1

Capitolin. in vitâ Antonini Pii c. 5. Britanniam per Lollium Urbicum legatum vicit, alio muro cespicitio, submotis barbaris, ducto.

Spartian. in vit. S. Severi, c. 18. Britanniam, quod maximum imperii ejus decus est, muro per transversam insulam ducto, utrimque ad finem Oceani munivit.-Eutrop. l. v. c. 9. says,—“ vallum per xxxii. millia passuum à mari ad mare deduxit."

Page 221, l. 12.-Vopiscus in vitâ Probi, c. 13. Et cum jam in nostrâ ripâ, imo per omnes Gallias (Alamani) securi vagarentur, cæsis propè quadringentis millibus, qui Romanum occupaverant solum, reliquias ultrà Nicrum fluvium et Albam removit. Tantum his prædæ barbaricæ tulit, quantum ipsi Romanis abstulerant: contra urbes Romanas et castra in solo barbarico posuit, atque illic etiam milites collocavit: agros et horrea et domos et annonam Transrhenanis omnibus fecit, iis videlicet, quos in excubiis collocavit, nec cessatum est unquam pugnari, &c.-Post hæc Illyricum petiit: et.. Rætias sic pacatas reliquit, ut illic ne suspicionem quidem ullius terroris relinqueret

1

It is evident that he is here speaking of Rhetia and that part of it which lies beyond the Danube. Those who are versed in history need not be reminded that Alba is not the Elbe; it agrees better with the Altmühl, and still more with a chain of mountains, which at this day, under the name of Alba, begins between the Neckar and the Danube, and passes towards Ulm and Tubingen. Probus drove the Alamani across this chain of hills, and then over the Neckar.-c. 16. Veteranis omnia illa, quæ angusta adeunt Isauriæ loca privatis donavit, addens, ut eorum filii ab anno octavo decimo mares duntaxat ad militiam mitterentur.-What Probus did in Isauria, must also have happened in Rhetia. The Romans called these possessions "terres limitaneas," the Franks gave them the name of "bona feudalia"-amongst the latter as well as the former, they were rewards for the performance of military services.

Note by the Translator, p. 226, l. 11. Peutinger's table has received its name from Conrade Peutinger, in whose library it was found after his death, by the noble and learned Mark Velser, who sent it to Ortelius for him to publish; but Ortelius, dying before he could effect it, left the care of it to John Moret, by whom it was published, in the year 1598.-For a further account of this table, see Reynold's Iter Britanniarum, p. 113.

II h

1

:

Observations on the Altar and Inscription found at Tynemouth in the year 1781, by MR. THOMAS HODGSON.

As the illustration of the ancient state and history of these Northern Counties forms one of the leading objects of this Society, the following observations suggested by a consideration of some Roman remains found in this neighbourhood, may perhaps not be considered irrelevant, though their discovery is not of recent date. The remains to which I allude are the Altar and Tablet, which forty years ago were found about six feet underground, on the north side of Tynemouth Castle, where they had been buried as foundation stones of some of the ancient buildings or churches. They were communicated soon after their discovery to the Society of Antiquaries of London, by their Secretary, the Rev. John Brand, and figures of them, with explanations by Mr. Brand, were published in the eighth volume of the Archaeologia*. They were also published by Mr. Gough, in his edition of Camden's Britannia. The inscription on the altar is,

Jovi optimo maximo, Ælius Rufus, præfectus Cohortis Quarta Lingonum.

The inscription on the tablet is not so easily defined, the two first lines having been so injured that it is difficult to ascertain what they have been. The figures given by Mr. Brand and Mr. Gough, though taken nearly about the same time, differ exceedingly; but as the stones themselves are now in the possession of the Society of Antiqua

* Pl. xxi. p. 326. fig. 1, 2, 3, 4.

+ Vol. iii. pl. xxii. fig. 14, 15. ed. 1789.

ries, it is not in our power, by a personal inspection, to ascertain which is most correct. Mr. Brand's was probably taken on the spot, soon after their first discovery, when they might possibly be in a more perfect state than when seen by Mr. Gough, and may therefore perhaps be more to be depended on. As he has given it, the inscription seems tolerably legible, though it is not easy to ascertain the exact meaning. With the explanation he has given, I cannot wholly agree; but it is not necessary for my present purpose to ascertain it with minute accuracy; it is sufficient for that purpose to know, that it evidently records the erection of a temple and some other public works, by a person named Maximinus.

The fact of the erection of such works being thus clearly proved, the question naturally arises-at what place did this erection take place? The answer is apparently obvious, that no doubt it must have been very near the spot where the stones were found. But as there is no record of a station having ever been at this place, and especially as no name has been handed down to us, which can be applied to it, it has been denied by many that the Romans had any station or establishment at Tynemouth. Amongst those writers who support such an opinion, appears to be Mr. Gough, who suggests,* that the stones in question might, perhaps, have been brought from South Shields, where undoubtedly there has been a station, and used as foundation stones in the building of the first Christian church at this place. But the futility of this opinion must be apparent to every one at all acquainted with. the topography of the situation; for it can scarcely be believed that the builders of that church would take the trouble of bringing foundation stones a distance of at least a mile, and across a wide river, when stones of all sizes could be had in such abundance close at hand. It is much more probable that they found them on the spot, and with the other remains of the temple, &c. used them in the building of their church. It is indeed a matter of great surprise to me, that any doubt Camd. vol. iii. p. 235.

should ever have arisen on the subject; for independent of the fact that these inscriptions have been found at Tynemouth, it requires, I think, but a very slight knowledge of military affairs to convince us that the Romans must have maintained a fort, or post of some sort, on the north side of the mouth of the Tyne. The district of country from the Tyne to the Solway Frith was, we know, considered of the utmost importance by the Romans. It was here they erected the bulwarks of their empire in Britain, against the invasions of their northern neighbours; and in this district maintained more numerous forts and garrisons than in any other part. To supply, to succour in case of need, and to preserve the communication with, these forts, must have been objects of primary importance in their eyes. Can we therefore suppose that they would fail to occupy a river like the Tyne, which afforded them such extreme facilities for the purposes in question? or that they would not take every precaution, by the erection of forts, &c. to prevent the possession of the river being wrested from them?* That they had a post at South Shields is quite certain, but, I think, it can scarcely be maintained that that fort alone would afford them the adequate security. Is it at all probable, I would ask, that they would erect a fort upon a comparatively low point of land, easily accessible on every side, and situated so far behind another, that the approach of an enemy by sea from the north, could not be observed until they were close upon them, and leave unoccupied a promontory fortified almost by nature, and commanding a view of the coast as far as the eye can reach? It is impossible to believe it; indeed, it is, I think, selfevident, that if they considered the fortifying of the point on the south side of the mouth of the Tyne, necessary for their security, they must

* As for obvious reasons they could not retain similar possession of the Solway Frith, being in fact obliged from its great extent and its separation from their other positions, to abandon the whole of the north shore of that estuary to their enemy, the secure possession of the Tyne became consequently of greater consequence to them. Besides it was from the east coast that their supplies would naturally come.

have felt the fortifying of the point on the north side of infinitely more importance.

Of two of the three barriers, or prætenturæ, erected by the Romans across this isthmus, we have positive evidence that two of them did not extend as far as Tynemouth; but what reason have we to suppose that the chain of forts drawn by Agricola across the island, might not extend so far? and that those at the eastern extremity might not be maintained even after the building of the walls of Hadrian and Severus? Though those walls terminated, the one at Newcastle and the other at Wallsend, we must not thence conclude that the country between such terminations and the sea, was left unoccupied by the Romans. The cause of their being terminated before reaching the sea, I conceive to have been, that the depth and breadth of the river were then deemed a sufficient protection against the sudden inroads of the The motive for extending the wall of Severus beyond that of Hadrian, was no doubt to secure the last place on the river where it could by possibility be forded. Beyond this point a wall was no longer necessary; but to leave the country east of it unoccupied, would have been to expose unnecessarily their sea flank, to render it liable to be turned, and thus their immense fortifications, erected with such great labour and expense, rendered useless. Besides, what is there to make us believe that the Romans should confine themselves on this point more closely to the wall than they did on others,-on this point where the want of a wall rendered precaution and vigilance more necessary? We find, moreover, from the numbers of stations occupied by them on the sea coast at the west end of the wall, that the security of that sea flank was an object of the greatest importance to them, even though

enemy.

* Mr. Horsley seems to think, that after the building of the wall of Severus, the station at South Shields was abandoned-an opinion for which I cannot see much reason. If it ever was abandoned, it was in all probability owing to finding that the security afforded by the station at Tynemouth, rendered the other no longer necessary. The abandonment of that station would, however, increase the importance of the one at Tynemouth.