img src='images/i173.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 117.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Provincial Roman painting is not fine as compared
-with the great things in either Greek or Gothic art,
-but we must remember, in comparing it with anything
-we can obtain to-day, that it was the ordinary
-journeyman decorator’s work of the time. It is
-certainly far beyond the standard of common work
-which we reach to-day; and Roman London, on the
-testimony of the arts, must have been quite a
-civilised place. A full study of the fragments in
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_174'>174</span>country museums ought to make an interesting
-subject for a student who is prepared to take up a
-definite piece of research on the history of art in
-Britain. Further, suggestions for enlarging the
-scope of work undertaken by present-day “painters
-and decorators” might be gathered from these
-ancient paintings. Our workmen are capable of
-much better work than is ordinarily demanded of
-them. Their skill in graining was noticeable; it
-was the last field where any freedom was left the
-workmen, and it was
-probably for that very
-reason (unconsciously
-functioning) that architects
-have tried to kill
-it. It is our duty to
-demand free and interesting
-work. A point
-to be thought of in
-regard to the Roman
-decorations is the
-character of the designs.
-These are not laboriously set out, transferred from
-a full-sized drawing, and painfully “executed”;
-they are swiftly painted in masterly brush strokes
-and varied at will for the fun of the thing.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-118'  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i174.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 118.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Marble Wall-Linings.</i>—In London, at Silchester,
-and elsewhere, fragments of coloured marbles, and
-even of porphyries, have been found, which suggest
-that they were parts of wall-linings, or rather of
-dadoes. Wright says, of the Great Villa at Woodchester:
-“Several slices of marble, of different sorts,
-but chiefly foreign, were also found. These had,
-perhaps, been employed to encrust the walls. Some
-of these pieces were not more than a quarter of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_175'>175</span>an inch thick.” At Silchester pieces of porphyry
-have been found not more than three-sixteenths of
-an inch thick, and also pieces of fine white marble.
-At Colchester, fragments of Purbeck and white
-marble and porphyry have just been dug up. At
-the British Museum there are many small pieces of
-marble of various colours, and some of red and green
-porphyry. A piece of white marble at the British
-Museum has a shallow edge moulding such as I have
-frequently seen on dado-slabs in Rome. Such
-moulding is an excellent way of joining up continuous
-slab work. The pieces of green porphyry
-at the British Museum are from the site of East
-India House (where the Bacchus pavement was
-found), and they were given by Sir W. Tite in 1884,
-who, about that time, wrote on the mosaic pavement.
-These pieces are cut into forms—a part of
-a circular band and a triangle; they must have
-belonged to some handsome piece of work, like an
-Opus Alexandrinum pavement. It looks as if this
-building, close by the Forum and Basilica, was of
-special importance—perhaps the governor’s palace.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>There must have been skilled marble workers in
-London. This is proved by the fact that fragments
-of polished native marbles have been found. Roach
-Smith, as before said, speaks of “native green
-marble.” Fragments of Purbeck are common.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>At Silchester evidence has been found that
-mosaics were applied to the walls of a chamber
-in the Baths; and at Wroxeter a considerable
-fragment of wall mosaic was found in place many
-years ago.</p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_176'>176</span>
-  <h2 id='ch09' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER IX</em><br /> <br />LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'><i>LETTERS.</i>—Fine lettering is the most perfect
-thing in the art of the Romans. For one
-thing, it was developed on a field where
-they were not obsessed with the idea of imitating
-Greek art; it was their very own, and it was swiftly
-carried to an apex of perfection in the first century
-<span class='fss'>A.D.</span> It is a constant phenomenon on all the fields
-of Art that it is the <i>first</i> great flow of development
-which chiefly matters; all things of life and growth
-are like this, and, as I once heard a fine old Devonshire
-farmer say, “You can’t have two forenoons
-in one day.” The Romans, not the Greeks, had
-the forenoon of the day of their manner of lettering.
-This manner is clear, sharp, confident; it is like
-Greek art only in being free.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id017'>
-<img src='images/i177.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 119.</span><span class='small'>—Inscription from the front of a Roman Tomb found at Westminster Abbey in 1869: now by the entrance to the Chapter House.<br />MEMORIAE·VALER·AMAN<br />DINI·VALERI·SVPERVEN<br />TOR·ET·MARCELLVS·PATRI·FECER·</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Early inscriptions had for the most part been cut
-on stone. Then from about 300 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> came a time
-of writing with a pen. Rome took this over from
-Alexandria and Pergamon, and these <i>written</i>
-characters became the foundation of a new style
-of monumental inscription. In pen-written characters
-the thick and thin strokes make themselves
-without there being any design in the matter. It
-seems equally natural in large clear writing to finish
-off the strokes with a thin touch of the pen to sharpen
-the forms. This procedure was taken over so
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_178'>178</span>exactly into inscriptions cut on stone that, for the
-most part, it seems these must first have been
-written on the stone with an implement like a wide
-brush and cut in afterwards by a mason. The
-chisel, like the pen, is thin and wide, and thus
-perfectly fitted to develop the habit of the pen.
-The cut letters were themselves usually finished by
-painting. Whoever wishes to design inscriptions
-must begin on the writing basis, and I should like
-to advise every student who may read these words
-to take up the practice of writing capital and small
-letters with single strokes of the pen, not “touching
-up” or “painting” the letters, and, above all,
-not “designing” them with high-waisted bars,
-swollen loops, little-headed S curves, and other
-horrors of ignorance and vulgarity, but learning
-once for all a central standard style. Half an hour
-a day for one week would teach much to any one
-who was ready to learn and did not want to do
-everything by genius.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>We have in England a great number of fine
-Roman inscriptions, and it would be an excellent
-piece of work to gather a selection into an example-book
-of illustrations based on corrected rubbings.
-Even the inscriptions of London carefully studied
-would be subject-matter for a delightful and valuable
-essay.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>1. The finest London inscription is that on a
-tomb front in the British Museum (Fig. <a href='#fig-120'>120</a>). This
-must be a first-century work nearly contemporary
-with the famous inscription of the Trajan column.
-The letters are large, deep, clearly cut, and of quite
-perfect form. It is something of a puzzle that such
-an artist as the author of this tomb should have
-been working in London only a few years after the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_179'>179</span>Claudian Conquest. The letters of this inscription
-are still wonderfully sharp; the thick strokes
-of the big letters are about an inch wide, and the
-“serifs” are light and free as the stroke of a pen.
-Notice especially the beautiful curve of S, the square
-touch at the apex of N and A, and the sharp little
-triangular division point after the second letter in
-the last line (Fig. <a href='#fig-121'>121</a>. See also Figs. <a href='#fig-066'>66</a> and <a href='#fig-067'>67</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-120'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i179a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 120.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-121'  class='figcenter id007'>
-<img src='images/i179b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 121.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>2. Another very fine inscription is on the tomb
-front of Valerius at Westminster Abbey. The letters
-are smaller, the stone is rather decayed on the surface,
-and it is not seen in a good light. The beauty of
-the lettering and spacing has consequently hardly
-been remarked. Here the lines are longer, and the
-letters seem to follow one another rhythmically,
-trippingly; it is an extraordinarily vivid and elegant
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_180'>180</span>piece of work, which, I think, should be dated in
-the second century <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> The letters A M and N
-have cross touches at the apex of the angles, and the
-stops are little triangles as in the inscription before
-described. Here it can just be seen that lines were
-ruled (scored) on the stone as guides for ranging
-the letters (Figs. <a href='#fig-119'>119</a> and <a href='#fig-122'>122</a>).</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i180.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 122.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>3. In the London Museum is a small tablet of
-white marble, which has similar lines, lettering and
-stops, and must be nearly of the same age. I give
-in Fig. <a href='#fig-123'>123</a> a very rough sketch of this excellent little
-slab. I have felt some doubt as to whether this
-was a London antiquity indeed, but the many resemblances
-to other inscriptions have fully convinced
-me that it is.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_181'>181</span>4. At the Guildhall there is another small slab,
-having only a few letters, but these of fine early
-style (Fig. <a href='#fig-124'>124</a>). Both these little tablets and others
-probably were set on the wall of some burial
-chamber of the Columbarium type.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i181a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 123.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-124'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i181b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 124.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-125'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i181c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 125.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>5. Another inscription of much the same character,
-but in smaller letters, is that on the hexagonal
-pedestal in the Guildhall Museum, of which a
-sketch was given in an earlier part. This provides
-an example of a group of tied letters (Fig. <a href='#fig-125'>125</a>). The
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_182'>182</span>writers of Roman inscriptions allowed themselves
-much freedom in contracting words, in setting
-a small letter within a big one, as in Fig. <a href='#fig-119'>119</a>, and
-in combining two or three letters together. In
-Fig. 126 I have noted one or two other examples
-not all from London.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i182a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 126.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>6. In a fragment of inscription from Greenwich
-Park at the British Museum, the letters were much
-compressed, and many of them were linked together
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-127'>127</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-127'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i182b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 127.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>It is difficult to draw out any general rules of
-form and spacing; generally o and c were very
-round in form, N of square proportion, and M wider
-than a square. The round letters were usually
-thickened, not where the curves would touch
-vertical tangents, but a little under and over, just
-as is natural in writing the letters. The loops of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_183'>183</span>D and R do not become horizontal at top and
-bottom, but bend freely. A, N and M usually
-have square terminations at the upper angles.
-Initial letters are not larger than the rest.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i183a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 128.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i183b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 129.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>One or two examples of rapid cursive writing
-have been preserved on bricks and tiles. Fig. <a href='#fig-128'>128</a>
-gives some letters of interesting form from a tile
-at the Guildhall. The A, G and M are on the
-way to be transformed into—a, g and m; apparently
-the hook of the “a” had its origin in the overlapping
-termination at the apex in the monumental
-inscriptions. Fig. <a href='#fig-129'>129</a> is from a still more rapid
-scribble; L, T and E here approach our modern
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_184'>184</span>handwriting forms. These examples are enough to
-show how the more cursive writing styles and our
-own handwriting have been developed from the
-Roman capitals.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Roman books and correspondence were written
-in such hands, and Dr. Haverfield has pointed out,
-as such scribblings on tiles were obviously in many
-cases by labourers in the brickfields, it follows that
-the common people in British towns had come to
-talk Latin. Dr. Haverfield went on to question
-whether town workmen even <i>spoke</i> Celtic. “Had
-they known Celtic well, it is hardly credible that
-they should not have sometimes written in that
-language. No such scrawl has been found in Britain.
-This total absence of Celtic cannot be mere
-accident” (<i>Romanization</i>). This argument overlooks
-a probability that Latin was a <i>written</i> language,
-while Celtic was not. We hardly realise our direct
-and full classical inheritance, and the fact that
-Londinium was a Roman city for three and a half
-centuries. Here the Latin Pantheon must have
-been completely absorbed into the common texture
-of traditional thought; here boys would have
-carried texts of Virgil in their satchels, and here,
-again, the story of the Gospel must have been
-brought in its first westward expansion.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Inscriptions.</i>—In the notes which follow, I am
-more than ever off my proper ground, and, moreover,
-they are likely to be very dreary to any one
-who does not feel the romance of early London
-and Britain through all the dryasdust detail in
-which we have to work.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>An important inscription was found in 1850
-under St. Nicholas Lane. It was described in the
-same year (<i>Gent. Mag.</i> xi. p. 104): “A large slab
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_185'>185</span>with the following Roman inscription in well-cut
-letters 5 in. or 6 in. in length:</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'><span class='large'>N V M C</span></div>
-      <div class='line'><span class='large'>P R O V</span></div>
-      <div class='line'><span class='large'>B R I T A</span></div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c025'>It is doubtful if the fourth letter in the first line
-be C or O. The stone is in fine preservation, and
-others ought to have been discovered, but the
-excavators were not permitted to turn either to the
-right or to the left, notwithstanding a gentleman
-offered to pay any expense.” This must have been
-Roach Smith, who, as the practical repetition of the
-phrases given below shows, must have been the
-author of the note. An MS. letter, which is in
-my possession, is as follows:</p>
-<div class='c028'>“<span class='sc'>Strood</span>, <i>Wednesday</i>, <span class='fss'>P.M.</span></div>
-
-<p class='c029'>“<span class='sc'>My dear Fairholt</span>,—I have given Richards
-£10 for you.... In the Guildhall is a fragment
-of a large inscription from Nicholas Lane which
-we should give rather large. It lay just within
-the lower door of the Library. The letters are
-deeply cut and should be shown clear. Can you
-see if the stone be <i>broken</i>? [Sketch.] Note if
-letter 4, line 1, be a C, and please measure it. It is
-most important. I suppose it is half the original
-length.—Yours sincerely,</p>
-<div class='c030'>“<span class='sc'>C. R. Smith</span>.”</div>
-
-<div id='fig-130'  class='figcenter id010'>
-<img src='images/i186a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 130.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-131'  class='figcenter id010'>
-<img src='images/i186b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 131.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c026'>The stone had disappeared and has never been
-heard of since. The size was recorded by Birch
-as 2 ft. 4 in. high, and 3 ft. wide on the face. <i>V.C.H.</i>
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_186'>186</span>says 6 ft. long, but this is a mistake. Fortunately
-a careful drawing of the stone was made by Archer,
-which is preserved in the British Museum (Fig. <a href='#fig-130'>130</a>).
-Archer’s drawing confirms Roach Smith’s reading of
-C at the end of the first line next a vertical joint.
-My sketch by Roach Smith seems to be the only
-other record (Fig. <a href='#fig-131'>131</a>). In <i>Illustrations of Roman
-London</i>, he says: “It was found close to a wall,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_187'>187</span>and there is reason to think other stones having the
-remainder of the inscription were not far off from
-the one excavated. In the present year (1859),
-being desirous to compare it with my sketch, I
-ascertained it was not to be found. The stone was
-between 2 and 3 ft. in length. The fourth letter
-in the first line appeared to me when I made the
-sketch more like a C (which I considered it to be)
-than it seems to be in the woodcut. From the
-magnitude of the stone and the character of the
-letters it is clear that the inscription surmounted the
-entrance of some public edifice, apparently a temple.
-It is probably the commencement of a dedication
-which occupied two or four stones. The wider
-distance from the top than of the third line from the
-bottom weighs in favour of the belief that we have
-only the first quarter. There can be no doubt that
-NVM should read <i>Numini</i>, and that PROV BRITA
-should be read <i>Provincia Britannia</i>; the supposed
-equal length of the second stone and the number
-of letters required, render this reading obvious.
-Seneca and Tacitus concur as to a temple having
-been erected in Britain to the Emperor Claudius;
-the latter locates it at Camuludunum. This temple
-was probably erected soon after the subjugation of
-the Trinobantes. It may be readily conceived that
-Londinium possessed some edifice dedicated to
-that emperor. Although it is impossible to decide
-positively, we cannot avoid associating the historical
-evidence with an inscription which must have been
-of an early period, of a rare class, and almost unique
-in this country.” This idea that there were
-formerly four stones is now much strengthened by
-the fact that a curiously similar temple dedication
-is illustrated by Espèrandieu (iv. p. 126) from
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_188'>188</span>D’Yzeures. This inscription begins <i>Numinibus
-Augustorum</i> and is on four equal stones with joints
-meeting at the centre, thus <span class='xlarge'>+</span>. Hübner (<i>C.I.L.</i> vii.
-No. 22) gives the boundary to the right of the
-London stone as a fracture, and restored the inscription
-with <i>Num. Caes. et Genio</i> in the top line.
-It is at once apparent that this would not space out
-properly with the single words of second and third
-lines. Haverfield leaves out <i>Genio</i> and reads, “To
-the Divinity of the Emperor and to the Province
-of Britain.” This, I suppose, might be possible
-in a contracted inscription, but I am drawn back to
-Roach Smith’s view, and would venture to suggest
-the possibility of some such restoration as:</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'><span class='large'>NVM·C|L·AVG·</span></div>
-      <div class='line in1'><span class='large'>PROV|INCIA</span></div>
-      <div class='line'><span class='large'>BRITA|NNIAE</span></div>
-      <div class='line in1'>etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;etc.</div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c025'>I am ignorant whether it would be possible to
-have a dedication from the Province of Britain
-to Claudius in such a form, but if so it would be
-a record of great significance. The fourth letter
-was certainly C, because an O would not have
-avoided the joint. The letters in the top line
-were about 6 in. high, and the whole was of fine
-style. As Hübner says, it is doubtless of the first
-century. It was certainly affixed to a temple
-dedicated to an Emperor-divinity. The complete
-inscription probably occupied four stones.</p>
-<p class='c016'>2. Several brick inscriptions are of special interest,
-as most of them contain the name London.
-There are two varieties: (<i>a</i>) P.PR.BR. in a label;
-and (<i>b</i>) P.P.BR.LON (Figs. <a href='#fig-132'>132</a> and <a href='#fig-133'>133</a>). The
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_189'>189</span>former (<i>a</i>) has large letters, and they are enclosed
-in a tablet: it seems of earlier style than the other.
-Wright says of the second: “The most probable
-interpretation is <i>Proprætor Britanniæ Londinii</i>;
-this has a peculiar interest as showing that London
-was the seat of government of the province.”
-When Wright wrote only a roof tile of variety
-(<i>a</i>) seems to have been known, but now there are
-several plain tiles at the Guildhall and one at the
-British Museum which have the same mark. All
-these are alike in having four notches in their long
-edges, and one flat side of each is scored over with
-lines to give better hold for plastering. It seems
-that these tiles must have been used for lining walls,
-nails being driven in at the notches; their size is
-16 in. by 11 in.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i189a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 132.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i189b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 133.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>The explanation of Hübner adopted in the new
-British Museum Guide is that P. in (<i>a</i>) and (<i>b</i>) both
-“represent the <i>publicani</i> who farmed the taxes
-(the ‘publicans’ of the Gospels) of the province of
-Britain in London.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_190'>190</span>Nothing is so expert a matter as Latin inscriptions,
-and it would be absurd for one who
-is entirely ignorant to pretend to a difference of
-opinion. I may, however, venture to point out
-that Hübner himself does not seem very certain,
-and that the difference of the two forms seems to
-coincide with the historical fact that earlier Britain
-was one province and that later it was subdivided.
-Variety (<i>a</i>), I have little doubt, is a second-century
-inscription (similar labels are found on pigs of lead
-of the time); while form (<i>b</i>) is quite late (probably
-end of fourth century). The first variety I should
-like to suggest represents the governor of the
-undivided province, and the second the subdivided
-province with its centre at London. If
-I am not entirely outside the possibilities of the
-case there is some confirmation of Wright’s view
-in the fact that other tiles bear the stamps of high
-authorities; thus a tile at Silchester has the name
-of the Emperor Nero in a circle, and other tiles
-are known stamped with the marks of army and
-navy commands.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>3. At the British Museum is a silver ingot
-(found on the site of the Tower of London),
-stamped with an inscription given as</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'><span class='large'>EXOFFL</span></div>
-      <div class='line'><span class='large'>HONORINI</span></div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c025'>and described thus: “<i>Ex Of[ficina] Fl[avii ?]
-Honorini</i>: found with gold coins of the Emperors
-Arcadius and Honorius.” The reading FL at
-the end of the first line is probably adopted because
-the Emperor Honorius had also the name
-Flavius; but to my eyes the letters look more
-like FE. Other similar marks on silver show that
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_191'>191</span>we need not expect an emperor’s name. (One in
-the British Museum reads EX OF PATRICI.)
-Roach Smith read the London inscription, EX OFFI,
-and explained the whole “From the workshop
-of Honorinus.” I may suggest Felix Honorinus.</p>
-<p class='c016'>4. Lying in the grass in front of St. Margaret’s,
-Westminster, is a large white stone, bearing only
-T II in what appears to be Roman work and style.
-It was found near its present site about forty years
-ago, and was accepted as Roman and explained as
-a boundary (<i>terminus</i>) mark. It may be noted
-that it lies close to the line of the presumed Roman
-road along Tothill Street to the river. The nearest
-parallel I have seen is a stone found near Falkirk,
-described in Haverfield’s addition to the <i>C.I.L.</i>
-(No. 1264): T III (<i>turma tertia</i>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>5. An inscription at the Guildhall</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line in14'>MATR ...</div>
-      <div class='line'>VICINIA-DESVO-RES ........</div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c025'>is, as has been pointed out, a record of the restoration
-of some edifice or sculpture dedicated to
-the mother goddesses. The lettering is on the half
-of the crowning member of a cornice which may
-have been over a narrow door, and Roach Smith
-was probably right in assuming the existence of a
-small temple.</p>
-<p class='c016'>6. A sketch of the inscription found on a mosaic
-floor near Pudding Lane is preserved at the Society
-of Antiquaries: it has indications not brought out
-by printing it in type, and an expert could probably
-gather more from it than has been made out.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>7. The sarcophagus from Clapton at the Guildhall
-has a much-defaced inscription on the front
-panel ending apparently, as the catalogue says,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_192'>192</span>with the name MARITIMIVS. Here, again, it is
-possible that careful examination by experts would
-bring out further facts.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>These inadequate, indeed incompetent, notes
-on a few selected inscriptions are at least enough
-to show that the inscriptions of Londinium are
-worth the attention of properly equipped scholars.
-A carefully illustrated account of them might be
-made interesting to all intelligent citizens and help
-them to get really into their minds an idea of the
-Roman age in London.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i192.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>From a Relief at Bath.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_193'>193</span>
-  <h2 id='ch10' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER X</em><br /> <br />THE CRAFTS</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'>IN his account of Roman London, the late
-Dr. Haverfield writes (<i>J.R.S.</i>, vol. i.):
-“The citizens appear to have been Roman
-or definitely Romanised. Of Roman speech in
-London we have an isolated but sufficient proof.
-A tile dug up in Warwick Lane, in 1886, bore
-an inscription, meaning, apparently, ‘Austalis
-(Augustalis) goes off on his own every day for a
-fortnight.’ It seems to follow that some of the
-bricklayers [makers] of Londinium could write
-Latin. In the lands ruled by Rome, education was
-better under the Empire than at any time since
-until about 1848. The occupations of these
-Roman or Romanised civilians are unknown to us.
-Articles manufactured on the Continent were certainly
-imported. There were also exports of grain,
-cloth (or wool), and lead, and so forth. We may
-believe that Roman London devoted its time to
-financial rather than industrial activity.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Evidence for the practice of arts in Londinium
-is really considerable. It was doubtless first of all
-a port, and probably originated as the seaport of
-the pre-Roman city of Verulamium; but it became
-the largest city in Britain, the chief distributing
-centre and the artistic capital. We are apt to think
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_194'>194</span>of Dover, or rather Richborough, as the chief port
-of the country, but London itself was the largest
-consumer, and the line of traffic was rather to the
-mouth of the Rhine than to Boulogne. Londinium
-was a little Alexandria in the West, and represented
-Britain as the other did Egypt. The building
-of such a city called together many able craftsmen—builders,
-sculptors, painters and mosaic workers.
-There must also have been shipbuilders and a due
-proportion of craftsmen-producers, potters, bone- and
-metal-workers, shoemakers, clothiers and the
-rest. An enormous quantity of pottery has been
-found, much of fine imported wares, but the most
-part varieties of native fabric, of which a large
-proportion was doubtless made of local clay. The
-site of St. Paul’s Cathedral was covered with “pot-earth,”
-and the town potteries seem to have been
-here.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-134'  class='figright id004'>
-<img src='images/i195.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 134.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Native Pottery.</i>—In the British Museum are some
-valuable MS. notes made in the years 1674-79,
-“by Mr. John Conyers, apothecary, at the ‘White
-Lion,’ in Fleet Street” (Sloane, 958, 816, 937).
-In mentioning St. Faith’s Chapel, at St. Paul’s,
-he says that his father and mother were there
-married forty-five years since (from 1677). Incidentally,
-he speaks of two brothers, and of being
-“at Epping Forest hunting ye hare, but ye frost
-prevented the scent.” This is a late example of
-the sporting customs of ancient London. His
-observations refer to excavations on the site of St.
-Paul’s and along the Fleet. In regard to the former
-it appears certain that there were a number of
-Roman rubbish pits on the site, similar to those
-recently excavated on the Post Office site. Here also
-were found pottery-kilns and glass furnaces with
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_195'>195</span>pottery, bone and other objects. This seems to
-have been a manufacturing quarter of the city
-unoccupied by dwellings. Some sketches show that
-the pottery kilns were circles of small diameter,
-having a raised floor supported on a central post, like
-a table, all of clay and broken stuff roughly formed;
-the lower stage or fire chamber was thus a ring
-around the central prop, and in the raised “floor”
-were several small holes. There must have been
-an external pit with a stoke-hole, and also a flue
-from the fire chamber. Four such kilns were found
-close together, forming a quatrefoil group. The
-dome of the kiln seems to
-have been roughly new
-formed over the pottery
-to be fired (Fig. <a href='#fig-134'>134</a>).
-Conyers, in the account
-of finds on the site of
-St. Paul’s, gives sketches
-of the kilns found at
-St. Paul’s with several
-kinds of pots: “Figures of two kinds of kilns or
-furnaces of various pots, jugs, etc., of different
-kinds of earth and pottery. One kiln in loamy
-ground about 26 ft. deep, near the place where
-the Mercat-house stood in Oliver’s time. The
-discovery made in 1677 on digging the foundation
-of the north-east cross part of St. Paul’s amongst
-gravel-pits and loam-pits.... Coffins lay over
-this loamy kiln, the lowest coffins made of chalk,
-and this supposed to be about Domitian’s time.
-This kiln was full of ye worst sort of pots, lamps,
-urns, and not many were saved whole. Four of
-these [kilns] had been made in the sandy-loam in the
-fashion of a cross on the ground; the foundations
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_196'>196</span>of these left standing 5 ft. from top to bottom, and
-better, and as many feet in breadth, and had no other
-matter for its form or building but the outward
-loam crusted hardish by the heat burning the loam
-red like brick. The flooring in the middle, supported
-by and cut out of loam and helped with old-fashioned
-Roman tiles, sherds, but very few, and
-such as I have seen used for repositories for urns in
-ye fashion of little ovens, and they plastered within
-with a reddish mortar; but here was no mortar,
-but only ye sandy loam for cement.... A censer
-or lamp, whitish earth; one great earthen dish;
-earthen lamp gilded with electrum,” etc. etc.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Again, Conyers says the labourers under part
-of the place where St. Paul’s Cross stood, 25 ft. or
-30 ft. deep, as the earth ceased to be black and came
-to the yellow sand, found earthen potsherds as red
-and fine as sealing-wax, and upon some inscriptions,
-“<i>De Ovimini</i>,” “<i>De Parici</i>,” “<i>De Quintimani</i>,”
-“<i>Victor</i>,” “<i>Janus Ricino</i>.” [These were Samian,
-but he goes on to describe very accurately native
-pottery.] “And pots like broken urns, which were
-curiously laid on the outside with like thornpricks
-of rose trees, in the manner of raised work. Other
-were of cinnamon colour, urn fashion, and as if
-gilded with gold but faded. Some of strange fashion,
-jugs bent in so as to be six-square, raised work
-upon them pricked as curious raisers of paste may
-imitate; some like black earth for pudding pans,
-on ye outside indented and crossed quincunx
-fashion. They had some odd colours (not blue)
-in these times and a way of glazing different to what
-now; the red earth bare away the bell.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>“Now, besides red pots,” says Conyers, “such
-as have inscriptions in the bottoms [<i>i.e.</i> Samian],
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_197'>197</span>there were black pots with inscriptions and part of
-white earth and the glazing black, and both these
-might be made in ye places, as well as a gilded sort
-of earthenware. There was a brownish sort inclining
-to yellow, and the gilding easily coming off.
-Now, whether this was a thin wash of gold colour
-or foliated, I know not, yet I think foliated [really
-mica]. Other pots and urns of a whitish yellow
-and a soft kind of earth and shells strewed at the
-bottom inside. Now, other pots as thin as glass
-with raised work, and these as of a silvered or bell-metal
-coloured glazing. The imagery, hounds,
-hares, stags, thorns, trees and branching, flourishings—all
-raised work. Then I have lamps of gilded
-British-work [local] and coarse whitish-yellow
-colours, and bottles and pots for dropping, of the
-same colours.” In one of his repetitions, Conyers
-mentions “great potsherds and ears of six-gallon
-pots.” He also gives sketches of many of the
-vessels. Doubtless those drawn were in most
-cases whole vessels and they are of the coarser wares,
-other than Samian. It is probable, therefore, that
-they were pottery made on the spot. Dr. Harwood,
-describing the excavations in the site of St. Mary
-Woolnoth in 1724, says that “Roman foundations
-were found made of offal of brick kilns and furnaces”
-(<i>Soc. Antiq. Minutes</i>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>It would be an easy thing to identify in our
-collections vessels which conform to the types
-sketched by Conyers and then to form a group of
-actual pots which presumably were made in London.
-This coarse and ordinary ware is usually classed as
-“Roman,” but it was in a large degree a Celtic
-inheritance. The black wares of “carinated”
-profile (Figs. <a href='#fig-135'>135</a> and <a href='#fig-136'>136</a>) and more or less “cordonned”
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_198'>198</span>decorations are very like Marne pottery
-of the Celtic period. It seems quite likely that the
-potteries of Londinium may have existed before
-the Roman Conquest.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i198a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 135.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i198b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 136.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-137'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i198c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 137.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Many of the decorated pots in our museums
-are so clearly described by Conyers that they, too,
-can be identified. It is evident, for instance, that
-Castor-ware vessels with
-hunting scenes in slip were
-as well represented in the
-finds as they are in our
-museums to-day. Hunting
-itself must have been much
-in the people’s minds, with
-chariot races and the
-gladiator “matches.”</p>
-
-<div id='fig-138'  class='figright id005'>
-<img src='images/i199a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 138.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Sporting subjects, such as
-are mentioned by Conyers,
-are plentifully represented
-in our museums. In Fairholt’s
-sketch-book I find a
-drawing of a pot found in
-Cateaton Street (Fig. <a href='#fig-137'>137</a>). There is also a sketch
-of a fragment of a similar urn found at Chesterford
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-138'>138</a>). Compare the sculpture, Fig. <a href='#fig-062'>62</a>.
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_199'>199</span>The piece engraved in Wright’s book as an example
-of a British hunting dog was also from a sketch
-by Fairholt of a London fragment. He also
-drew a piece found in Bishopsgate Street, which
-shows the heads of four horses, one over the other.
-This is explained by a complete pot at the British
-Museum, from Colchester,
-which has
-reliefs of racing
-chariots as mentioned
-before (p. 51). On
-another Colchester
-vase are Gladiators
-with their names scratched above. The eagle
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-139'>139</a>) is from a fragment at Silchester.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-139'  class='figcenter id019'>
-<img src='images/i199b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 139.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i199c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 140.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>After having identified the pottery actually
-made in London, and the other native sources
-from which other wares were brought, we might
-go on to determine how far this native pottery
-is Celtic and how far Roman. Fig. <a href='#fig-140'>140</a>, restored
-from a large fragment of very coarse make in the
-London Museum, and said to have been found at
-Mortlake, must have been made long before the
-Roman invasion. Figs. 135 and 136 are urns of
-Upchurch ware, carefully made and of lustrous
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_200'>200</span>black surface. The forms of these are not
-Roman. The “spirit” of all is of Bronze Age
-and Mycenæan character. The black pottery with
-“carinated” profiles found in London, and now
-in our museums, may be Upchurch ware, but from
-Conyers’ account and sketches it seems probable
-that black and grey pottery was made locally.
-In the museums, there are a few examples which
-seem to be clearly Celtic, as, for example, a large
-fragment at the British Museum with white stripes
-over a grey fabric. There seems, however, to have
-been a curious disinclination to recognise Celtic
-art, and a desire to call all Roman.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Samian.</i>—The early prosperity of London is
-well shown by the great quantity of Samian ware
-which has been found of the period about 60-85,
-and by the examples of the work of the best makers,
-such as Vitalis, Rubricius, Saturnus and Rufinus.
-Of the first-named there are some excellent vases
-in the collection at South Kensington; he distributed
-his pottery from Carthage to Carlisle, and
-from Pompeii to London. Saturnus has half a
-chapter to himself in a big book on the Roman
-pottery found in Trier. The Samian question is
-too vast for me to attempt to deal with it here, and
-I can merely note one or two details. In Fairholt’s
-sketch-books at the Victoria and Albert
-Museum there are several drawings of Samian
-fragments. One of these, which I have not seen
-elsewhere, is an excellent example of animals
-running under trees—a scheme taken over into
-our Castor-ware, which Dr. Haverfield thought
-might be a Celtic tradition (<i>Romanization</i>). (Fig.
-141, and compare Fig. <a href='#fig-138'>138</a>.) At the Guildhall are
-nearly a dozen fragments of a rare kind of Samian
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_201'>201</span>vase, in which the ornament of figures and foliage
-was applied in separate units, the leaves, etc., being
-linked up by stalks skilfully done by the “barbotine”
-method. Three larger and some smaller
-fragments come from a vase of rather globular shape
-which was very
-similar to a vase
-found at Cornhill,
-one of the chief
-treasures of the
-Roman Room at the
-British Museum.
-The latter is well
-described in Mr. Walter’s <i>Catalogue of Roman Pottery</i>,
-which is the best account available of pottery
-found in London. It is not observed that the
-Guildhall fragments contain a figure which is half
-lost in the restored vase at the British Museum.
-On the other
-hand, comparison
-with the
-latter would
-make it easy to
-restore the
-Guildhall example.
-The
-details of both
-were formed
-by the same
-stamps. I give in Figs. 142 and 143 the scheme of
-the decoration: B was the general shape of the pot.</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id005'>
-<img src='images/i201a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 141.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figleft id009'>
-<img src='images/i201b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 142.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Two or three other sherds at the Guildhall
-belonged to a somewhat similar but smaller urn
-which had Bacchic subjects—a satyr with goat
-legs, and a faun before whom is a wine jar into which
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_202'>202</span>he seems to be dropping grape juice. These figures
-were evidently also set between scrolls of vegetation,
-and this also can be restored. Again there is
-a sherd of a vine pattern similar to Fig. <a href='#fig-142'>142</a>, but, I
-think, from a third pot. There is also a figure
-from a dark-grey pot, which must have been yet
-another of the same kind. (For the last word on
-Samian pottery, see Oswald and Price’s <i>Terra
-Sigillata</i>.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A volume on the pottery found in London by a
-specialist, like that on
-Silchester, would be
-certain to bring out
-valuable historical
-results on the existence
-and persistence
-of Celtic wares, on
-importations before
-the Claudian Conquest,
-and on the
-large quantity of
-imports in early Roman days.</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id009'>
-<img src='images/i202.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 143.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Glass.</i>—Much broken glass is usually found on
-Roman sites, vessels, window-panes, etc., and it
-was probably wrought, in many centres, from
-imported material. Evidence of this has been
-found at Silchester and elsewhere (see Mr. T. May’s
-<i>Warrington</i>). Some window glass was described
-by Price as “plate polished on one side and ground
-on the other”; this probably means that it was
-cast and that the rough side came next the mould.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Conyers, describing the finds on the side of St.
-Paul’s in 1675, says: “The labourers told me of
-some remains that were found up and down near
-the place of the other pot-kilns, and these had a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_203'>203</span>funnel to convey the smoke, which might serve
-for glass furnaces. For though not any pots with
-glass in them whole in the furnaces were there
-found, yet broken crucibles, or tests for molting of
-glasses, together with boltered glasses such as are
-to be seen remaining at glass-houses amongst the
-broken glass, which were glasses spoilt in the making,
-were there found, but not plenty, and especially
-coloured and prepared for jewel-like ornament,
-but mostly such as for cruets or glasses with a lip
-to drop withal of a greenish light blue colour. Of
-any sort of glass there was but little; so that the
-glasswork might be scarce, for I think a hundred
-times more of pots was found to one of glass....</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>“Now doth appear the Romans had excellent
-mechanics, pot makers, stampers of coins, and
-excellent workers in glass, for amongst those Roman
-pots were found glass beads as big as could be put
-on your little finger, and these hollow within and
-of blue glass wrought or enamelled with yellow
-glass, and blue beads of the colour of a Turkoise
-stone. Divided were these beads with threads as
-big as pack thread. Amongst the rest, great pins
-made of bone or ivory, etc., heads of many like
-the great brass-pins, and others vermicular or screw-head,
-others like the Pope’s triple crown; of these
-fell to my share as many as a pint-pot would hold....
-Taken up a <i>speculum</i> of metal to show the face,
-of fine bell-metal. There were also found brass
-embossments with glass set instead of better jewels,
-which I keep, and glass drops that were loose, and
-the bottom of an old-fashioned crucible which had
-glass melted in it, and there were also pieces of necks
-of glass cruets to pour out by.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Much of the large number of plainer glass vessels
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_204'>204</span>in our museums was doubtless made in the London
-glass works from imported metal, and probably
-some ornamental pieces were also manufactured.
-Thomas Wright thought that glass itself was made
-in Roman days on the coast near Brighton where
-“pebbles of glass” have been found; but from
-comparatively late records of glass making about
-Rye, etc., the Roman origin of the “pebbles” seems
-unlikely.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the British Museum are some fragments of
-glass vessels having moulded reliefs of chariot
-races and combats, with the names of the competitors
-above them. T. Wright illustrates “a
-fragment of a very remarkable cup in green glass
-found in the Roman Villa at Hartlip in Kent....
-Roach Smith possessed two similar fragments
-found in London, one of which is identical with the
-Hartlip fragment in its design and appears to be
-from the same mould; the other is from a vessel
-of a different shape and has a quadriga in bas-relief.
-We have before had occasion to observe
-how popular gladiatorial contests and the games of
-the circus were among the Roman inhabitants of
-this island, and how often we find them represented
-on the pottery as on the glass.” If a glass vessel
-found in Kent is exactly like another found in
-London, it is probable that the former was itself
-obtained in London, where both may have been
-made. One of the fragments in the British Museum
-is from Colchester. We have seen before how
-that some of the Castor-ware pots were decorated
-with similar racing chariots, and one of these was
-found in London and the other in Colchester.
-Racing chariots also decorate a leaden box found in
-London and described below.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_205'>205</span>Glass vessels having reliefs of racing chariots have
-been found on the Continent, and in the British
-Museum <i>Guide</i> it is said that our examples “probably
-came from a Belgian workshop, as a glass of
-the same kind has been found at Couvin, in the
-province of Namur, bearing two of the same
-competitors’ names in a four-horse chariot race.
-Race cups of this kind date about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 100, and have
-been found in France, Belgium and Germany.
-The six cups or fragments found in Britain were no
-doubt imported across the Channel.” There is, I
-think, room for some doubt. In any case there
-seems to be ample evidence that glassware was
-made in Britain and in Londinium.</p>
-
-<div  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i205a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 144.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i205b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 145.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>Much glass of finer quality was imported. There
-is in the Guildhall Museum a fragment signed by
-a maker of Sidon, and fragments of several small
-plaques in the British Museum having patterns
-wrought in the substance are of a kind found in
-Egypt. At the Egyptian exhibition of the Burlington
-Club, 1921, similar plaques were shown,
-some having sprigs of flowers, and one a <i>single</i> rose
-petal pattern in yellow, white and red on the dark
-ground (cf. Fig. <a href='#fig-145'>145</a>). The three pieces at the
-British Museum are all different and all can be
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_206'>206</span>restored. Fig. <a href='#fig-144'>144</a> is from Roach Smith. Fig. <a href='#fig-145'>145</a>
-is a rough indication of the pattern of another,
-and the third is a variant of Fig. <a href='#fig-144'>144</a>. These interesting
-and beautiful little fragments are obscure
-from age; they might with great advantage be
-partially repolished, laid out on restored drawings,
-and be made much of. The recent rearrangement
-of the contents of the Roman Room at the British
-Museum, and the admirable new <i>Guide</i>, have so
-greatly increased the interest of the objects that I
-want still more. I also wish that the London things
-in the collection could be shown together. Roach
-Smith never intended his objects to be separated.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Enamels</i>.—Conyers’ phrases about coloured glass
-“prepared for jewel-like ornament,” and “the
-brass embossments with glass set instead of jewels,”
-apparently refer to enamels and seem to imply that
-enamelled objects were made at the London glass
-works.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-146'  class='figleft id004'>
-<img src='images/i207a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 146.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-147'  class='figleft id009'>
-<img src='images/i207b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 147.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>A large number of small enamelled objects,
-from little bowls to brooches, have been found in
-Britain. The art of enamelling was known here
-before the Roman age, but objects having several
-colours seem to be “Roman,” although there are
-Celtic characteristics in the patterns, and it is
-agreed that there was a native manufacture (<i>British
-Museum Guide</i>, p. 95) of such enamels. The finest
-piece is a “casket” in the form of a little vase with
-a handle. This handle has turned-up ends of a
-kind frequently found in Alexandrian silverwork.
-One of the bands of enamel is a meandering stem
-and vine leaves. This beautiful object was found
-in Essex, and there is in the British Museum another
-little enamelled bowl also found not far from
-London, at Braughing, Hertfordshire. The details
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_207'>207</span>in these two pieces are very similar, so are those of a
-little enamelled cock found near the Royal Exchange.
-Notice the use of long triangular forms and narrow
-saw-edged fillets. It seems probable
-that all were made in London,
-and further evidence is found in
-a remarkable enamelled plate taken
-out of the Thames (Fig. <a href='#fig-146'>146</a>).
-This “being an unfinished piece,
-was probably made in this
-country”—and city, I would
-add. In colouring and technique
-this plate (probably part of a
-memorial) is very like the objects
-already mentioned. A leaf form on it which ends
-in a tendril is found also on the Braughing
-bowl; both these pieces might have come from
-one shop. The type of ornament is remarkably
-Celtic. In the <i>Guide</i> it is said that “debased
-Amazon shields can be recognised, and Riegel has
-pointed out that the panel is not a unit, but belongs
-to a larger all-over
-pattern which could
-be repeated indefinitely,
-and reveals
-an artistic tendency
-of the later Roman
-Empire.” I do not
-agree with either of
-these statements. The
-pattern seems to me
-to have been designed as a reversed scroll pattern,
-subdivided by setting down oval forms in the spaces
-to counterchange the colour in a typically Celtic
-manner. In the diagram (Fig. <a href='#fig-147'>147</a>), A is the pattern
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_208'>208</span>type; B is the application to the space; C is the
-subdivision of the spaces completing the design.
-In D and E, I have made an original design on the
-same principle. Other details in the filling of the
-space at the top are Celtic. Notice again a heart-shaped
-form at X. This form is frequent in small
-seal-boxes, several of which have been found in
-London, of which F is from one lately added to the
-Guildhall collection. It is probable, I think, that
-such enamels were made in London by Celtic
-artists. An enamelled harness plate found in
-London and illustrated by Roach Smith is like
-others found in Somersetshire (see G). A small
-brooch in the form of a fish at the London Museum
-may be early Christian.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Leadwork.</i>—Britain was the chief source for
-lead in the later Roman era. Of about a hundred
-and twenty Roman pigs of lead in the museums of
-Europe, about half were of British origin, as appears
-from the inscriptions. Cast sheet lead was used
-for coverings. Some actually in position was
-found lining the bottom of the hot bath at Bath
-in 1864. It was afterwards sold for £70! Mr.
-Irvine, in an article on the Corinthian temple at
-Bath, assumes that the roof was covered with lead.
-He says that the sheet lead found in Bath was about
-three-eighths of an inch thick and showed that it
-was cast on a sand-bed. Melted lead was found at
-St. Albans under conditions which suggested that
-it had come from the roof of the Basilica. We
-may be satisfied that lead was used for important
-roofs. Lead pipes are also found.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Many lead coffins have been found in and about
-London—about a dozen in all—and they were
-doubtless made in the city. The fashion of using
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_209'>209</span>lead coffins seems to have originated in the
-Romanised East about the time of the recognition
-of Christianity, and those found in London follow
-the general type very closely. I give in Fig. <a href='#fig-148'>148</a> a
-rough sketch made in Constantinople twenty-five
-years ago of a lead coffin found at Sidon. Another
-coffin from Sidon has recently been acquired by the
-British Museum. Figs. 149, 150 and 151 are from
-coffins found in London.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i209a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 148.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i209b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 149.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>One discovered many years ago in South London,
-illustrated in <i>Archæologia</i>, vol. xvii., had on it two
-little figures like Minerva—probably Britannia.
-Another found at Sittingbourne, recently set out
-for exhibition at the British Museum, has little
-Medusa heads and pairs of lions watching a vase
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-152'>152</a>).</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i210a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 150.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id015'>
-<img src='images/i210b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 151</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_210'>210</span>A round lead box, for the reception of burnt
-bones, found in London and now in the British
-Museum, has repeated on it a relief of a four-horse
-chariot. This is described in the <i>Guide</i> as the
-chariot of the Sun; but comparison with other
-chariot-racing groups on the pottery and glass
-vessels shows that these reliefs must also represent
-a chariot race (Fig. <a href='#fig-153'>153</a>). This fact adds to the
-probability that the glass vessels with reliefs of
-racing chariots were also made in Londinium.
-Fig. 154 is from a simpler lead box found in London;
-compare the rings with the painted pattern
-described at the bottom of p. 169.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-152'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i211a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 152.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-153'  class='figcenter id010'>
-<img src='images/i211b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 153.</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class='sc'>Fig. 154.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_211'>211</span><i>Pewter.</i>—A large quantity of pewter ware,
-vessels and dishes, has been discovered in Britain.
-Many ingots of the metal were found in the last
-century at Battersea in the river. Lysons figured
-a fragment of “lead” found at Lydney stamped
-with a name, and this may have been pewter.
-The ingots of pewter were doubtless of British
-origin, and it is very probable that the finished
-objects of this metal were manufactured here.
-Many of the dishes have engraved centres of a
-type of design which can hardly be earlier than the
-fourth century. This engraving was filled with
-black composition imitating <i>niello</i>. The ingots
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_212'>212</span>bear marks which show that they belong to a time
-when Christianity was recognised.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the London Museum is a dish with an engraved
-centre, and at the British Museum are some
-plain dishes signed with the name of the owner
-or maker, Martinus, which were found in Southwark.
-Most of the finds of pewter ware have been
-made in south-east England, and London is the
-most likely place of origin. Lysons illustrates a
-dish found at Manchester (it is now in the British
-Museum) with an engraved centre so like those
-found in the south of England that it is probable
-it also was made in the south. These dishes were
-finished in a lathe; at the back they have traces
-of three projections by which they were held in
-turning but afterwards cut away.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Bone, Leatherwork, etc.</i>—We have seen above
-that Conyers speaks of the large quantity of bone
-objects found in excavations. Of the St. Paul’s
-site he says: “And amongst ye heap or mixture of
-rubbish, hartshorn sawed into pieces, old heifers’
-horns, and abundance of boars’ tusks—some in
-their jaw bones which shows that they did often
-hunt ye wild boar.... It is very remarkable that
-ivory-work and great pins made of bone and bodkins
-of great numbers was found buried together with
-store of boars’ teeth, of oysters and other shells,
-Roman coins and ornamental beads, of blue like
-enamel and the fibulæ they used to fasten their
-garments, earthenware with inscriptions and glass
-was found in gravel pits near St. Paul’s School.”
-Several carved pieces of similar style in the London
-Museum—notably little reliefs of gladiators—suggest
-that there were expert bone carvers in
-London. A bone pin with a figure of Fortuna
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_213'>213</span>found in London, and a carving of a sphinx from
-Colchester—both in the British Museum—are
-really beautiful work. The admirable fragments of
-an ivory scabbard found in Greenwich Park in 1906
-can hardly be London work.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A considerable number of beautifully-made
-leather shoes having elaborately pierced patterns
-are doubtless of local work. One found at South-fleet,
-now at the British Museum, was coloured
-purple and decorated with gilding, as is recorded on
-a drawing at the Society of Antiquaries, made when
-it was newly found.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The site of London is still unexhausted; even
-while I am writing this I see in the morning’s
-paper, “Recent excavations in Lothbury have
-brought to light relics of Roman occupation—bone
-bodkins, oyster shells and broken pottery. The
-bodkins are large, and it is thought that they were
-probably used in mat-making.” London must
-have been an art-producing centre for two thousand
-years.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i213.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Locally made Pottery.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_214'>214</span>
-  <h2 id='ch11' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER XI</em><br /> <br />EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON</h2>
-</div>
-<p class='c022'>“It was no longer thought to be Britain but a Roman island; and
-all their money was stamped with Cæsar’s image. Meanwhile these
-islands, stiff with frost, received the beams of light, the holy precepts
-of Christ, the true Sun, at the later part of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar.”</p>
-<div class='c023'>—<span class='sc'>Gildas.</span></div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c015'><i>CHRISTIAN BRITAIN.</i>—The whole subject
-of Christian antiquities in Britain was for
-a long time clouded by mere doubt of
-testimony, until the comparatively recent discovery
-of the foundations of an early Christian
-basilican church at Silchester, in 1892, gradually
-changed the temperature and atmosphere in which
-facts are seen. Thomas Wright had swept the thing
-aside, Gildas and all. This difference of attitude
-is well brought out in the earlier and more recent
-writings of Dr. Haverfield. Compare, for instance,
-his over-cautious article in the <i>English
-Historical Review</i> about twenty years ago with
-another in <i>Archæologia Æliana</i>, 1917, which is
-written in quite a different temper. It is now clear
-that Britain marched with Gaul in the acceptance
-of Christianity, although one step behind.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In Cabrol’s great <i>French Dictionary of Christian
-Antiquities</i> we may obtain a valuable unbiased
-account of British Christian antiquities. The best
-general introduction known to me is a chapter in
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_215'>215</span>Sir C. Oman’s excellent <i>England before the Norman
-Conquest</i>, from which I will condense a paragraph.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>“There is no doubt that individual Christians,
-perhaps even small communities, were to be found
-in Britain as early as the second century. There is
-no reason to doubt Tertullian writing in about
-<span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 208, or Origen writing about <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 230, that the
-Christian religion had converts in the province
-of the extreme north-west.... In the long peace
-which followed the persecution of Severus the new
-religion pushed northward and westward with
-greater power. There seems no reason to doubt
-the small number of British martyrs whose names
-appear in the earliest martyrologies. The very
-early martyrology gives three names drawn from
-Britain—the latest St. Patrick (<i>obiit c.</i> 461), the
-other two are Augulus, bishop of Augusta (London),
-and Alban. We know nothing of Augulus, but the
-fact that his See is called Augusta shows that the
-name was taken down between 340 and 410, for
-London was only known as Augusta in the second
-half of the fourth century. Of Alban’s existence
-our knowledge is more certain, since Germanus
-visited his grave in 429; his cult, therefore, was
-well established in the early fifth century.... As
-early as 314, three bishops from Britain appeared
-at the Council of Arles—Eborius of York, Restitutus
-of London and Adelphius of Lincoln. There seems
-reason to think that the bulk of the population
-remained pagan till a later date than was the case
-elsewhere. If the Christians of Calleva found the
-diminutive church lately discovered sufficient for
-their needs they must have been but a few hundreds.
-In that same town a temple to Mars was found,
-which must have been used down to the end. If
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_216'>216</span>Calleva had become completely Christian before its
-evacuation the image of Mars would not have been
-left. The small number of Christian sepulchral
-inscriptions is notable, though such have been found
-at Carlisle, Lincoln and elsewhere. It is very
-strange that a religion which was first publicly
-tolerated, and later encouraged for nearly a hundred
-years before <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 410, should have left so few records.
-The existence of a vigorous British Christendom
-in the fourth century is sufficiently proved by
-literary evidence. Without that evidence we should
-have gathered little from archæological research.
-Secular inscriptions and buildings of the fourth
-century are rare, no less than ecclesiastical ones.
-The British Church produced, in the last days of
-the Romans, a heresiarch, the celebrated Pelagius,
-a monk. Born about 370-80, he taught in Rome
-itself. The earliest recorded works written by
-Britons are those of the heresiarch and of a British
-bishop named Fastidius.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In an excellent short account of British Christian
-antiquities in the new <i>Guide to the Christian Collection
-at the British Museum</i> (1921), Mr. Dalton remarks
-that “the statement of the sixth-century
-British historian, Gildas, that in Roman times Britain
-had many churches was always credible, but positive
-proof was not forthcoming until the excavations
-on the site of Calleva (Silchester) brought to light
-the foundations of a church, the Roman origin of
-which is beyond dispute.” Gildas, again, is confirmed
-by Bede’s account of ruined Christian
-churches existing in the sixth century. According
-to Cabrol’s <i>Dictionary</i> even some of the greater
-country villas, like Chedworth, were occupied
-by Christian proprietors. On a mosaic pavement
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_217'>217</span>at Frampton the monogram of Christ appears in the
-central space of a border. It has been argued that
-the monogram might be later than the pavement,
-but the design of the border itself shows that it
-had a central feature from the first. It seems
-probable to me, as before said, that several other
-mosaic pavements were Christian.</p>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i217a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 155.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-156'  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i217b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 156.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id008'>
-<img src='images/i217c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 157.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>A British Church.</i>—The little church at Silchester
-is extraordinarily interesting in many ways.
-It was probably built not later than the middle of
-the fourth century and is thus one of the earliest
-churches known. It occupied an important position
-in the city close to the Forum, and it is probable
-from this and from the importance of the city that
-it was a bishop’s church. Moreover, it is evident
-that if there was such a church at Silchester there
-must have been others in Canterbury, Verulam,
-London and other cities. This church was only
-about 30 ft. square, exclusive of the narthex (Fig.
-155). Some day, when we reverence our antiquities
-more, it might be excavated once again and,
-having a decent roof erected over it, be made a place
-of pilgrimage. I should like to see a copy of it put
-up somewhere for use—it might cost half as much as
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_218'>218</span>a poor stained-glass window. As I have just said,
-the plan, exclusive of the narthex, was square, so
-also is the plan of an early church in Asia Minor
-which I give for comparison (Fig. <a href='#fig-156'>156</a>). This
-<i>squareness</i> was, I believe, intended as a symbol of the
-Ark. I also give the altar end of an early church
-in Greece, Fig. <a href='#fig-157'>157</a> (Nichopoleos: see Athenian
-<i>Ephemeris</i>, 1916).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The plan of the Silchester church seems to be of
-an Eastern rather than Roman type; and small as
-it is, it has slight transeptal projections which, when
-compared with the other plans, show that the form
-of the cross was intended to be suggested. The
-altar was not regarded as being in the apse, but
-rather in front of it (compare Fig. <a href='#fig-157'>157</a>). The apse
-was to the <i>west</i> and the entrance at the <i>east</i>, following
-the early custom. In front was a court with a
-water basin in the centre. In regard to the non-Roman
-character of the plan, it may be noted that
-the late Mr. Edmund Bishop, a great liturgical
-authority, showed that early Irish Christianity was
-of an Iberian type.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>London Saints.</i>—Bishop Augulus and Restitutus
-of London ought to be commemorated in some
-way in the City. We are singularly wasteful of
-the power there is in the antiquities of a nation
-when sympathetically understood. If, for instance,
-Patrick had been recognised for the great British
-personage he was—the son and grandson of Christian
-parents captured to be a slave in Ireland—the
-magnanimous missionary might have been a mediator
-between the Irish and ourselves, a mixed race, part
-English, part British and part Roman. St. Augulus
-is included in the Roman Catholic Menology of
-the British Church. “Feb. 7.—In London the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_219'>219</span>Passion of St. Augulus, Bishop and Martyr (<span class='fss'>A.D.</span>
-300 <i>c.</i>). Named on this day in the Roman Martyrology
-and in all the ancient calendars as a bishop who
-suffered martyrdom in London. The conjecture
-of historians is that he suffered in the persecution
-of Diocletian about the same time as St. Alban.”
-He is given a place in the paintings of the English
-College, Rome. It is curious that of two contemporary
-martyrs, St. Alban should have been taken
-up by fame and the other left. Confirmation
-of the point made by Sir C. Oman in regard to the
-name Augusta applied to London has appeared
-in the recent identification by Sir A. Evans of a late
-fourth-century coin with the Mint mark AVG.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-158'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i220a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 158.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Early Christian Objects.</i>—The earliest existing
-“monument” of Christian Londinium is dated
-only a little later than the year in which Restitutus
-attended the Council of Arles. This is the reverse
-of a coin of Constantine, recently discovered (1909)
-at Poltross Burn, on the great Roman Wall, and
-thus described: “Mint mark PLN; of the London
-Mint and bearing the Christian emblem; <span class='fss'>A.D.</span>
-317-324; variety of Cohen 638. Two Victories
-placing on an altar a shield inscribed VOT. PR.;
-on the face of the altar a cross within a wreath.
-This is a London-minted coin bearing upon its
-reverse the Christian emblem of such rarity that
-the use of Christian emblems in the London Mint
-has been called in question. The only recorded
-specimens are a coin of Constantine <span class='fss'>II.</span> in the British
-Museum, one of Crispus, found in 1909 at Corstopitum,
-and the present example. All have the
-same reverse” (Fig. <a href='#fig-158'>158</a>). This is in every way a
-very remarkable coin; the Victories placing the
-shield on a Christian altar is obviously a record of
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_220'>220</span>the official recognition of Christianity. From this
-moment when the Cross appeared on what Sir C.
-Oman calls “the public gazette of the Roman
-Empire,” every one in Londinium must
-have known what the Cross stood for.
-“In an issue of money between 317
-and 324, Constantine used Christian
-signs in such a way as to solemnly affirm
-his Christian faith, and thus by universal
-custom made known the imperial will.
-The coins of London hardly make the same
-affirmation of Christianity by the Emperor as
-that of Siscia, but they testify to the intentions
-of certain officers of the Mint” (Maurice,
-<i>Numis. Constant.</i>). On the coin of Crispus mentioned
-above, the <i>Classical Year Book</i>, 1911, remarked:
-“This is a novelty, as hitherto it has
-been supposed that Christian symbols did not occur
-on London coins of the Constantinian epoch.”
-“It is curious that the London Mint put Christian
-emblems on its coins before
-those of Trier, Lyons or Arles”
-(Oman).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-159'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i220b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 159.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>With the coins may be associated
-a small silver disc mounted
-as the head of a pin, now in the
-Roach Smith collection at the
-British Museum. My figure is
-from a drawing by Fairholt,
-according to whom it was found
-in Lothbury with several other
-small Roman objects. It seems
-quite certainly to represent, as Roach Smith
-supposed, Constantine’s vision of the Cross in
-the heavens (Fig. <a href='#fig-159'>159</a>).</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_221'>221</span>A small equal-armed cross forms the clasp of a
-Roman bronze chain-bracelet found in London,
-now in the British Museum, which
-can hardly be other than Christian
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-160'>160</a>). There has been some
-reluctance in accepting crosses of
-Roman date as Christian, but the
-evidence of the coins should modify this.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-160'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i221a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 160.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i221b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 161.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i221c.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 162.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In 1862 several ingots of pewter were dredged
-up from the Thames near Battersea Bridge, and
-in 1890 more were discovered. Two are in the
-York Museum and the rest are in the British Museum
-(<i>Archæol. Journal</i>, 48). They are stamped with
-the monogram of Christ in two forms, with one of
-which is associated the words, “<i>Spes in Deo</i>” (Fig.
-161), and the name “<i>Syagrius</i>” also appears. Silver
-and copper ingots discovered in this country have
-official stamps (non-Christian), and it
-may not be doubted that the pewter
-marks were also official. A lead seal
-in the Reading Museum, found in the
-Civil Basilica at Silchester, has an XP
-monogram, which is very similar (Fig.
-162), and this, too, was probably official.
-The most interesting parallel known to me of
-the stamps on the pewter ingots is a seal from
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_222'>222</span>a wine jar found at Naucratis, in Egypt (<i>Nau.</i>
-ii. pl. 22), where we find “<i>Spes in Deo</i>” in
-a circle around a cross (Fig. <a href='#fig-163'>163</a>). The circular
-form had long been used for official stamps (cf.
-a brick stamp with the name of Nero in Reading
-Museum). Pewter ware was popular at the end of
-the fourth century, and this is probably the date
-of our ingots. The name which appears on them
-was in use at a late time. One Syagrius, “last of
-the Romans,” was driven from his kingdom of
-Soissons by the Franks in <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 480.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-163'  class='figcenter id019'>
-<img src='images/i222a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 163.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-164'  class='figcenter id019'>
-<img src='images/i222b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 164.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>At the Guildhall Museum are two small terra-cotta
-lamps (Nos. 17 and 18), each having the Christian
-monogram in the centre (Fig. <a href='#fig-164'>164</a>). These are
-not of British make, but they may have been imported
-in the Roman age. (A lamp which Sir L.
-Gomme made much of, with a little view of a
-city on it, was also of foreign origin, and there is no
-reason to think that the view had any connection
-with London.) Two other lamps in the Guildhall
-collection (Nos. 54 and 117) are described as having
-“limbs of cross on body, perhaps early Christian,”
-but I have not found these and some other objects
-which it is said may possibly be Christian.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the description of Wren’s finds on the site
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_223'>223</span>of St. Paul’s, given in <i>Parentalia</i>, is mentioned “a
-sepulchral earthen lamp figured with two branches
-of palms, supposed Christian.” Comparing the
-description with Figs. 165 and 166 there cannot be
-any doubt that Wren’s lamp was Christian. In the
-British Museum is a little rough lamp found at
-Tidworth, Wilts, which has a pair of palm branches,
-and I think that there is another in Canterbury
-Museum; the former is so like others from Syria
-in the Early Christian Room at the British Museum
-that there cannot be a doubt that it is not a native
-work; possibly it was brought back by a pilgrim
-from the Holy Land. Fig. <a href='#fig-165'>165</a> illustrates the seal
-of a ring found at Fifehead Neville,
-Dorset, now in the British Museum;
-on it we find the sign of Christ in the
-later form (in which the X has become
-a cross) surmounted by a dove, and
-between two palms. It means something
-like “the Believer resting on the victorious
-Cross of Christ.” The earlier form of the monogram
-was made of the first two letters of the name
-Christ, XP; the later form was formed by a cross
-and XP or P, and this seems to have meant the
-Crucifixion.</p>
-
-<div  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i223.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 165.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>These comparisons will help to interpret a fascinating
-fragment of a symbolical design engraved on
-a glass cup found at Silchester. Here, instead of
-the sign for Christ, we find the upper part of a
-letter, which can hardly have been anything else
-than T, for nothing else would be central in the
-design, and in place of the dove we have a fish.
-T was the early form of the sign of the cross, and is
-found several times in the Catacombs; the fish is
-a rebus for the words Jesus Christ, God’s Son
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_224'>224</span>Saviour (ΙΧΘΎΣ); the palms are again signs of
-victory. It seems to be an early symbolical representation
-of Christ on the
-cross, and one of the most interesting
-which exists (compare
-Figs. 46 and 47 in the British
-Museum <i>Guide to Christian Antiquities</i>).
-Another tiny fragment
-of the same glass has the letter
-O on it, and there must have
-been some short inscription as
-well as the fish symbol and palms (Fig. <a href='#fig-166'>166</a>).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-166'  class='figleft id003'>
-<img src='images/i224a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 166.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div id='fig-167'  class='figright id003'>
-<img src='images/i224b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Figs. 167, 168, 169.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>In the London Museum is an enamelled brooch
-in the form of a fish (Fig. <a href='#fig-167'>167</a>). As the fish was a
-well-known Christian symbol, we may hardly doubt
-that this brooch must be counted among our
-Christian antiquities. It is exactly similar to a
-brooch illustrated by Mr. Ward (<i>Roman Era</i>, Fig.
-75) as having been found in Rotherley. They are
-duplicates, and must have come from the same
-“shop.” In <i>V.C.H.</i> it is recorded that a fish-shaped
-enamelled fibula was
-found in excavations at London
-Wall in 1901-5 (compare
-<i>Builder</i>, December 13, 1902).
-This may be the same piece.
-At Silchester a plain bronze
-brooch in fish form was found
-(Fig. <a href='#fig-167'>168</a>). The fish symbol in
-an almost identical form is
-found engraved on a pewter
-dish, one of a set found at
-Appleshaw (Hants) and now in
-the British Museum (Fig. <a href='#fig-167'>169</a>); the dish itself on
-which it appears is sometimes described as fish-shaped,
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_225'>225</span>but it was rather a long oval with projections
-at the ends. Another of the same set of pewter
-pieces has the XP monogram engraved on it (Fig.
-170). As a third of the pieces is of the form of a
-chalice, there seems to be every reason to regard the
-whole set as church plate, and I find this definitely
-asserted in an article in the <i>Athenæum</i> (August 11,
-1906): “In 1890 a body was found at Reading
-lying east and west, together with Roman British
-relics, and a lead plate bearing three crosses; near
-by was another skeleton with a small pewter chalice.
-This may be accepted as the grave of a Christian
-priest. This chalice should be compared with that
-of a Roman altar set of pewter recently
-found at Appleshaw.”</p>
-
-<div  class='figright id014'>
-<img src='images/i225.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 170.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>As said before, when tombs and coffins
-were discussed, it is probable that some
-of these represent Christian burials. A
-coin of the Emperor Gratian bearing
-the monogram of Christ was found at
-Smithfield, together with some wooden coffins, and
-it was probably buried as a sign of faith (<i>V.C.H.</i>).
-Two or three rough stone coffins found in Kent seem
-to have been Christian. The first bishops of the
-Saxon church at Canterbury were interred in stone
-coffins of a Roman type.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>St. Peters, Cornhill.</i>—Ancient tradition, which
-may be traced back to the twelfth century, claimed
-that the Church of St. Peter on Cornhill was older
-than St. Paul’s Cathedral, and a church of Roman
-foundation. The site is important, being close to
-(as I suppose) or within the boundary of the Forum
-and Civil Basilica of Londinium. The main walls
-of the present church are neither parallel with Cornhill
-nor square with Gracechurch Street, and Roman
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_226'>226</span>foundations have recently been found in the neighbourhood
-of the church. Until all the lines of the
-walls which have been discovered have been carefully
-laid down on a large-scale plan, it would be
-rash to offer any opinion as to a possible Roman
-foundation of the church; but if the church should
-prove to have been near, but outside the Forum,
-the position of the church at Silchester would be
-significant evidence. If, on the other hand, the
-church site proves to have been within the boundary
-of the Forum, its Roman foundation would be
-improbable.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Recent records of finds near the church mention
-“an old piece of Roman wall passing through the
-present wall of the church at a slight angle under
-demolished buildings [along the north front]....
-This may possibly belong to the original church”
-(March 2, 1922). From an article in <i>The Times</i>
-of September 29, 1922, I condense the following
-account of discoveries made at the end of the year
-1921 on the north side of St. Peter’s Church: “A
-magnificent wall went down about 20 ft., but at
-15 ft. were the footings. The wall was here 5 ft.
-wide; above the footings were three courses of
-tiles four abreast, each 13 in. wide, making 52 in.
-wide. This wall had been plastered on the south
-side, and at some subsequent date [?] rooms had been
-made by other walls, on the plastering of which was
-still to be seen a pattern of imitation marble or
-alabaster. There were two layers of plaster and
-then a layer of white cement almost as thin as paper,
-on which designs had been painted by a skilful
-artist. This wall had been broken down, and at a
-level 5½ ft. higher, a tessellated pavement had been
-laid. Later, at 56 and 57 Cornhill, a similar wall
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_227'>227</span>was uncovered. The mortar joints between the
-tiles were wide. The wall was found on the south
-[afterwards corrected to <i>north</i>] side of the church
-wall, so that the ancient Church of St. Peter was
-probably built inside what was a Roman fortress.”
-For fortress I would read the Forum. The church
-can hardly have been founded in such a position
-until the Forum had gone out of use and the Roman
-age in Londinium had passed, but it might then very
-well have been constructed within old Roman walls
-or on their foundations. We saw before that wall
-tiles of exceptional size had been used in the Civil
-Basilica of the Forum, and the tiles, 13 in. wide,
-mentioned above would seem to be of the same
-size. Twenty-five years ago a Roman wall was
-found, described as “very close to St. Peter’s upon
-Cornhill, of immense thickness, proceeding in a
-westerly direction from Leadenhall Market, under
-the Woolpack Tavern in Gracechurch Street, along
-St. Peter’s Alley, a few feet on the south side of
-St. Peter’s, continuing under the banking-house
-of Messrs. Prescott, Dimsdale &amp; Co. (50 Cornhill),
-<i>supposed</i> to continue under the roadway of Cornhill,
-and appearing again in the foundations of the new
-building now being erected on the <i>north</i> side of
-Cornhill (No. 70) for the Union Bank of Australia.”
-(Middlesex and Herts <i>Notes and Queries</i>, 1897.)
-This wall, if one may guess, appears to have been
-parallel to the 5 ft. wall on the north of the church,
-and between them seem to have been important
-chambers of the Forum buildings.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Dr. Bury has lately given reasons for thinking
-that the Romans did not finally evacuate Britain
-until 442 (<i>J.R.S.</i>, vol. x.).</p>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_228'>228</span>
-  <h2 id='ch12' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>CHAPTER XII</em><br /> <br />THE ORIGIN OF LONDON<a id='r3' /><a href='#f3' class='c027'><sup>[3]</sup></a></h2>
-</div>
-<div class='lg-container-b c018'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'>“There Thames runs by beneath the wall,</div>
-      <div class='line in1'>Where pass the merchant vessels all,</div>
-      <div class='line in1'>From every land, both high and low,</div>
-      <div class='line in1'>Where Christian merchants come and go.”</div>
-      <div class='c019'><span class='sc'>Tristram</span>, <i>c.</i> 1175.</div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='fn'>
-
-<div class='footnote c003' id='f3'>
-<p class='c025'><span class='label'><a href='#r3'>3</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>The substance of this chapter was read at the Society of Antiquaries
-about 1917, but it has not been printed before.</p>
-</div>
-
-</div>
-<p class='drop-capa0_25_0_7 c025'><i>FIRST BRITISH CITIES.</i>—Ancient cities were
-not planted down by an act of will, they
-sprang up on lines of communication as
-centres of control and commerce. On a geological
-map it appears that a chalk belt passes from Kent
-to Hampshire towards the south bank of the
-Thames. From the north bank another wide belt
-diverges to the north-east. The backbones of
-these chalk regions are the North Downs of Kent
-and the Chiltern Hills; they contain between
-them a long triangle of gravel drift and marsh
-flats through which the Thames flows to the sea.
-These downs, as we know to-day, when we find
-ourselves on them, are pre-eminently walking
-grounds, and they must have been the prehistoric
-ways of communication. “Primitive man traversed
-the ranges lengthways: in the valleys were
-forests almost impenetrable, whereas the backbone
-of each ridge would stand bald above the
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_229'>229</span>ocean of trees.” The oldest roads were “Ridge-ways.”
-On the high Wiltshire downs at, or near,
-a point where the southern system of downs converge,
-stands Stonehenge, and I cannot doubt
-that it was in some way conceived as being a centre
-and “capital” of the country. The Gauls recognised
-such a centre, or “omphalos,” near
-Chartres. Since writing this, I find that Sir C.
-Oman has said, “Britain must have had some focus
-corresponding to that for Gaul; possibly among
-the prehistoric monuments of Salisbury Plain.”
-Stonehenge, I may say in passing, is a monument
-of wrought stone set out with precision, and I
-cannot see how it can be earlier than about 500-700
-<span class='fss'>B.C.</span></p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The ancient trackway along the Chilterns, known
-as the Ickneld Way, reached the Thames near
-Wallingford. Travellers going south and east
-from this point struck across the narrow space of
-low broken ground between the two chalk ranges
-by a short linking road. Silchester, the capital
-of an important Brito-Belgic tribe, lies on or near
-the course of such a road in a corn-bearing region.
-Silchester was the key of the old road system over
-the Thames fords. It is known to have been one
-of three most important pre-Roman British centres,
-and we may, I think, look on it as the first British
-city.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The British city of Verulamium lay to the south
-of the Ickneld Way, in the same great triangle
-between the two chalk regions which is here much
-wider. The rise of this centre suggests that a road
-linking the two chalk ranges had been found across
-the river valley much lower than Silchester. The
-later Roman Watling Street, directed straight
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_230'>230</span>on Verulam, formed such a link, and there are
-many reasons which suggests that some underlying
-British trackway must have been the cause why
-Verulam became important. Later, again, Colchester
-came to be the chief city. Possibly it
-was favoured as being more remote when the
-Romans should make an attack. It seems to have
-been named after the Celtic war-god, and this may
-be significant. (In Roman days as in mediæval,
-there was probably a ferry from Gravesend to
-Tilbury for direct access to Colchester from Kent.
-This seems to be suggested by the Peutinger roadmap.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Origin of London.</i>—By origin I mean the beginning
-of a development which led to the establishment
-of a port and commercial town. Doubtless
-the site may have been occupied by some dwellers
-in the Stone Age. For many centuries before the
-Roman conquest Britain had been in commercial
-relations with the Continent. Just before the
-conquest Verulam was the capital of the leading
-Celtic kingdom. This Brito-Belgic kingdom had
-its southern boundary along the Thames and its
-eastern at the Lea, and these are still boundaries
-of Middlesex. If this kingdom, with its capital
-some twenty miles inland, had any sea-borne trade,
-its port must have been on or near the site of
-London. It is even probable that this port was
-the cause of the pre-eminence of the little kingdom
-to which it belonged. The port was to Verulam
-what the Piræus was to Athens, Ostia to Rome,
-Dover to Canterbury, and Southampton to Winchester.
-London was doubtless the source of the
-wealth of King Cymbeline, and we might very well
-look on him as the founder.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><span class='pageno' id='Page_231'>231</span>Dr. Guest argued that London was founded as a
-Roman camp at the time of the Claudian conquest;
-but it is now agreed that the name is Celtic; and it
-must not be forgotten that London is and always
-was a port. When we first hear of London only
-seventeen years after the Claudian conquest, it was
-already, as Tacitus says, famous for the number of
-its merchants, and this must imply that it was a
-principal port. Dr. Haverfield, while admitting
-that the name is Celtic, went on to say: “The
-name Londinium, the place of Londinos, witnesses
-at most to nothing more than one wigwam or one
-barn.” This “at most” can only mean that every
-town presumably begins with one building; in
-London, however, the building is not likely to have
-been a barn amid the bare gravels, but rather a
-boatman’s house. Further evidence for the existence
-of a pre-Roman town is brought out by
-the large number of Celtic objects found on the
-site and in the neighbourhood, but they have
-never been properly catalogued as a group. Dr.
-Haverfield allowed that three pieces of imported
-Samian ware in the British Museum might belong
-to the period <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 10-40. “We might then conclude
-that through the influx of Roman traders
-London had been noted as a suitable trading centre
-a few years previous to the Roman conquest; but
-the minute dating of these potsherds is not easy, and
-we must leave the question of pre-Roman London
-unsettled. Either there was no pre-Roman London,
-or it was an undeveloped settlement, which may
-have been on the south bank of the Thames”
-(<i>Journ. Rom. Studies</i>, vol. i. p. 146). The evidence
-of such early imports is greatly strengthened by
-other discoveries at Silchester. Mr. May, speaking
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_232'>232</span>of the early “Samian” ware, says: “The Silchester
-examples are of much significance. Together with
-the contemporary Belgic imitations they prove that
-the inhabitants of the capital of the Atrebati were
-importing costly luxuries in considerable quantities
-from Italy and Northern Gaul at the beginning of
-the Christian era.” Early Belgic pottery has been
-found in London as well as “Samian,” and there
-is in the British Museum a wine jar of an early
-type found in Southwark. Some British pottery
-was doubtless made in Londinium itself before
-the Roman conquest. Mr. Lambert has described
-specimens of coarse wares in <i>Archæologia</i>. Of one
-of these he writes: “Bead-rimmed pot, coarse
-grey ware, irregularly burnt. A pre-Roman type,
-surviving into the Roman period.” He dates it
-<span class='fss'>A.D.</span> 50-80, I suppose thinking that it cannot have
-really been pre-Roman.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>London above bridge is an inland city, the
-English capital; below bridge it is a great seaport.
-In a description of England, published in 1753, I
-find this: “That part of the Thames, which is
-properly the harbour, is called the Pool, and begins
-at the turning out of Limehouse Reach and extends
-to the Custom House quays. In this compass I had
-the curiosity to count the ships, and I have found
-about 2000 sail of all sorts of vessels that really go
-to sea.” In a twelfth-century rhyme on English
-towns are the words, “London for ships most.” Bede
-describes London as a great ship port. The city is
-placed just where the Thames widened into an
-estuary. At Battersea the river was little wider
-two thousand years ago than at present; it overflowed
-wide spaces of marsh about Westminster
-and again contracted by London. Her high ground
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_233'>233</span>came close to the water on the north, and on the
-Southwark side there was only a narrow margin of
-low ground. Directly to the east of London was
-the low land called in the Middle Ages “Wapping
-Marsh” (<i>Middlesex Feet of Fines</i>). In the Pepys
-collection at Cambridge I have seen an engraved
-plan of “Lands by Wall or Wapping Marsh, 1683:
-seven acres of land in which the millponds and
-ditches did all over dispersedly lie.” Stow tells
-of Limehouse marshes being “drowned.” Before
-the lower Thames was embanked the river must
-have been two or three miles wide, at every tide, a
-little below London, where the considerable little
-river, the Lea, runs into it. The higher ground
-of the site of London is in the angle formed by
-the Thames and Lea, and is the extremity of
-the northern hills, Highgate and Islington. From
-the hills several streams flowed through deeply
-excavated beds into the Thames. The most considerable
-of these was the Fleet; the smaller
-Walbrook intersected the site of the city. Conyers
-in his MS. at the British Museum noted how the
-Fleet was embanked in 1675 with material taken
-from old St. Paul’s, “to narrow-in the spreading
-breadth of Fleet River.... The waters overflowed
-these parts in the old times.” The general
-topographical conditions were well observed by
-Drayton in <i>Polyolbion</i>—The city was built on a
-rising bank of gravel and sand, surrounded by lower
-ground: the tide flowing up the Lea and Fleet
-prevented the town from growing too long: to the
-north and south of the Thames were ranges of hills:
-“And such a road for ships scarce all the world
-commands.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>Way to the Port.</i>—The men who first came to
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_234'>234</span>the site of London must have come from the
-higher ground of Islington and Highgate; they
-did not cross the Lea or the Fleet. Before some
-engineering was done the natural way was from
-the direction of Verulam. Now, an ancient road
-lies along this course from St. Albans to Aldersgate.
-As it approaches London it passes between
-the Walbrook and the Fleet, pointing towards what
-the old tablet near St. Paul’s says is the highest
-land in the city. The Walbrook where it fell into
-the Thames must have had steep clean gravel
-banks containing a tidal inlet—a perfect landing-place
-where small ancient ships could be brought
-alongside. This creek, afterwards known as Dowgate,
-must have been the original port of London.
-Along the old road wine, pottery and bronzes
-were carried into the interior, and corn was brought
-for export. Dowgate is known as a port for foreign
-ships from Saxon days (Round’s <i>Commune of London</i>).
-It is especially interesting to find from Stow that
-in the fifteenth century the Abbot of St. Albans
-had a quay by Dowgate. (Old writers supposed
-that “Dow” represented the British word for
-water; recent scholars equate it with <i>Dove</i>; but
-even so there is the curious analogy with Dover
-and such like place-names.) The Roman gates of
-London, of course, opened on important routes,
-and “the street from Aldersgate to Islington” is
-mentioned in the twelfth century (<i>Middlesex Feet
-of Fines</i>). Stow says: “From the further end of
-Aldersgate Street straight north to the Bar is called
-Goswell Street. Beyond leaving the Charterhouse
-on the left hand the way stretcheth up
-towards Iseldon.” Again on the old woodcut,
-usually called Aggas’s map, the street out of Aldersgate
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_235'>235</span>is inscribed “the way to St. Albans.” That
-excellent old book, John Nelson’s <i>History of Islington</i>,
-carries the account of this road forward, and he
-thought that it was Roman. He quotes a passage
-from Norden, to the effect that it passed east of
-Highgate through Tollington Lane to Crouch End,
-Hornsey Park, Muswell Hill, etc. “Tolentone,” he
-points out, is mentioned in <i>Domesday</i>. This road
-is laid down on old maps. Recent modifications
-at Islington may be made out by comparing maps
-given by Nelson and by Lewis in 1842.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>I now quote the passage relating to this old
-ridgeway road to Verulam from Norden’s MS.
-(British Museum, 570). He begins at Clerkenwell
-instead of from the City: “It is not to be omitted
-to declare the old and ancient highways heretofore
-used by our fathers though the new be of greater
-regard and account for that they yield more ease
-unto the travellers. There was an old way that
-passed from Clerkenwell as also from Portpoole
-[Gray’s Inn] towards Barnet and so to St. Albans.
-From Clerkenwell it extended as the way now is
-unto a bridge or brooke between Gray’s Inn Lane
-and Pancras Church, near which brooke it entered
-into an old lane leaving Pancras Church on the west.
-It is called Longwich Lane, through which lane it
-passed along leaving also Highgate on the west and
-passed through Tollington Lane, whence it extended
-to Crouch End and thence through the
-Park to Muswell Hill near by Colney Hatch and so
-to Friern Barnet, from thence to Whetstone and
-there meeteth the new way. The cause why
-travellers left this old and ancient way was the deep
-and dirty passage in the winter.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The road is well described in Pennant’s Tour
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_236'>236</span>(1782): “On quitting St. Albans I passed the
-wall of Sopwell Nunnery mixed with quantities
-of Roman tiles. After London Colney on the
-Colne I reached Ridgehill (!), a most extensive
-view. At South Mimms enter Middlesex and about
-a mile farther made Barnet; in Saxon times a vast
-wood filled this tract. From this town is a quick
-descent. Just beyond Whetstone the road passes
-over Finchley Common, infamous for robberies,
-and often planted with gibbets. About a mile
-beyond stands Highgate, a large village seated on a
-lofty eminence overlooking the smoky extent beneath.
-Here, in my memory, stood a gateway at
-which in old time a toll was paid to the Bishop of
-London for liberty, granted between four and five
-hundred years ago, for passing from Whetstone
-along the present road instead of the old miry way
-by Friern Barnet, Colnie Hatch, Muswell Hill,
-Crouch End, and leaving Highgate to the west
-by the Church of St. Pancras. After resting for a
-small space over the busy prospect, I descended
-into the plain, reached the metropolis, and disappeared
-in the crowd.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The old miry way by Crouch End is, I cannot
-doubt, the original British road from Verulam to
-Londinium. (St. Pancras, it may be mentioned
-here, must be a very old settlement; near by was
-a bridge over the Fleet River, at a later time called
-“Battle Bridge,” on which name theories have
-been founded, but I think the bridge may have
-taken the place of “Bradford in the Parish of St.
-Pancras,” mentioned in the <i>Feet of Fines</i>, 23 H. viii.)</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A summer’s day journey to London, such as
-Matthew Paris would have known it, must have
-been of beauty unimaginable when the miry lane
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_237'>237</span>was not too wet. Mention is made in the time of
-Henry <span class='fss'>VIII.</span> of “a capital messuage called Muswell
-Farm in the parish of Clerkenwell and Hornsey, and
-the site of a certain chapel in the said parish, now
-dissolved, lately called Muswell Chapel” (<i>Middlesex
-Feet of Fines</i>, 35 H. viii.). A memory of the view
-of St. Paul’s rising from the midst of the walled
-city is given in a little sketch by Matthew Paris
-himself. I find this of Highgate in 1753: “On the
-summit of the hill a view over the whole vale to
-the city, and that so eminently that they see the
-ships passing up and down the river for twelve
-or fifteen miles below London.” Of Hampstead:
-“The Heath affords a most beautiful prospect, for
-we see within eight miles of Northampton, and the
-prospect to London and beyond it to Banstead
-Downs, Shooter’s Hill, Red Hill, and Windsor
-Castle is uninterrupted.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>A note of Camden speaks of another old road
-striking across to Edgware. “Hampstead Heath,
-from which you have a most pleasant prospect of
-the most beautiful city of London and the lovely
-country about it, over which the ancient Roman
-military way led to Verulam by Edgworth and not
-by Highgate as now, which new way was opened
-by the Bishop of London about 300 years since.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Drayton showed remarkable perception when,
-describing the hills about London, he wrote of
-Highgate:</p>
-
-<div class='lg-container-b c021'>
-  <div class='linegroup'>
-    <div class='group'>
-      <div class='line'>“Appointed for a gate of London to have been</div>
-      <div class='line in1'>When first the mighty Brute that city did begin;</div>
-      <div class='line in1'>Its holts to the east stand to look</div>
-      <div class='line in1'>Upon the winding course of Lea’s delightful Brook.”</div>
-    </div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c026'>When Walbrook Creek was a landing-place
-having a road connecting it with the interior, we
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_238'>238</span>may be sure that boating passages across the Thames
-would be common, and very soon a link with the
-road to Dover would be formed on this line. Thus,
-the road through Southwark must have followed
-the foundation of London immediately. As is
-well known, Ptolemy put Londinium in Kent, but
-he—as Dr. Bradley pointed out—was frequently
-very wrong in regard to inland places.</p>
-
-<div id='fig-171'  class='figcenter id020'>
-<img src='images/i238a.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 171.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div  class='figcenter id019'>
-<img src='images/i238b.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 172.</span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>An ancient bronze mace-head was discovered in
-the gravel taken from under old London Bridge,
-which, I believe, has never been illustrated (Fig. <a href='#fig-171'>171</a>).
-It was one of the mace-heads which are classed
-in the British Museum as of the Bronze Age, but
-they are, I think, early British. I have found a
-drawing of the mace-head in question in some
-interesting volumes of sketches by Fairholt at the
-South Kensington Museum. Fairholt’s note reads:
-“Bronze mace found at Barnes, November 10,
-1841, amongst the gravel taken from old London
-Bridge.” Fig. <a href='#fig-172'>172</a> is an early bronze mace-head
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_239'>239</span>from Italy, in the British Museum, given for comparison.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The conditions were favourable for establishing
-a way in the line of London Bridge, for hard ground
-here approaches near to the south bank of the river.
-That the Roman city spread from Walbrook Creek
-as a centre is now generally agreed. Mr. Lambert’s
-plan of the finding-places of Claudian and pre-Claudian
-coins shows them distributed near the
-primitive port. Again, the city Watling Street is
-probably the beginning of the old road from the
-port. Wren found traces of an old street running
-aslant under the end of old St. Paul’s, and this
-probably formed part of the way towards Aldersgate.
-The acceptance of such a route as the main
-street of the oldest London would solve the difficulty
-of the “fault” in the lines of Newgate Street and
-Cheapside. I suppose that the Roman street
-through Newgate (which all would agree was formed
-at a late time when the walls and gates were built)
-branched westward from the old Verulam road I
-have been describing. In a similar way, the Roman
-road on the course of Old Street probably branched
-to the east out of the same ancient Verulam road.
-Mr. Codrington and others have supposed that the
-road to the east was continued also westward, but
-no evidence of this has been found. Stow, in his
-account of Aldersgate Street, says: “On the east
-side at a Red Cross turneth the Ealde Street, so
-called for that it was the old highway from Aldersgate
-Street for the north-east parts of England
-before Bishopsgate was builded.”</p>
-
-<div id='fig-173'  class='figcenter id013'>
-<img src='images/i241.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 173.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'><i>The Westminster Crossing.</i>—It was remarked above
-that the emergence of Verulam into importance
-probably followed on the use of a river crossing at
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_240'>240</span>Westminster and a trackway in the course of Edgware
-Road, which is known to have been part of
-a later Roman highway—the Great Watling Street.
-It is generally allowed, as by Dr. Rice Holmes,
-that a British trackway underlies the general course
-of this great Roman highway from Dover to St.
-Albans and beyond. The monk Higden, writing
-about 1360, said that Watling Street passed to the
-west of Westminster, but it has been objected that
-what the monk thought was not evidence. However,
-in his time and until about two centuries ago,
-an important river crossing was maintained at the
-Horse-Ferry. The Horse-Ferry Road appears to
-have been made to divert a direct passage at Westminster
-when the great hall of the new Palace was
-built, about 1100. Sighting the line of Tothill
-Street, we see that it would have passed by the old
-Palace, but that the Hall blocks the way. The
-Abbey lies at the side of this line, which seems to
-mark the boundary of St. Margaret’s churchyard.
-Here, too, were found the Roman tomb and what
-appears to be a terminus mark (T II). The Horse-ferry
-is mentioned in an order of 1246: “The
-Bailiff of Kennington is to cause a barge to be made
-to carry people and horses over the Thames”
-(Hudson Turner’s <i>Domestic Architecture</i>, vol. i.).
-Canterbury documents show that the ferry was
-later in the charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury,
-and doubtless Lambeth Palace exists here as being
-on the great road. In the more direct line there still
-exists a short street called Stangate, which is an old
-name for a paved way. When Elizabeth, daughter
-of Henry <span class='fss'>VII.</span>, died at Eltham, “her body was
-conveyed to Stangate over against Westminster”
-(Sandford). A way to the river also was long
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_241'>241</span>maintained through New Palace Yard to a landing-place
-(see Fig. <a href='#fig-173'>173</a>), from Norden’s map, <i>c.</i> 1600).
-Matthew Paris, in his route map of the way to
-Jerusalem, shows London Bridge and also the Westminster
-and Lambeth route, because these were
-alternative crossings. Tothill Street is mentioned
-in mediæval documents. It is possible that in
-early days there was a ford at Westminster, for
-Mr. Lambert has given reasons for thinking that
-formerly the tide did not rise so high as at present
-by 6 ft. Testimony on the course of the way
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_242'>242</span>from Westminster to Edgware Road is given in
-Ogilvie’s <i>Road Book</i>, 1675: “Piccadilly ... on
-the left falls in the way from Westminster by Tuttle
-Street; four poles from this corner, you have a way
-on the right by the side of Hyde Park into the other
-road at Tyburn.” The ancient road from Westminster
-would have crossed what is now Green Park
-in the direction of Tyburn Lane, now Park Lane.
-Here, in Tyburn Lane, was “Osulstone,” which
-gave its name to the Hundred in which London
-city is situated (see map recently reproduced by
-London Topographical Society). Tyburn, close
-by, was the place of execution, and doubtless
-the place of meeting of the old folk-mote of the
-Hundred, because it was at the cross roads. I have
-more detail establishing the continuity of this route
-(on which Dr. Haverfield expressed doubt), but
-I will pass to a few general final considerations.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>The primitive road in Kent as far as Greenwich
-was on high ground, but beyond was the wide river
-valley. By bending to the left on the edge of
-higher ground, through Camberwell where Roman
-objects have been found, the river might be more
-nearly approached opposite Westminster, and there
-was solid land on the opposite bank also. Beyond,
-at Park Lane, the higher firm ground pushed down
-towards Westminster, between two little streams—the
-road here, indeed, was a low ridgeway. All
-evidence suggests that a British road to Verulam
-passed the Thames at Westminster. In Allen’s
-<i>Lambeth</i>, it is said that three “Celts” were found
-in digging the foundations of Westminster Bridge.
-Now, in Fairholt’s <i>Albums of Sketches</i>, at South
-Kensington, are drawings of three bronze weapons
-thus described: “Swords and spear found August
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_243'>243</span>1847, under Westminster Bridge by a ballast
-heaver.” The swords (Fig. <a href='#fig-174'>174</a>) were 28½ in. and
-23½ in. long, the spear-head or dagger was 16½ in.
-long. Other pieces of British bronze work have
-been found in the river in the neighbourhood of the
-Westminster crossing. Westminster Bridge itself
-still carries on the tradition by crossing the river
-at this point, and it is interesting to find recorded
-that the building of the bridge in the line of the
-Horse-ferry was the first intention. The importance
-of the Horse-ferry about 1700 is shown by the
-list of charges given in Hatton’s <i>New View</i> (1708).</p>
-
-<div id='fig-174'  class='figcenter id006'>
-<img src='images/i243.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' />
-<div class='ic001'>
-<p><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Fig. 174.</span></span></p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p class='c016'>My general results in regard to the British and
-Roman road systems may be summarised thus:</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>1. A primitive trackway along the North Downs
-near the south bank of the river.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>2. An ancient river-crossing by a ford at Westminster
-and thence north-west through Britain.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>3. The growth of Verulam on this road, and the
-rise of London as a port in connection with it.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>4. A direct London-Verulam road made over
-Islington—a ridgeway.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>5. Hardly two or three persons possessing a boat
-could have been settled on the site of London before
-a direct path across Southwark would be taken
-to reach the Kentish road; thus the route
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_244'>244</span>marked by London Bridge must be of pre-Roman
-origin.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>6. Other ways were thrown out; along the
-Strand to the Westminster crossing; along the comparatively
-high ground of Piccadilly to the west,
-and by Old Street and Old Ford to the east.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>7. The British road system was rectified by
-Roman engineers. The chief route was now over
-London Bridge; the Roman road along Oxford
-Street was made in connection with the enlarged
-Londinium issuing from it at Newgate; it was
-continued to Brentford, where it met the older
-road by Piccadilly; the old track from Westminster
-to Verulam was improved only from this
-new road, and the link across the river became of
-secondary importance; Mile End Road superseded
-the route by Old Ford. There were thus older and
-newer roads—British ways following the higher and
-harder ground; and Roman roads laid down in
-straight lines.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>In saying that London had its origin as the port
-of Verulam, I would not necessarily imply more
-than this: each may so have reacted on the other
-that it would be impossible to say which was the
-first cause. It is possible, indeed, that the Belgic
-kingdoms of south-east England were founded by
-invasions striking up the river, and that a landing
-at the site of London was earlier than settling down
-about St. Albans. It is remarkable that the Cattivellauni
-and Atrabates occupied much the same
-relative places in Britain as they did in their continental
-homes about Chalons and Arras. In this
-case, however, London would be none the less the
-port of Verulam.</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Camden clearly saw that London began as a
-<span class='pageno' id='Page_245'>245</span>port. Discussing its name, he suggested as one
-possibility that “It might have had its name from
-the same original that it had its growth and glory;
-I mean ships, called by the British Lhong; so that
-London is a Harbour or City of Ships. For several
-cities have had their name from shipping, none of
-which can lay better claim to the name of harbour
-than our London. For ’tis admirably accommodated
-with both elements, and the river Thames
-brings it in the riches of the world. Moreover,
-it is such a sure and complete station for ships that
-one may liken it to a groved wood, so shaded it is
-with masts and sails.”</p>
-
-<p class='c016'>Conyers, the old antiquary apothecary, two
-centuries and a half ago, said: “Verulam was
-a kingly seat of the Britons, and the principal trade
-they had was between Verulam and London. So
-that on Watling or Verulam road there was a
-communication backward and forward.”</p>
-
-<div class='nf-center-c0'>
-<div class='nf-center c002'>
-    <div>THE END</div>
-  </div>
-</div>
-
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c002' />
-</div>
-<div class='chapter'>
-  <span class='pageno' id='Page_247'>247</span>
-  <h2 id='idx' class='c009'><em class='gesperrt'>INDEX</em></h2>
-</div>
-<ul class='index c003'>
-  <li class='c031'>Alexandria, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Alignment, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Altar, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Ante-fix, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Apotropaic sculpture, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Apse, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Arches, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Atys, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Augusta (Londinium), <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Bacchus, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Barbican, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Basilica, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Bastions, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Baths, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Bone objects, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Bricks, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Bridge, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Britannia, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Bronzes, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Buildings, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Capitals, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Carpentry, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Cemeteries, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Chariot races, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Chimney, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Christianity, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>City (the), <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Coffins, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Coins, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Colour, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Columns, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Commerce, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Concrete, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Constantine, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Copings, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Crosses, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Cymbeline, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Dadoes, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Decoration, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Diana, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Ditches, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Education, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Enamels, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Figure painting, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Floors, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Flues, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Foot-rule, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Ford, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Forum, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Friezes, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Gates, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Gladiators, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Glass, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Gods, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Greek workmen, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Hadrian, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Hercules, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Hinges, locks, etc., <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Houses, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Hunting, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Hypocausts, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Imperial statues, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Impersonations, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Inscriptions, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Jove and giant columns, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Lamps, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Latin, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Leadwork, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Leather work, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'><span class='pageno' id='Page_248'>248</span>Lettering, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Lions, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Londinium (origin of), <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Mace (bronze), <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Marbles, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Masonry, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Mausolea, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Mirror, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Mithras, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Monograms, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Mortar, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Mosaics, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Mouldings, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'><i>Opus signinum</i>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Ornament, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Orpheus, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Osulstone, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Painting, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Peacocks, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Pewter, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Piling, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Pine-cones, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Plastering, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Porphyry, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Port, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Portraits, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Pottery, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Roads, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Romanesque art, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Roofs, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Saints of London, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Sarcophagi, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Sculpture, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Sewers and drains, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Site and soil, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Skirtings, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Statues, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Streets, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Style, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Sun-dial, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Symbolism, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Tablets, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Temples, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Thames impersonation, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Thatch, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Theatre, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Tomb-houses, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Tombs, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Tools, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Turning, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Vaults, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Walbrook, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Wall (the City), <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Wall tiles, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Walling, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Water-pipes, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Wattle and daub, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Wells, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Westminster, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Windows, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c031'>Winds, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>.</li>
-  <li class='c003'>Zodiac, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>.</li>
-</ul>
-<div class='pbb'>
- <hr class='pb c003' />
-</div>
-<p class='c016'>&nbsp;</p>
-<div class='tnbox'>
-
- <ul class='ul_1 c003'>
-    <li>Transcriber’s Notes:
-      <ul  class='ul_2'>
-        <li>This book uses the mid dot “·” to separate the integer part of a number from the 
-        decimal fraction.
-        </li>
-        <li>Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
-        </li>
-        <li>Typographical errors were silently corrected.
-        </li>
-        <li>Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant 
-        form was found in this book.
-        </li>
-      </ul>
-    </li>
-  </ul>
-
-</div>
-<p class='c016'>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LONDINIUM ARCHITECTURE AND THE CRAFTS ***</div>
-<div style='text-align:left'>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Updated editions will replace the previous one&#8212;the old editions will
-be renamed.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
-States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG&#8482;
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
-the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
-of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
-copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
-easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
-of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
-Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
-do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
-by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
-license, especially commercial redistribution.
-</div>
-
-<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br />
-<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br />
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span>
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-To protect the Project Gutenberg&#8482; mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase &#8220;Project
-Gutenberg&#8221;), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg&#8482; License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'>
-Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
-or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.B. &#8220;Project Gutenberg&#8221; is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (&#8220;the
-Foundation&#8221; or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg&#8482; mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg&#8482; name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg&#8482; License when
-you share it without charge with others.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg&#8482; work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country other than the United States.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg&#8482; License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg&#8482; work (any work
-on which the phrase &#8220;Project Gutenberg&#8221; appears, or with which the
-phrase &#8220;Project Gutenberg&#8221; is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
-</div>
-
-<blockquote>
-  <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
-    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
-    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
-    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
-    at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you
-    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
-    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
-  </div>
-</blockquote>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase &#8220;Project
-Gutenberg&#8221; associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg&#8482; License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg&#8482;.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; License.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg&#8482; work in a format
-other than &#8220;Plain Vanilla ASCII&#8221; or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg&#8482; website
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original &#8220;Plain
-Vanilla ASCII&#8221; or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg&#8482; License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg&#8482; works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works
-provided that:
-</div>
-
-<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'>
-    <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'>
-        &bull; You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-        the use of Project Gutenberg&#8482; works calculated using the method
-        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg&#8482; trademark, but he has
-        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-        Section 4, &#8220;Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-        Literary Archive Foundation.&#8221;
-    </div>
-
-    <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'>
-        &bull; You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-        works.
-    </div>
-
-    <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'>
-        &bull; You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-        receipt of the work.
-    </div>
-
-    <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'>
-        &bull; You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-        distribution of Project Gutenberg&#8482; works.
-    </div>
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
-the Project Gutenberg&#8482; trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
-forth in Section 3 below.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.F.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain &#8220;Defects,&#8221; such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the &#8220;Right
-of Replacement or Refund&#8221; described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you &#8216;AS-IS&#8217;, WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg&#8482; work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg&#8482; work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'>
-Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg&#8482;
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Project Gutenberg&#8482; is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg&#8482;&#8217;s
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg&#8482; collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg&#8482; and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'>
-Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation&#8217;s EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state&#8217;s laws.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-The Foundation&#8217;s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
-Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
-to date contact information can be found at the Foundation&#8217;s website
-and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'>
-Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Project Gutenberg&#8482; depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
-public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
-visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'>
-Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg&#8482; electronic works
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg&#8482; concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg&#8482; eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Project Gutenberg&#8482; eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
-facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>.
-</div>
-
-<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>
-This website includes information about Project Gutenberg&#8482;,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
-</div>
-
-</div>
-
-</body>
-</html>
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/cover.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 316e7ab..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/cover.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i011a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i011a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index aea73fd..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i011a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i011b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i011b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 599f5de..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i011b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i014.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i014.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 95d34ed..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i014.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i018a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i018a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 48b72fd..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i018a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i018b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i018b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 413d435..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i018b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i019a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i019a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 331002e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i019a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i019b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i019b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fa388ee..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i019b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i019c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i019c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ee122bb..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i019c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i020a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i020a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2c060b1..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i020a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i020b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i020b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c88a133..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i020b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i020c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i020c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c365c58..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i020c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i020d.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i020d.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0539e49..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i020d.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i026a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i026a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1d6c7af..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i026a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i026b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i026b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b3797fa..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i026b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i030a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i030a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7d68469..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i030a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i030b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i030b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 25f250f..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i030b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i030c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i030c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index caa47bd..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i030c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i031.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i031.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 665f84f..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i031.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i032a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i032a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 89fe290..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i032a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i033.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i033.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 194d7ef..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i033.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i034.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i034.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ddb8e78..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i034.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i038.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i038.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 691e9c2..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i038.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i043.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i043.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c5a7be9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i043.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i044.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i044.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e2755ff..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i044.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i045.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i045.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5aeea57..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i045.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i048.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i048.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 553c550..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i048.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i050.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i050.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 564a750..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i050.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i053.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i053.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6a34867..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i053.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i058.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i058.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4fffe7b..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i058.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i059.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i059.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 289ea77..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i059.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i064.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i064.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6bf1de4..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i064.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i066.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i066.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6c441ed..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i066.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i068.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i068.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8afe36d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i068.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i069.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i069.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 68a9fc4..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i069.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i070.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i070.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 604d3db..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i070.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i072.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i072.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1588d59..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i072.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i075.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i075.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d952348..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i075.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i076.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i076.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8fb6947..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i076.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i077.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i077.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1ee1a54..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i077.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i078.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i078.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5e4c5bf..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i078.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i083.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i083.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bfc7c1b..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i083.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i087.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i087.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 732434d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i087.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i088a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i088a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ad48ab9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i088a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i088b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i088b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8c7a7e0..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i088b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i090.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i090.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 95d96b8..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i090.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i091a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i091a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 828a847..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i091a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i091b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i091b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ef9cd67..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i091b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i092.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i092.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a368285..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i092.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i096a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i096a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b245ea5..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i096a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i096b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i096b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 862ef6e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i096b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i097a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i097a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2c25d60..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i097a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i097b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i097b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 187777e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i097b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i100.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i100.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0b1a0c5..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i100.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i102.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i102.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4be72e8..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i102.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i104a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i104a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index cc9b80a..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i104a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i104b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i104b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 619592c..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i104b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i105.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i105.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 27375d4..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i105.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i107.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i107.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e43967c..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i107.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i108a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i108a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7b2332b..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i108a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i108b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i108b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e5bb2ec..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i108b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i110a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i110a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 28fb624..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i110a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i110b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i110b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index abf2904..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i110b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i110c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i110c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 21ddc78..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i110c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i111a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i111a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 96fe3ed..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i111a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i111b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i111b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 05a75b2..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i111b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i112.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i112.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index cf8d236..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i112.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i113.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i113.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 96b4679..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i113.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i114.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i114.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a20c92d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i114.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i115.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i115.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 09f700a..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i115.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i116.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i116.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 75bd01a..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i116.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i118a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i118a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 61537b9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i118a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i118b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i118b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 25f1f1f..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i118b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i121.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i121.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6d15f57..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i121.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i125.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i125.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ecc272d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i125.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i126.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i126.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 39353ba..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i126.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i128a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i128a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 897511c..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i128a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i128b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i128b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 71a261e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i128b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i131a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i131a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 97f5455..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i131a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i131b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i131b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 202dbff..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i131b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i132a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i132a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2e8dd40..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i132a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i132b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i132b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 70a5c91..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i132b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i134.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i134.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bcf88b9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i134.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i135.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i135.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8fa36a4..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i135.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i136a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i136a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8718d50..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i136a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i136b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i136b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 99efcec..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i136b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i137a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i137a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c14aa98..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i137a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i137b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i137b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 574bc0d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i137b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i138.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i138.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 91c3d19..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i138.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i144.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i144.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 95dd7ed..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i144.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i145.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i145.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d05ecf1..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i145.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i146.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i146.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2ba0de2..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i146.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i147.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i147.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2aef2b3..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i147.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i152.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i152.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 37a4e73..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i152.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i153a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i153a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6f985e9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i153a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i153b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i153b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5ee8866..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i153b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i153c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i153c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index eac4489..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i153c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i154.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i154.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5b0d014..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i154.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i155.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i155.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 25b82c6..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i155.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i156.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i156.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9ae2fdb..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i156.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i160a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i160a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 66abd87..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i160a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i160b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i160b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5af7d46..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i160b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i161a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i161a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ee23194..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i161a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i161b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i161b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 791cffe..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i161b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i161c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i161c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 315adb1..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i161c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i163.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i163.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b760484..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i163.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i164.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i164.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bfc69f4..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i164.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i166a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i166a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9e1b61b..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i166a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i166b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i166b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 573ab60..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i166b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i166c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i166c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2a5f66d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i166c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i166d.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i166d.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8d7cb25..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i166d.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i166e.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i166e.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1bc25c0..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i166e.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i167a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i167a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8f85877..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i167a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i167b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i167b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 59a5c47..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i167b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i168.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i168.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a9f3275..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i168.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i170.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i170.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ce0e067..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i170.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i171.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i171.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 29d168c..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i171.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i172.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i172.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 22b975d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i172.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i173.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i173.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 040a888..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i173.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i174.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i174.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fe525e2..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i174.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i177.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i177.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index aa688d0..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i177.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i179a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i179a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e960e0e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i179a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i179b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i179b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7dfdc8a..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i179b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i180.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i180.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b540fd1..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i180.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i181a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i181a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4f310c2..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i181a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i181b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i181b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5bcb4c0..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i181b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i181c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i181c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b2d3fe9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i181c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i182a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i182a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 557e6c5..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i182a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i182b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i182b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9fb060e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i182b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i183a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i183a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5313128..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i183a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i183b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i183b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index baf5987..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i183b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i186a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i186a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5b850b1..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i186a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i186b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i186b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 22f2182..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i186b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i189a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i189a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8f1c677..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i189a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i189b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i189b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 983c0e9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i189b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i192.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i192.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4993ce9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i192.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i195.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i195.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 707eaeb..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i195.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i198a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i198a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d31c277..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i198a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i198b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i198b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 02650ac..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i198b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i198c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i198c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2657f7b..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i198c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i199a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i199a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8c4dc41..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i199a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i199b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i199b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c542f93..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i199b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i199c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i199c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b69d239..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i199c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i201a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i201a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0612148..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i201a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i201b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i201b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8fd0453..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i201b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i202.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i202.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2a72ace..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i202.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i205a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i205a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 563998e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i205a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i205b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i205b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7caa21d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i205b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i207a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i207a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6642f0a..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i207a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i207b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i207b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a77a60f..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i207b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i209a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i209a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e71749c..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i209a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i209b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i209b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d12ef9b..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i209b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i210a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i210a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7759cb6..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i210a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i210b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i210b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index cdfb942..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i210b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i211a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i211a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 87809bb..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i211a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i211b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i211b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 58a9c9f..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i211b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i213.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i213.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index db73c66..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i213.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i217a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i217a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2b93b47..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i217a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i217b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i217b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b7fd358..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i217b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i217c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i217c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c801d79..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i217c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i220a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i220a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 09af86d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i220a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i220b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i220b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 285183c..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i220b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i221a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i221a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d205e7a..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i221a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i221b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i221b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3281757..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i221b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i221c.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i221c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 75a245d..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i221c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i222a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i222a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 983d66c..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i222a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i222b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i222b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d7b56da..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i222b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i223.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i223.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 14b346f..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i223.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i224a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i224a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 151203a..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i224a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i224b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i224b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4e4d5bd..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i224b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i225.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i225.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8c91b8e..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i225.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i238a.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i238a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 746baa9..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i238a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i238b.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i238b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d900e1b..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i238b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i241.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i241.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0d07f58..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i241.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/i243.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/i243.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9743ff8..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/i243.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/in-line-p165.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/in-line-p165.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c75a853..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/in-line-p165.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/66260-h/images/publogo.jpg b/old/66260-h/images/publogo.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 02b4382..0000000
--- a/old/66260-h/images/publogo.jpg
+++ /dev/null