Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu/147

Rh NOTICKS OF AKClIAHol.oOICAL I'ln^I.lCATIOXS. 1(10 Roninns is evinced, not less than in the greutcr achievements of their imUistry. On these sites also have been discovered many most vahiahlc remains and inscriptions, which throw important liglit upon Roman affairs in Britain. We must refer our readers to the mass of curious information collected hy Mr. Bruce, and to the numerous graphic ilkistrations l)y which this relation is accompanied. From these details of facts relating to the actual condition of the Wall, and its accessory outworks, the author proceeds to discuss the difficult question — By whom was it constructed ? " Is the harrier the work of one master-mind, or are its several parts the productions of different periods and of different persons ? " Upon this inquiry the evidence of ancient writers is meagre and unsatisfactory. Tacitus informs us that Agricola fortified both the Lower and Upper Isthmus. Hence some have con- ceived that the northern rampart of the vallum might be the work of Agricola. But to this theory the parallelism of the lines is considered fatal ; for it is highly improbable, as Mr. Bruce affirms, that two engineers at different periods should construct independent works, without crossing each other's ramparts. But, setting aside the notion in regard to Agricola, the inquiry is confined to the relative claims of Hadrian and Scverus. The author's argument tends to demonstrate that the vallum and the wall are not independent works ; that the opinion is without foundation which ascribes the former to Hadrian, and tl»e latter to Severus. " If Severus (Mr. Bruce observes), finding that the earthworks of Hadrian had fallen into decay, or were no longer sufficient to wall out the Caledonians, had determined to erect a more formidable barrier, would he not have mapped out its track without any reference to the former ruinous and inefficient erec- tion ? Had he done so, we should find the lines taking independent courses, — sometimes contiguous, occasionally crossing each other ; sometimes widely separated, seldom pursuing for any distance a parallel course ; but the Wall, as the latest built, uniformly seizing the strongest points, whether jtreviously occupied by the vallum or not. This, however, is not the ease ; the Wall and vallum, in crossing the island, pursue precisely the same track from sea to sea ; for the most part they are in close companionship, and in no instance does the Wall cut in upon the trenches of the vallum.''' (p. 371.) The merits of this argument, it must be premised, cannot, as we are persuaded, be duly appreciated without actual minute inspection, pursued throughout various portions of the works, and careful consideration of the local conditions by which they were influenced. The question is one of no ordinary interest to the antiquary ; and although he will not lightly reject the conclusions of Ilorsley and others, who have regarded the Wall as the work of Severus, to strengthen Hadrian's barrier, the reasoning advanced by Mr. Bruce, after weighing the conflicting evidence gleaned from ancient writers, and the more positive evidence of existing inscriptions, will, as we believe, lead most readers to the conviction that the whole is one design, the production of one period, and that the credit of this grand conception must be truly assigned to Hadrian. The closing section of our author's interesting labours relate to miscel- laneous antiquities found in the line of the Wall. Of these the greater pro- portion are now happily preserved together in the Museum of the Antiquaries of Newcastle. The numerous representations of such remains, of which original and accurate drawings have been obtained, add most essentially to the value of the work. From these Air. Bruce has kindly permitted us to