Londinium, Architecture and the CraftsLethaby, W. R. (William Richard)
History
Londinium, Architecture and the Crafts
Lethaby, W. R. (William Richard)
England -- Antiquities, Roman; London (England) -- Antiquities, Roman; Romans -- England -- London
Nothing is so expert a matter as Latin inscriptions, and it would be
absurd for one who is entirely ignorant to pretend to a difference of
opinion. I may, however, venture to point out that Hübner himself does
not seem very certain, and that the difference of the two forms seems to
coincide with the historical fact that earlier Britain was one province
and that later it was subdivided. Variety (_a_), I have little doubt, is
a second-century inscription (similar labels are found on pigs of lead
of the time); while form (_b_) is quite late (probably end of fourth
century). The first variety I should like to suggest represents the
governor of the undivided province, and the second the subdivided
province with its centre at London. If I am not entirely outside the
possibilities of the case there is some confirmation of Wright’s view in
the fact that other tiles bear the stamps of high authorities; thus a
tile at Silchester has the name of the Emperor Nero in a circle, and
other tiles are known stamped with the marks of army and navy commands.
3. At the British Museum is a silver ingot (found on the site of the
Tower of London), stamped with an inscription given as
EXOFFL
HONORINI
and described thus: “_Ex Of[ficina] Fl[avii ?] Honorini_: found with
gold coins of the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius.” The reading FL at the
end of the first line is probably adopted because the Emperor Honorius
had also the name Flavius; but to my eyes the letters look more like FE.
Other similar marks on silver show that we need not expect an emperor’s
name. (One in the British Museum reads EX OF PATRICI.) Roach Smith read
the London inscription, EX OFFI, and explained the whole “From the
workshop of Honorinus.” I may suggest Felix Honorinus.
4. Lying in the grass in front of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, is a
large white stone, bearing only T II in what appears to be Roman work
and style. It was found near its present site about forty years ago, and
was accepted as Roman and explained as a boundary (_terminus_) mark. It
may be noted that it lies close to the line of the presumed Roman road
along Tothill Street to the river. The nearest parallel I have seen is a
stone found near Falkirk, described in Haverfield’s addition to the
_C.I.L._ (No. 1264): T III (_turma tertia_).
5. An inscription at the Guildhall
MATR ...
VICINIA-DESVO-RES ........
is, as has been pointed out, a record of the restoration of some edifice
or sculpture dedicated to the mother goddesses. The lettering is on the
half of the crowning member of a cornice which may have been over a
narrow door, and Roach Smith was probably right in assuming the
existence of a small temple.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account