Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:26:30.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

XVIII.—Notes on some Roman Architectural Remains discovered in the city of Chester, in the summer of the year 1863: by William Tite, Esq. M.P., F.R.S., V.P.S.A., in a letter to Augustus W. Franks, Esq., Director

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2012

Get access

Extract

In the autumn of the last year, on my way back from Newcastle, after the meeting of the British Association, I passed through Chester; a city which, for the antiquary, the archaeologist, and the architect, possesses peculiar charms; and which I never visit without renewed interest. On this occasion however I found Chester to be gradually changing its former character, in consequence of the overpowering influence of the railroad system, which makes it the great centre of the lines of communication in that district. At the station a very large hotel had been erected; and that undertaking having proved successful has probably led to similar speculations in the city itself. The principal hotel in the main street has been taken down, and is now being rebuilt; and in the adjoining street, Bridge Street, another large old inn, known as “The Feathers” (the site of the remains I am about to describe), has been destroyed. Many new and magnificent houses and shops are now occupying the places of the picturesque old wooden buildings of earlier times; but I am glad to perceive that the peculiar feature of Chester domestic architecture, the “Rows,” is still retained; though the ambulatories now constructed are much higher and lighter than the old passages.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1867

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 286 note a This edifice was familiarly known by the name of “Arthur's Oon,” or oven, or hoffen, as Stukeley expresses the word. It was of a circular form, very much resembling a common bee-hive, and it measured about thirty-nine yards in circumference at the base. It was destroyed in the summer of the year 1743, by the proprietor, Sir Michael Bruce, in order that the stones might be employed in constructing a dam on the Carron, which was soon after carried away by the river. The best and most intelligent account of this structure is contained in Mr. Robert Stuart's “Caledonia Romana,” published in 1845, plate v. and pages 180–182.

page 286 note b The earliest account of the temple found at Bath was printed by Governor Thomas Pownall, F.S.A. and entitled “Descriptions and Explanations of some Koman Antiquities found at Bath in the year M.DCC.XC. Bath, 1795.” 4to. It contains a good engraving of the sculptures and inscription; but in Carter's “Ancient Architecture of England,” 1795, fol. plates vii.-x. are entirely composed of large effective etchings of all the remains. The most complete account, however, as well as the best representations of them will be found in Mr. Samuel Lysons's “Reliquiae Britannico-Romanae,” vol. i. part ii. 1813, Imperial folio. It comprises twelve coloured engravings by W. Daniell, from drawings made about 1802, by the eminent architect, Sir Robert Smirke.

page 287 note a These remains have now been represented with accuracy and artistic excellence in the local photograph referred to above. The hypocaust chambers at Uriconium (Wroxeter) are unquestionably much finer than those at Chester, but they do not comprise auy such architectural reliques as those which are subsequently described in this paper.

page 289 note a Magna Britannia, vol. ii. part ii.; County Palatine of Chester, pp. 428, 431; Horsley, Britannia Romana, p. 318.

page 291 note a Dr. Stukeley in his Itinerary, vol. i. p. 59, ii. p. 30, indicates Chester by the name of Deva, placed in the margin of his text, which is a Romanised form of the British Dyffyr-Dwy, or the Water of Dee. As this river rises from two springs in Wales, the last word has been understood to signify two; “but,” says Camden, as translated by Philemon Holland, “others, also observing the signification of the word, interpret it as Black-water: others againe as the Water of God, and Divine Water. But, although Ausonius noteth that a spring hallowed to the gods -was called Diuvona in the ancient Gaules tongue, which was all one with the British; and in old time all rivers were reputed Διοπετεῖς, that is, descending from Heaven; yea, and our Britons also yielded divine honour unto rivers, as Gildas writeth;—yet I see not why they should attribute divine honour to this river Dwy above all others. Unlesse, peradventure, because it now and then changed the channel, and thereby foreshowed a sure token of victory to the inhabitants upon it, when they were in hostility one with another, according as it inclined more to this side or that after it had left the channel: for thus hath Giraldus Cambrensis recorded, who in some sort believed it.”

Selden, however, in one of his notes to. the Eleventh Song of Drayton's Polyolbion, observes that Chester is “at this day in British called Caer Lhean or Dour Dwy, i. e. the City of Legions on the river Dee. Some vulgar antiquaries,” he continues, “have referred the name of Leon to a giant, builder of it; I nor they know who he was, or when he lived; but indeed they ridiculously took Leon Daw for King Leon the great.” The sanctity of the Dee is repeatedly referred to by Drayton; Spenser makes it the haunt of magicians; and Milton laments that when Lyeidas was lost the water-nymphs were not “where Deva spreads her wisard-stream.” As Deva is intended to be the name of a female river-divinity, the prefix wisard must be carefully understood in the sense of a diviner, as Wharton explains it from Comus.

page 292 note a The Legion stationed at Deva, or Chester, was the twentieth, known by the name of Valeria Victrix; and from the very great importance of the post, and the constant service required, it could not have contained less than the largest number of soldiers; ten cohorts, or perhaps 5,000 men. It was one of the nineteen legions which Dion Cassius mentions to have been raised by Augustus.