BRUNTON AND THE ROMAN BRIDGE
Returning to the road, the next landmark I saw was a mile-castle,
just visible by a field-gate on the right. Black Pasture Quarry is
also on the right. Here the Romans obtained much of their sandstone
for the Wall, and for the Roman bridge at Chesters. Now there are
mountains of broken fragments, covered more or less with a grassy
growth, and shadowed by large trees, with paths winding in and out.
It is a queer-looking place altogether, and worth a visit.
Just about here the Wall crosses the road from right to left; and
before we reach the twentieth milestone, a good strip of it is seen
in a field on the left belonging to Plane-trees Farm. Some of the
facing-stones are still in place, but it does not look as if they
could long remain so, for thorn-trees, with gnarled and twisted
stems, are growing along the top, thrusting their great sinewy roots
between the stones, and pulling the Wall to pieces. This is the
piece of Wall which, in 1801, just before Hutton passed, was 224
yards long and 7½ feet high. {73} He saw it being taken down to
build a farm-house. His tears and entreaties prevailed to save the
next piece on our road--so says local tradition. This is in the
grounds of Brunton House, hidden in trees and shrubberies on the
left. I applied at the house for permission to see the Wall, and the
little maid who came to the door said pleasantly, "Oh yes, you can
see it; but there's really nothing to see!" Her conception of
"nothing" was evidently quite different from mine, for I found a
great deal to see. First, there was the Wall-ditch, which is very
bold in its proportions. It was full of rhododendrons, azaleas, and
forget-me-nots. The path leads through a wicket-gate right into and
along the ditch, and brings us to the Wall. It is a magnificent
piece of Wall! It is 7 feet high, with nine courses of facing-stones
in place on both sides, and it must be 60 feet long at least.
Yew-trees, hawthorns, oaks and nut-stubs are growing on the top. Two
altars lean against the north face. I climbed the Wall, with
religious care not to disturb a stone, and found myself standing
above the first turret we have come to, and perhaps the finest there
is to see. It is 12½ feet by 11½ feet in plan. Its north wall is
eleven courses high, rising to a height of 8½ feet. It was so
smothered in nettles that I could not examine it at all closely, but
I could see in what excellent preservation the stone-work still is.
Jumping down into the adjoining meadow, I followed the {74} Wall,
till it ended abruptly at the angle of the grounds; but I could see
that it was making straight for the Roman bridge at Chesters,
striking boldly away from the high road for the first time since
Newcastle. I followed its course to the bottom of the meadow, then
through the field gate, and across the road leading to Hexham, into
the meadows opposite, and so to the railway line. A short distance
beyond the railway the Wall joins the Roman bridge, which passed over
the North Tyne, and led straight to the fort of Cilurnum. The
remains of the Roman bridge are fenced in, to protect them from rough
usage, but the defences are not impregnable; there are many gaps in
the hawthorn hedge. Just inside the hedge the Wall is seen joining
the stone abutment of the bridge, having here a width of over 6 feet.
It ends in a square tower on the abutment, a tower rather larger than
an ordinary wall turret.
Dr. Bruce calls this bridge "the most remarkable feature on the whole
line of the Wall," and it is wonderful, though I confess I was
disappointed with it at first for not presenting greater
possibilities for a picture. Trees and plants had so grown up round
it that when I first saw it it looked smothered, but in preparation
for the Pilgrimage of the Archæological Societies, the scythe was
very busy in September 1920, and it has since been more visible.
{75}
[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Plan of Roman Bridge over the North Tyne,
near Chesters, showing how the Great Wall joined it. (After
Clayton.) A pier of the earlier bridge is seen embedded in the
masonry of the later one.]
{76}
Stukeley, who travelled along the Wall in 1725, speaks of "a
wonderful bridge of great art, made with very large stones, linked
together with iron cramps fastened with molten lead." Hutton does
not appear to have taken the trouble to turn aside to look for it,
but kept straight on across the bridge at Chollerford. Until 1860
the remains were completely buried in silt from the river, but were
then excavated by Mr. John Clayton, "of happy memory."
There are remains of two bridges. The first was much narrower than
the later one, only about half as wide. The later one was wide
enough to take the Military Way (normally 18 to 20 feet). Both
bridges rested on stone piers in the bed of the stream, and it is
from the remains of these piers that the width of each bridge can be
ascertained. They have pointed ends, technically known as
"starlings." The earlier piers were pointed at both ends; the later
ones only at the up-stream end. There were three piers to the later
bridge, thus leaving four water-openings. One theory is that the
course of the river changed between the building of these two
bridges, and so necessitated a reconstruction, the earlier bridge
being possibly Hadrian's, and the later one constructed by Severus
when he repaired the Wall. This would assume that the river had
altered its course a great deal in the ninety years between Hadrian
and Severus.
{77}
Another theory ascribes the original bridge to Agricola, on the
supposition that he built the first fort at Chesters, where some
pottery, which appears to be of earlier date than Hadrian, has been
found. In any case this earlier bridge was built before the Wall was
thought of.
Mr. F. G. Simpson's suggestion is that it may have been part of
Hadrian's original scheme of Forts and Vallum (or "Boundary"). With
the building of the Wall the bridge would have to become "defensive,"
and it would be necessary to make the water-passage as short as
possible. It would no longer be a matter of indifference, as when it
merely served as a passage-way and a boundary-line. Hence the very
massive later abutments, to narrow the width of the river-passage;
and this would sufficiently account for the fact that one of the
water-piers of the older bridge is embedded in the masonry of the
east land abutment of the later one.
The course of the river has changed since Roman times; it has swerved
to the west, so that the western abutment is quite under water, and
the eastern one is high and dry, and separated from the river by
quite a mountain of silt, overgrown with grass and trees.
The stones of which the abutments are built are very massive, one of
them measuring nearly 5 feet in length. They must have been brought
from the Black Pasture Quarry. Many of them have {78} lewis-holes in
them, for lifting; some of the holes have been filled up with cement.
The earlier parts have no lewis-holes in the stones, which were
evidently put in position by hand.
A continuous iron cramp follows the outline of the abutment where it
faces the river, being anchored inward by iron bars.
That Severus did repair the bridge there is little doubt, for the
feather-broaching which is characteristic of his period is to be seen
on some of the stones.
One of Trajan's coins shows a bridge with wooden arches. The later
bridge may have been like this, or they may both have been flat
wooden platform bridges. It is clear that some means of closing each
of the four water-openings by a kind of portcullis would be necessary
to prevent the passage of an enemy when the stream was low. In times
of "spate," these portcullises would have to be raised. A peculiar
barrel-shaped stone, 4 feet long, lying amongst the ruins, with holes
all round for the insertion of spokes, may have served as a
counterpoise in the process of raising; and two round stone pillars,
the remains of which also lie there, might have taken a part in the
same scheme. In Cumberland such a water-gate is called a "heck."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
{79}
[Illustration: Fig. 7.--Section of a stone (S) with a lewis-hole,
showing the method of lifting by means of a lewis. The two
wedge-shaped pieces of iron, A, A, are first inserted in the hole,
and the third piece, B, is then placed between them. The pin of the
lifting-tackle, C, is then passed through all three pieces.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remains of piers similar to these at Chesters have been found at
Corbridge, where the Roman bridge over the Tyne was about 462 feet
long, with eleven waterways, as compared with the four {80} waterways
and 184 feet of length between the abutments here on the North Tyne.
The waters of the North Tyne were very "low and placid" that day, as
Dr. Bruce says they must be if the piers in the middle of the stream
are to be seen. They also looked very cool and inviting; and so I
soon found myself in the middle of the stream searching for the piers.
There they were, both of them, just where they were sunk eighteen
hundred years ago, with their pointed ends facing up-stream, to
cleave a parting through the swirling waters when the river "came
down."
Then I searched for the western abutment, and finally landed on the
Chesters side of the river, intending to link up the bridge with the
fortifications there. But here I was on Chesters ground, and I had
not paid my sixpence! Visions of tea at the _George_ also began to
rise before me, so conscience and inclination for once pulling in the
same direction, I put on my shoes and stockings and made tracks for
the _George_. I went along the west bank of the river, and so passed
the old mill-house, partly built of Roman stones, with a Roman altar
built into a wall in the mill-yard, and a large Roman mortar standing
by its back-door.
Soon the familiar _George_ came into sight, but the familiar face of
the landlord was not to be seen {81} outside. This was very unusual
on a fine day, so I entered, and turned towards the office, expecting
to find him there. Two men were seated there, half buried in papers,
and they came forward to ask my business. I said I wanted a bed for
the night, and would like to see Mrs. Simmonds. They sent for her,
and she soon appeared, gave me a. kindly welcome, said they could
quite well take me in for the night, and surely I must be wanting
some tea? But the house seemed strangely quiet. I had my tea alone
in the coffee-room, and then I wrote letters till dinner-time. One
of the maids came to ask: "Will you be taking dinner?" "Certainly,"
I said, with some surprise.
But when I found myself quite alone at dinner, I knew something was
wrong, and I made inquiries of the waitress. "Why, yes," she said;
"didn't you know? Haven't you seen the papers? Mr. Simmonds was
buried yesterday." No, I had not heard; I had seen no papers since I
left London, for I had been on the road all the time. After dinner,
I hastened to see Mrs. Simmonds, to express my sympathy, and to
explain what must have seemed my strange behaviour.
And so the _George_ has lost its landlord; and many people have lost
a kind friend and neighbour. From morning to night in fine weather
his tall figure and cheery face, crowned with white hair, were to be
seen outside the _George_, where he held himself {82} ready to extend
a welcome to all who came. He will indeed be missed.
Next morning I started westward again, first to visit Chesters,
within half a mile of Chollerford, where are the famous remains of
tie Roman fort of CILURNUM. My plan was to walk every step of the
line of the Wall, as far as possible consecutively, so now I had to
pick it up again on the west bank of the North Tyne where the Roman
bridge had crossed.
It was a perfect morning, with a sweet fresh air, and great clouds
rolling up, from behind which the sun shone coquettishly at frequent
intervals. The beeches which here overhang the road were at their
freshest stage of green, having just scattered their bright russet
leaf-caps all over the road, as a carpet for the wayfarer to tread
upon. The pink and white leaf-caps of the sycamores made less show,
in colour as in quantity; there is no tree so lavishly clothed with
leaves as is the beech.
I once had a little conversation with the genial landlord of the
_George_ about these very beeches, one evening when he was showing me
his garden.
He was telling me of the famous people who had visited the _George_
and signed its visitors' book, amongst them Bernard Shaw and Rudyard
Kipling; and then he added: "It's a funny thing, but do you know, Mr.
Rudyard Kipling didn't know the difference between a beech and an
oak--clever {83} gentleman as he is. Would you have believed it?"
I said: "What makes you think that?"
"Well, he came up to me, and he said: 'Mr. Simmonds, you have some
very fine oaks in this part of the country.' I said: 'They're not
oaks, sir, they're beeches.' And he said: 'Oh, are they?' So you
see he didn't know."
"But how can you be sure he was not referring to the oaks, for there
are oaks about here too?"
"Oh no; he _meant_ the beeches right enough."
And so we left it at that.
{84}