Our course hitherto has been a detail of facts; now we enter upon the region of speculation. In the former Parts of this work, the history of the Roman occupation of Britain has been briefly told and an attempt made to depict the present condition of the Vallum and Wall, with their camps, castles, and outworks; now the question must be put—Is the Barrier the Work of one master-mind, or are its several parts the productions of different periods, and of different persons? Had the statements of the ancient historians upon the subject been explicit and consistent, the inquiry would involve simply an appeal to their authority; unhappily, the information which they afford is not only very meagre, but of a character so unsatisfactory, as to compel us to sift their evidence, and to compare it with the facts which we glean from an examination of the fortifications themselves.

Agricola, we are informed by Tacitus, erected forts both on the Lower and Upper Isthmus; we are nowhere told that he drew walls, whether of earth or stone, across either of them. The northern rampart of the Vallum has by many been conceived to be the work of Agricola. In the absence of any direct historical testimony bearing upon this subject, the circumstance that the lines of the Vallum pursue a course precisely parallel to each other, must be considered as fatal to this theory. It is altogether incredible, that two engineers should at different periods construct independent works, without crossing each other’s ramparts. In Roy’s Military Antiquities, several instances are given where the trenches of one encampment cut arbitrarily those of another, the troops who last occupied the post, not seeming to pay the least attention to the works of their predecessors; the lines of the Vallum would doubtless exhibit the same appearance had they been the works of different periods. The claims of Agricola to the authorship of any part of the Vallum may therefore at once be set aside, and the inquiry be confined to the relative claims of Hadrian and Severus.

If the parallelism of the lines of the Vallum be fatal to the theory, that one of the mounds is the work of Agricola, and the others the work of Hadrian, a similar mode of reasoning leads to the conclusion, that the Vallum and the Wall cannot be independent structures. If Severus, finding that the earth-works 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 erection? 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 previously occupied by the Vallum or not. This, however, is not the case; 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. At the first view of the subject, therefore, we should be disposed to question the accuracy of the opinion which gives to these works distinct dates, and ascribes the Vallum to Hadrian, and the stone Wall to Severus. Before further prosecuting this inquiry, it will be well to lay before the reader all the statements of the ancient historians upon the matter in question; he will by this means see the necessity of appealing to the structures themselves for a satisfactory decision of the question.

Herodian was contemporary with Severus, and professes to have been an eye-witness of all that he relates. He gives a detailed account of the emperor’s proceedings in Britain, but does not once mention the Wall. Dion Cassius was also contemporary with Severus. As before observed, that part of the original work which treats of Britain is lost; we have, however, Xiphiline’s abridgment of it. The only reference which he makes to the Wall, comports with its existence previous to the arrival of Severus in Britain, Speaking of that emperor’s expedition against the Caledonians, he says—

Nor did he ever return from this expedition, but died three years after he first set out from Rome. He got a prodigious mass of riches in Britain. The two most considerable bodies of people in that island, and to which almost all the rest relate, are the Caledonians and the MeatÆ. The latter dwell near the Barrier Wall (?????s? de ?? e? ?a?ata? p??? a?t? t? d?ate???sat?, ? t?? ??s?? d??? te?e?) which divides the island into two parts.

Spartian, writing about A.D. 280, is the first person who gives us any direct information about the erection of a Wall; and it is on his testimony chiefly that the credit of the work has been given to Severus. Speaking of Hadrian, he says—

He went to Britain where he corrected many things, and first drew a Wall (murumque primus duxit) eighty miles long, to separate the Romans from the barbarians.

No testimony could be more explicit than this in favour of the view that Hadrian built the Wall. As this writer, however, subsequently ascribes the work to Severus, many are of opinion that Spartian here speaks of the Vallum, not of the stone Wall. Mere verbal criticism will not decide the point, but it may be observed in passing, that although the words murus and vallum are occasionally interchanged by Latin authors, the term (murus) which Spartian uses in the passage, taken strictly, means a stone wall. Speaking of Severus, the same writer says—

He fortified Britain with a Wall drawn (muro ducto) across the island, and ending on each side at the sea, which was the chief glory of his reign, and for which he received the name of Britannicus.

The same writer, in a subsequent chapter, makes a second reference to the Wall, which is of some importance in discussing the question. Narrating an incident which occurred near the Wall, he says—

After the Wall or Vallum in Britain was completed, and the emperor was returning to the next stage not as conqueror only, but as founder of eternal peace, and was thinking within himself what omen might happen to him, an Ethiopian soldier, famous as a mimic, and noted for his jokes, crossed his path, crowned with cypress. Struck with the colour of the man, and his crown, he was angry with him, and ordered him to be put out of his sight, when the fellow is reported, by way of a joke, to have said—'Thou hast been everything—conquered everything: now conqueror, be a god!'

Julius Capitolinus, a writer who flourished about the same time as Spartian (A.D. 280) speaking of the Antonine Wall, uses an expression which seems to imply, that the only previously existing Barrier was one of turf. He says—

Antoninus, by his legate Lollius Urbicus, conquered the Britons, the barbarians being secluded by another earthen wall (alio muro cespiticio ducto).

All the remaining classical historians sum up in favour of Severus; they, however, probably only re-echo the statements of Spartian, with a slight addition of errors of their own. Eusebius Pamphilius says, that—

Clodius Albinus being slain at Lyons, Severus made war upon the Britons, and in order to render the subject provinces more secure from barbaric invasion, he drew a Wall from sea to sea, an hundred and thirty-two miles long.

Aurelius Victor, who wrote about A.D. 360, recording his great exploits, says—

He achieved greater things than those, for after repulsing the enemy in Britain, he drew a Wall from sea to sea.

The younger Victor, in his epitome of the work of the elder, says—

He drew a Vallum thirty-two miles long from sea to sea.

Eutropius wrote about the year 360. He says—

Severus’s last war was in Britain; he drew a Wall of thirty-two miles from sea to sea.

Paulus Orosius, who wrote A.D. 417, says, that the conqueror Severus—

Having fought many severe battles, determined to separate the part of the island which he had recovered, from the tribes that remained unsubdued, and, therefore, drew a deep fosse, and a very strong Vallum (magnam fossam firmissimumque vallum), strengthened with numerous towers, from sea to sea, over a space of one hundred and thirty-two miles.

Cassiodorus, who wrote A.D. 520, gives a similar testimony. Among the events of the consulship of Aper and Maximus (A.D. 207), he enumerates the transference of the war by Severus to Britain—

Where, that he might render the subject provinces more secure against the incursions of the barbarians, he drew a Wall (vallum) from sea to sea, one hundred and thirty-two miles in length.

Such are the statements of the Roman historians respecting the authorship of the Wall. Several circumstances tend to invalidate the claim which they make in behalf of Severus. The first author who attributes the Wall to Severus is Spartian, a weak writer, who lived in an ignorant age, and nearly a century after the time of Severus. Surely his assertion will not be allowed to outweigh the negative testimony of Herodian and Dion Cassius, the contemporaries of Septimius Severus. Of all the authors who mention the length of the Wall, the only one who approaches correctness is Spartian, when speaking of the Wall, which he states that Hadrian drew from sea to sea; eighty Roman miles is very nearly the true length. The other writers call it thirty-two, "SPARTIAN INCONSISTENT."or one hundred and thirty-two. Admitting, as some have supposed, that the larger number is an error, occasioned by some careless transcriber’s inserting in the copies the centurial number (C), which did not exist in the original, the difficulty is not removed. Thirty-two Roman miles is the length of the Barrier of the Upper Isthmus, not of the Lower, and these writers seem to have confounded the one with the other. Buchanan, Usher, and several writers, who were as capable of weighing the evidence furnished by the ancient historians as we are, have accordingly maintained, that the Wall which extended from the Forth to the Clyde, is that which was reared by Severus. This opinion we now know, from the inscriptions found upon it, to be erroneous; but the fact that it was entertained by such able scholars, proves the incompleteness of the historic evidence upon the subject. Milton correctly estimates the vague nature of this testimony. He writes—

Severus, on the frontiers of what he had firmly conquered, builds a wall across the island from sea to sea; which our author judges the most magnificent of all his other deeds; and that he thence received the style of Britannicus; in length a hundred and thirty-two miles. Orosius adds, it is fortified with a deep trench, and between certain spaces many towers or battlements. The place whereof, some will have to be in Scotland, the same which Lollius Urbicus had walled before. Others affirm it only Hadrian’s work re-edified; both plead authorities, and the ancient track, yet visible: but this I leave, among the studious of these antiquities, to be discussed more at large.—(History of England, bk. ii.)

Spartian, moreover, invalidates his own testimony when he says, that the erection of this Wall was the greatest glory of Severus’s reign (quod maximum ejus imperii decus est). The Wall is indeed a magnificent work; it is, as Stukely characterizes it, ‘the noblest monument’ of Roman power ‘in Europe;’ but if reared by Severus, it is, a lasting monument of his failure. He came to Britain panting for renown—he resolved to reduce the whole island to his subjection—to make the sea-girt cliffs of Northern Caledonia his barrier. The efforts which he put forth were worthy of his resolve—‘In a word,’ says Dion Cassius, ‘Severus lost fifty thousand men there, and yet quitted not his enterprise.’ Were the abandonment of the Wall of Antonine, and the withdrawal of the frontier to the southern Isthmus, where Hadrian, eighty years before, had prudently fixed it, the glorious results of all his aspirations? Spartian assuredly errs, if not in saying that Severus built the Wall, at least in stating that this was the great boast of his reign.

When, too, we may ask, did he build the Wall? not assuredly when he issued forth on the expedition that was to win him so much renown, and which occupied him the greater part of the time he was in Britain. He was then bent upon aggression, not defence. Neither is it probable that he would do it on his return. According to Spartian, he had at that time proved himself not only victorious, but the founder of eternal peace, and thus had removed all ground for apprehension in the direction of Caledonia. Or, on the other hand, according to the more accurate and trustworthy historians, Herodian and Dion Cassius, he was returning worn out with disease and the endless fatigues he had sustained; chagrined at the havoc which the islanders had made in his army, though they uniformly refused to hazard a general engagement; and broken-hearted at the misconduct and ingratitude of his sons, and so would, we may suppose, have been deficient in the spirit and the means to embark in so large a work. That he should have repaired some of the stations, particularly those upon the line of his march, when about to enter upon what he hoped to be the crowning enterprise of his life, and that he should have maintained garrisons in them to make good his communications with the south, is not only probable, but is rendered almost certain by the inscriptions which several of them have yielded; but that, in such circumstances, he should have planned and executed the whole line of the Wall, its castles and turrets, and several of the stations, is almost incredible.

But it may be asked, if Hadrian formed the whole Barrier, how is it that the popular voice should ascribe the most important part of it not to him, but to Severus? That the Wall is generally called by the name of Severus, is at once admitted. So long ago as the reign of Elizabeth, Spencer wrote—

Popular testimony, apart from the authentic records of history, is of value for our present purpose only so far as it is the traditional statement of the knowledge of those who lived when the event took place. The nearer to its source that we trace a tradition, the clearer and more unequivocal it will become, if it have its origin in truth. The popular opinion that Severus built the Wall, will not stand this test. Whatever value may be attached to the testimony of Gildas, the first British historian, it is not denied that he records correctly the hear-say evidence of his day. He does not mention Severus, but tells us, that after the departure of the Romans, the Britons, distressed by the Picts and Scots, sought the assistance of their former conquerors, and at their suggestion, and with their assistance, raised first a wall of turf, and afterwards, when that was found insufficient, a wall of stone. The narrative of Gildas has been already given. (p. 29.)

Bede refers to the opinion that Severus built the stone Wall, only to refute it; he says—

Severus was drawn into Britain by the revolt of almost all the confederate tribes; and, after many great and dangerous battles, he thought fit to divide that part of the island which he had recovered from the other unconquered nations, not with a wall, as some imagine, but with a rampart. For a wall is made of stones, but a rampart, with which camps are fortified to repel the assaults of enemies, is made of sods, cut out of the earth, and raised above the ground all around like a wall, having in front of it the ditch whence the sods were taken, and strong stakes of wood fixed upon its top. Thus Severus drew a great ditch and strong rampart, fortified with several towers, from sea to sea; and was afterwards taken sick, and died at York.

He then repeats Gildas’ account of the origin of the Wall, and adds—‘that it was not far from the trench of Severus.’

These quotations are made simply to prove, that the testimony of tradition, at a period not long subsequent to the departure of the Romans, was by no means decisive; no stress ought, therefore, now to be laid upon it.

The popular report, which ascribes the building of the Wall to Severus, is the less worthy of credit, inasmuch as it imputes to him also the building of the northern Barrier, which we know was the work of Lollius Urbicus, in the reign of Antonine. Pinkerton says, 'As to the Welsh name of Gual Sever, which it is said they give to the Wall in the North of England, it is also given to that between the Firths of Scotland.^[134] A small grave-stone, which was discovered in Falkirk church-yard, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Antonine Wall, about the year 1815, confirms the testimony of Pinkerton upon this point. The inscription, a cast of which I have seen, records the burial there, in the reign of Fergus II., of ‘a knight, Rob. Graham, who first threw down the Wall of Severus’ (ILLE EVERSVS VALL. SEVER). If popular opinion has erred with reference to the one Wall, it may have erred with respect to the other also.^[135]

But we ought not to expect minute accuracy in a tradition transmitted through many generations. It is enough that the general impress of the truth remains. It is nothing surprising, that, after the lapse even of a century or two, the name of Severus should have been connected with every military stronghold in the northern section of the island. As having inflicted the last and heaviest blow upon it, his hated memory would be the longest retained.

In the absence of any decisive testimony from the historians of Rome, respecting the emperor who upreared the Murus, we may next examine the inscribed stones which have been found upon it.

In some instances, inscriptions attached to Roman buildings give their history with great particularity. This is the case with the Antonine Wall in Scotland. Slabs inserted at intervals, record the name of the reigning emperor, of his legate, of the troops engaged upon the work, and also the number of paces executed by each detachment. Unfortunately these commemorative slabs are of rare occurrence in the Lower Barrier, and the information given by such as do exist, is very scanty. This will appear the more surprising, if we bear in mind that the English Wall is not only twice as long as the other, but is built of stone throughout; the Scotch Wall is chiefly formed of earth. On the theory, that Hadrian reared all the members of the Barrier, the paucity of inscriptions admits of easy explanation. The custom of raising these memorials did not commence until his day, and at the time of the erection of the Wall was probably in its infancy; the practice was in vogue during the reigns of several of his successors, and was not discontinued until after the time of Caracalla. If, on the other hand, Severus built the Wall, it is a most unaccountable thing that his soldiers have left no record of the fact upon the line of the Wall itself, and but very scanty traces of his name even in the out-stations. This is "PAUCITY OF INSCRIPTIONS TO SEVERUS." the more remarkable, when we remember that the Wall was built by the same legions as were employed upon the Vallum of the Upper Barrier. The Antonine Wall was constructed by the twentieth legion and by vexillations of the second, and sixth. On the mural line of the Lower Barrier we frequently meet with stones inscribed with the names and insignia of the second, and sixth, legion, and occasionally with those of the twentieth. If the English Wall was built in A.D. 210, as is generally stated, how is it that the troops disregarded a custom so natural and so laudable as that which was practised so extensively by their predecessors, in A.D. 140? Extensive repairs were made by Caracalla at Habitancum, Bremenium, and some other stations; of these we have distinct records in the inscriptions which remain. How is it, if the mind and hand of his father gave being to the magnificent fence of the English isthmus, that not one of the many stones which he upreared records the fact? Mural slabs and contemporary historians are alike silent upon the subject, and, probably, for the simple reason that Severus did not build it.

It will serve the purposes of truth to cite all the instances in which the name of either emperor has been found upon the line; wood-cuts of all to which I have had access, have been already presented to the reader.

The name of Hadrian occurs in many instances. At Jarrow a stone was found, and is figured in Brand, which was inscribed OMNIVM FIL. HADRIANI. In the foundations of the castellum at Milking-gap a stone was discovered (p. 234), bearing in bold letters the name of the emperor, and of his legate Aulus Platorius Nepos. At Chesterholm a fragment of a precisely similar inscription was found (p. 241). In the neighbourhood of Bradley, two fragments were discovered, which, when placed together, give us an accurate copy of the same inscription (p. 232). In the ruins of the castellum near Cawfields, was a portion of another, with a precisely similar inscription (p. 251); and near the eastern gateway of Æsica a large tablet was dug up, bearing the name of the same emperor (p. 256). In an outhouse, which probably occupies the site of a castellum, at Chapel-house, in Cumberland, a stone was found, which mentions Hadrian and the twentieth legion (p. 274). Horsley describes a slab which he saw at Bewcastle, bearing the following inscription—

In Gough’s Camden, a stone, inscribed to Hadrian by the second legion, is stated to have been found at Middleby; and at Moresby we have the fine slab now at Whitehaven castle (p. 367).

It will perhaps be said that these inscriptions prove nothing beyond the universally admitted facts, that many of the stations existed in Hadrian’s day, and that the Vallum was raised by him. The reply to this is, that several of them have been found at a distance from any station, and on the line of the Wall itself, and that too, in positions where it is farther removed than usual from the Vallum. The occurrence of three or four of them in mile-castles, seems to prove that they owed their position there to no accidental circumstance, and no one will deny that these mile-towers were contemporaneous with the Wall.

The force of these remarks will more clearly appear after ascertaining what inscriptions bear the name of Severus. If we turn to the inquiry with the impression that he built the more important member of the Barrier, we might expect to find the evidences of the activity which prevailed in his day more abundant than in the time of Hadrian. Such, however, is not the fact. The one at Hexham (p. 340) was the only inscription to Severus which was known to Gordon and Horsley. Well might Gordon, who maintained the Septimian theory, denominate it—‘a very precious jewel of antiquity.’ Hexham is nearly four miles south of the Wall. To this must be added the altar discovered at Old Carlisle (p. 360), which is about ten miles distant from the Wall; and another in a dilapidated state, found at the same place; and the gateway slab found at Habitancum (p. 315), one of the castra exploratorum nearly ten miles in advance of the Wall, recording the restoration of part of the fortifications there. Besides these, I know not of any inscriptions to Severus. I purposely omit all reference to an altar, said to have been discovered at Netherby, bearing the inscription SEPT. SEVERO IMP. QVI MVRVM HVNC CONDIDIT, because, both Gordon and Horsley pronounce it to be spurious.

Much importance is attached by those who advocate the claims of Severus to the inscription on the face of the ancient quarry, on the river Gelt. Here, it may be said, is the very spot from which the stones of the Wall were taken, and the precise date is fixed—the consulship of Aper and Maximus. That the quarry was used by the Romans at this period, is not a matter of dispute, but it is very questionable whether much of the stone from it was used in the building of the Wall, because, suitable materials could be procured nearer at hand. The year in which Aper and Maximus were consuls was A.D. 207; the year in which, according to the received reckoning, Severus came to Britain, was that in which Geta and Caracalla were consuls, A.D. 208.^[136] It is not likely that Severus would order the stones to be quarried before his arrival in Britain. But, allowing that the chronology of Severus’ reign is to be received with some latitude, and granting that he had landed in Britain in A.D. 207, some time would necessarily elapse in making inquiries into the state of the country, and no inconsiderable period would be occupied in making surveys, even after the construction of the Wall had been determined on. The quarry has probably been wrought for some ordinary purpose, perhaps for the erection of some buildings in the station near Brampton, at the period in question.

Evidence is not wanting to prove, on the other hand, that quarries near the line of the Roman Wall were wrought in the time of Hadrian. In an old quarry near the top of Borcum, or Barcombe (a hill near the village of Thorngrafton, and opposite to the station of Borcovicus), a large number of Roman coins was found. They are described and figured in the last Part of this work. Since none of the pieces of this hoard were later than the time of Hadrian, and the coins of his reign and Trajan’s were peculiarly fresh, it is agreed that the treasure must have been deposited in Hadrian’s time. The quarry on Haltwhistle-fell (p. 81), it will also be remembered, bore the name of the sixth legion, which, if the reasoning in the next paragraph be admitted, will appear to have been inscribed before the arrival of Severus in Britain.

It has already been observed that numerous stones along the line bear, without any addition, the names of the second legion, the sixth, and the twentieth. There can be no doubt that these legions and their vexillations executed the principal part of the Work. The main bodies of these forces, however, had their head-quarters, at the time of the arrival of Severus, in districts of the country southward of the Barrier line. The second legion, after the building of the Antonine Wall, appears to have gone to Carleon, in South Wales, the Isca of the Romans. The sixth legion removed to York before A.D. 190, where it continued as long as the Romans remained in the island. Horsley, speaking of the inscriptions on the Wall which mention this legion,"MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS." says, ’some of them, from the characters and other circumstances, may be supposed as ancient as Hadrian’s reign.' The twentieth legion had taken up its abode at Chester, the Deva of the Romans, as early as the year 154. Though it is probable that Septimius Severus may have taken detachments of these legions with him in his Scottish campaign, it is not likely that he would withdraw the main bodies from forts of such importance; and those which did accompany him would find the discharge of their military duties sufficiently onerous, without engaging in a work so vast as the building of the Wall.

But, after all, the works themselves furnish us with the best proof that the whole is one design, and the production of one period. It is difficult to conceive how any person can traverse the line of the Barrier without coming to the conclusion, that all the works—Vallum, Wall and fosse, turrets, castles, stations, and outposts—are but so many parts of one great design, essential to each other, and unitedly contributing to the security of a dangerous frontier. The Murus and the Vallum throughout their whole course pursue tracks harmonizing with each other; the Murus, however, selecting those acclivities from which an attack from the north can be best repulsed—the Vallum, those from which aggression from the south can be repelled. Stukeley was unable to resist the evidence of his senses. Speaking of the works in the neighbourhood of Carvoran, he says—

I suppose this Wall built by Severus is generally set upon the same track as Hadrian’s Wall or Vallum of earth was; for, no doubt, they there chose the most proper ground; but there is a Vallum and ditch all the way accompanying the Wall, and on the south side of it; and likewise studiously choosing the southern declivity of the rising ground. I observe, too, the Vallum (Wall?) is always to the north. It is surprising that people should fancy this to be Hadrian’s Vallum; it might possibly be Hadrian’s work, but may be called the line of contravallation; for, in my judgment, the true intent, both of Hadrian’s Vallum and Severus’s Wall, was, in effect, to make a camp extending across the kingdom; consequently, was fortified both ways, north and south: at present, the Wall was the north side of it; that called Hadrian’s work, the south side of it; hence we may well suppose all the ground of this long camp, comprehended between the Wall and the southern rampire, was the property of the soldiers that guarded the Wall.—Iter Boreale, p. 59.

Speaking of the works westward of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, he says—

The Vallum runs parallel to the Wall, but upon the declining ground south, as the other north; this confirms me in my suspicion, that both works were made at the same time, and by the same persons, and with intent that this should be a counter-guard to the other, the whole included space being military ground.—Iter Boreale, 66.

The reader needs scarcely to be reminded of the striking illustration of these remarks which is furnished by the appearance of the works a little to the west of Carrhill, and by the fact, that for nearly ten miles in the middle of their course, the Vallum is commanded by the heights on which the Wall stands.

Whenever the distance between the Wall and Vallum varies, it is generally with some obvious design in view. Thus, as Hodgson, who powerfully supports the view here taken, remarks—

The Vallum and Murus always contract the width of the interval between them as they approach a river, apparently for no other purpose than a close protection of the military way, and the defence of one bridge; for if they had passed the brooks and rivers on their line at any considerable distance from each other, two bridges would have been necessary, and two sets of guards to defend them: and here it is not unimportant to remark, that the Murus always takes that brow of the ridge it traverses, which is precipitous to the north, and never deserts its straightest or most defensible course to find a convenient situation for a bridge, while the Vallum almost invariably bends inwards as it approaches a bridge, and diverges outwards as it leaves it.—Hist. Nor. II. iii.

Horsley’s plan of the Barrier between Cilurnum and Magna, which is copied on Plate II., will afford several examples of the truth of these remarks.

The position of the Vallum and Murus, in relation to the stations, furnishes additional evidence. The Murus usually forms the northern wall of the station, or comes up to the northern cheek of its eastern and western gates, while the Vallum protects its southern rampart, or comes up to the lower side of its doorways. The two lines give complete protection to the camps, and to the roads leading to and from them. On the supposition that the Vallum is an independent fortification, and that it was constructed nearly a century before the Wall was thought of, we must concede that its plan was such as to give the stations the least possible support, to leave them, in short, in a great measure exposed to the enemy. The manner in which the two walls combine in giving strength to a station, is very well shewn in Warburton’s plan of the works in the vicinity of Cilurnum (Plate II). It is scarcely possible to deny the justice of the remark, which he appends to the title—‘A Plan of Cilurnum ... with part of the Plan of Severus’ Wall and Hadrian’s Vallum, shewing how they are connected at the stations, and by their mutual relation to one another, must have been one entire united defence or fortification.'

It is not improbable that Severus may have repaired some portions of the Wall, and perhaps added some few subsidiary defences. Richard of Cirencester gives us correct information upon several points connected with Roman Britain, which we do not learn from other authors; it is not unlikely that his view of the subject of our present study may be the correct one. He says—

About this time the emperor Hadrian, visiting this island, erected a Wall, justly wonderful, and left Julius Severus his deputy in Britain.... Virius Lupus did not perform many splendid actions, for his glory was intercepted by the unconquerable Severus, who, having rapidly put the enemy to flight, repaired the Wall of Hadrian, now become ruinous, and restored it to its former perfection. Had he lived, he intended to extirpate the very name of the barbarians.

The supposition that Hadrian built the Wall is consistent with the accounts which historians give us of his attachment to architectural undertakings. One writer, of great research, says of him—

No prince, perhaps, ever raised so many public and private edifices as Hadrian. In every city of note, throughout the empire, some erection perpetuated his memory: bridges, aqueducts, temples, and palaces, rose on every hand. Many cities, likewise, were either wholly built or repaired by him. Building seems, indeed, to have been a main feature in his system of government. He was the first who appointed that each cohort should have its quota of masons, architects, and all kinds of workmen needed for the erection and adornment of public edifices.—Hist. Rome, Tract Soc. London 277.

It is perhaps needless to pursue the subject further. More might easily be said; but I was unwilling, on a point of so much importance, to say less. The reader will not fail to perceive what an impressive view the works of the mural barrier, considered as one vast scheme, and not as a series of after-thoughts, give of the mighty conceptions and energies of imperial Rome.

In taking leave of those renowned men, Hadrian and Severus, it may be allowable to advert to the testimony which, before departing this life, they are said to have given as to the vanity of all earthly things. Hadrian, who used to say, that an emperor should be like the sun, visiting all the regions of the earth, found himself then, in darkness. His knowledge of the Eleusinian mysteries gave him no peace; he addressed his soul in these words:—

These lines are thus happily imitated by Prior—

Severus’ restless pursuit after happiness was equally vain. His dying words are said to have been, 'Omnia fui et nihil expedit'—I have tried everything, and found nothing of any avail. What a contrast to the language addressed to him by the Ethiopian soldier—'Thou hast been everything—conquered everything: now, conqueror, be a god!'

The Roman Barrier of the Lower Isthmus.