“The other plate contains ‘The Inside Perspective View of the Under Chappel of St. Thomas within London Bridge, from the West to the East end,’ and beneath it: the ‘Inside South View of the Under Chappel from East to West, representing the manner and form of this rare piece of Ancient Architecture, thus drawn and transmitted to posterity, by G. V., Antiquary, 1744. Published and sold by G. Vertue, in Brownlow-Street, Drury-Lane, 1747’ This plate, which measures 18¼ inches by 20, contains a few additional historical notes, by Sir Joseph Ayloffe; and a reduced copy of the lower View was engraved in the 23d volume of the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ for October, 1753, page 520. I must observe, also, that, in the large interior View on that plate of Vertue last-mentioned, there are introduced the portraits of the learned Samuel Gale, and the eccentric Dr. Ducarel. The former, by whose patronage and assistance Vertue produced these prints, is standing on the left hand, holding a plan of the Chapel, and listening to an outlandish-looking man, designed for Peter of Colechurch; whilst the latter Antiquary is employed in measuring. You find this information given from Gale’s own lips, in that monument of labour, the ‘Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century,’ by John Nichols, volume iv. London, 1812, 8vo. page 552, and volume vi. part I. page 402. I shall close this notice of these most ancient views of London Bridge, by observing to you, that there is a view and a ground-plan of it, with measurements, engraved by Toms, on the second plate in Hawksmoor’s work, already cited.
“Let me remark to you, however, Mr. Barbican, as touching the Chapel which I have thus described to you, that the custom of erecting Religious Houses on Bridges, is certainly of great antiquity. A notable instance of this kind was on the Bridge at Droitwich, where the road passed through the Chapel and separated the congregation from the reading-desk and pulpit. Another famous Bridge Chapel is also to be found erected over the River Calder, at Wakefield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; of which, a folding view, by W. Lodge, is inserted in the ‘Ducatus Leodiensis’ of Ralph Thoresby, London, 1715, folio, sometimes placed at page 164. This beautiful fane, you know, was built by King Edward IV. in memory of his father, Richard, Duke of York, who was killed in the battle fought near Wakefield, on December the 31st, 1460. The Bridge Chapel, however, though extremely rich in its architecture, was not so singular as our’s at London, since it was not built in the pier, and descending even to the water’s edge, but upon the pier, and the platform of the Bridge itself. Somewhat like our shrine of St. Thomas, however, as it belonged to the poor of the town, it was, about 1779, converted into a dwelling-house, and let at a small annual rent to a retail dealer in old clothes! as that industrious Antiquary, Richard Gough, tells us, in his ‘British Topography,’ London, 1780, 4to. volume ii. page 437, note, r. ‘To what base uses may we not return, Horatio!’ The edifice which had been erected for Monks to chaunt forth their Requiescats in solemn procession; the shrine which had been endowed for the sweet repose of a warrior’s soul; the—”
“I’ll tell you what, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, starting up, “you’ll contribute to my sweet repose, unless you leave wandering in Yorkshire, and return again to London Bridge: what have we to do with a bead-roll of all the Bridge Chapels that are scattered through England? I desire to know but of one; for, by its having existed, we are sure that there might have been some sort of custom for their erection; and, as old Chaucer saith,
‘Experience, though none auctoritye
Were in this world, is quite enough for me.’”
“True, Sir, true,” said the mild old Antiquary; “you have once more brought me back to my starting-post; for I own that I am too apt, when discoursing upon one subject, to branch out into others which seem to illustrate, or are in any degree connected with it. You will, however, I dare say, allow me to remark, that Plutarch denies the derivation of the word Pontifex from the old Roman custom of sacrificing on Bridges, which might, nevertheless, be the origin of Chapels being built upon them. He mentions this in his Life of Numa Pompilius, in his ‘Vitæ Parallelæ,’ best edition, by Augustine Bryan, and M. du Soul, London, 1729-24, 4to. volume i. page 142. The Greek passage begins, ‘Νουμᾷ δὲ και τὴν των αρχιερεων,’ &c., and the Latin, ‘Jam etiam sacerdotum;’ but I shall give you the excellent modern English version of Dr. Langhorne, in his very popular translation of the old Classic, from the edition of Mr. Archdeacon Wrangham, London, 1813, 8vo. volume i. pages 181, 182: ‘To Numa,’ says the passage, ‘is attributed the institution of that high order of priests, called Pontifices; over which, he is said to have presided himself. Some say, they were called Pontifices, as employed in the service of those powerful gods that govern the world; for potens, in the Roman language, signifies powerful. Others, that they were ordered by their law-giver to perform such offices as were in their power, and standing excused when there was some great impediment. But most writers assign a ridiculous reason for the term, as if they were called Pontifices, from their offering sacrifices upon the Bridge, which the Latins call Pontem; such kinds of ceremonies, it seems, being looked upon as the most sacred, and of the highest antiquity. These Priests, too, are said to have been commissioned to keep the Bridges in repair, as one of the most indispensable parts of their sacred office.’ Plutarchus, the author of this, you remember, died about A. D. 140; and the period of which he wrote, was about 630 years before the birth of Christ. That giant of learning, also, John Jacob Hoffmann, denies that the word Pontifex had any thing to do with a Bridge; as you may see discussed at considerable length, in his ‘Lexicon Universale,’ Leyden, 1698, folio, volume iii. page 836, column 2, where he says, it is compounded of posse and facere, that is to say, such persons as are able to do the thing, or sacrifice: but as the article is equally long, erudite, and curious, I refer you to the original.
“And now we come to speak of Stow’s singular hypothesis, that the River Thames was turned in its current, during the erection of the first Stone Bridge at London. He states this in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 58, where he also says, that the course of the stream was carried through ‘a trench cast for that purpose; beginning, as it is supposed, East about Rotherhithe, and ending in the West about Patricksey, now termed Battersey.’ Strype, the last, and, perhaps, the best Editor of our old Metropolitan Historian, on the page above cited, seems inclined to support this idea; for he says, ‘It is much controverted whether the River Thames was turned, when the Bridge over it was built, and whether the River was more subject to overflow its banks anciently than at present; and from all that hath been seen and written upon the turning of the River, it seems very evident to me, that it was turned while the Bridge was building, and that it is more subject to overflow its banks now, than it was formerly; for the channel of the River must have been deeper than it is now, or the Palace of Westminster would never have been built where the Hall and the rest of its remains are now situated. Is it to be supposed that any Prince would have built a Palace, where the lower rooms were liable to be overflowed at a spring-tide, as we see the Hall has been several times of late years, and the lawyers brought out on porters’ backs? The reason whereof is, that the sands have raised the channel, and, consequently, the tides must rise higher in proportion, than they did formerly; and unless some care is taken to cleanse the River, the buildings on the same level with the floor of Westminster-Hall, will not be habitable much longer, as the sand and ouse are still daily increasing, and choking up the bed of the River.’ Nicholas Hawksmoor, also, on page 8 of his work, which I have already quoted, says, that ‘many skilful persons have thought that the River Thames was not turned, but that the flowing of the tides was then different, and that the water did not rise so high at the Bridge; for the Thames might heretofore overflow the marshes near the sea, and have a greater spreading; which being now restrained by the bank, called the wall of the Thames, into narrower limits, and the water which comes from the sea into the mouth of the Thames during the flood, not being received by the marshes, must come up into the country, and so swell the tide higher at London than it usually did. The celebrated Sir Christopher Wren was of opinion, that when the foundation of London Bridge was laid, the course of the River was not turned, but that every pier was set upon piles of wood, which were drove as far as might be under low-water mark, on which were laid planks of timber, and upon them the foundation of the stone piers: the heads of the said piles have been seen at a very low ebb, and may be so still when some of the chalk or stone is removed to mend the Sterlings.’
“Maitland, and his Editor Entick, are also both opposed to the idea that the River was turned during the erection of London Bridge, as they evince on page 46 of their ‘History;’ where they ground their objections to it on the following arguments. Firstly, it is supposed that the vestiges of Knute’s Canal—which, as we have seen, took the same course as Stow supposes the River to have taken,—might have deceived him; a reason also adopted by Hawksmoor, in the place I last cited. Secondly, the charge of such an immense work is next objected to; as the cost of the ground intended for the trench, the embankment of it, and the damming off the River itself, must have amounted to at least treble the sum which would otherwise have been required to erect the Bridge. The total silence of those Historians who mention the construction of London Bridge, upon the subject of so great a work as the turning of the River, is next insisted upon: and, finally, the length of time which the building occupied,—thirty-three years,—is adduced as alone sufficient to overthrow the whole hypothesis. ‘For,’ adds the author, ‘had the people concerned in erecting it, had dry ground to have built upon, it might have been finished in a tenth part of the time, and in a much more durable manner.’ Maitland then proceeds to state, that, in 1730, he surveyed the Bridge, in company with Mr. Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water-Carpenter of the same; and that he observed in many places,—where the stones were washed from the sterlings,—the mighty frames of piles whereon the stone piers or pillars were founded; the exterior parts of which, consisted of huge piles driven as closely together as art could effect. ‘On the tops of these,’ he continues, ‘are laid long planks, or beams of timber, of the thickness of ten inches, strongly bolted; whereon is placed the base of the stone pier, nine feet above the bed of the River, and three below the sterlings; and on the outside of this wooden foundation,—and for its preservation,—are drove the piles called the sterlings.’ He then goes on to observe, that Mr. Sparruck informed him, that he and the Bridge-Mason had frequently taken out of the lowermost layers of stones in the piers, several of the original stones, which were laid in pitch instead of mortar; and that from this circumstance they imagined, that all the outside stones of the piers, as high as the sterlings, were originally bedded in the same material, to prevent the water from damaging the work. This labour was, he thinks, continued at every ebb tide, until the piers were raised above high-water mark; and hence he argues, that if the Thames had been turned, there would not have been any occasion for the use of pitch, and that Plaster of Paris was not then in use in this country. These are the principal heads of the dispute concerning the turning of the River: to which I only add my own settled conviction, that the course of the Thames was not altered.”
“But pray, my worthy friend,” said I, as he concluded, “what other buildings stood upon the Bridge built by Peter of Colechurch, besides the Chapel of St. Thomas?”
“That is a point,” replied he, “upon which Antiquaries are very far from being decided: for whilst some assert, with Sir Joseph Ayloffe in his account of the Bridge attached to Vertue’s prints, that, at first, there were no houses upon it, and that it was only plainly coped with stone until 1395,—late in the reign of Richard II.,—others argue that it was built upon to some extent two centuries before, and, indeed, there is proof of this being the case in the reign of King Edward I., as I shall shew you anon. Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 22, says that the Bridge Gate, which was erected at the Southwark end, was one of the four first and principal gates of the City, and stood there long before the Conquest, when there was only a Bridge of timber, being the seventh and last mentioned by Fitz-Stephen. Maitland, at page 30 of his first volume, when he comes to speak of the same erection, denies not only the truth, but even the probability of Stow’s assertions; and, indeed, Stephanides himself says only at page 24, ‘On the West,’—that is of London,—‘are two Castles well fortified; and the City wall is both high and thick with seven double gates, and many towers on the North side, placed at proper distances. London once had its walls and towers in like manner on the South, but that vast River, the Thames, which abounds with fish, enjoys the benefit of tides, and washes the City on this side, hath, in a long tract of time, totally subverted and carried away the walls in this part.’ The Latin of this passage commences at ‘Ab Occidente duo Castella munitissima,’ &c. Maitland then goes on to argue, that Fitz-Stephen could have no regard to a gate on the South, there being no wall remaining; ‘whereas,’ says he, ‘on the contrary, it is manifest that his seven gates were in the continued wall on the land side.’
“It is probable, however, that, at a very early period after its erection, towers were reared upon London Bridge, for there was one standing at each end; but of these I shall speak more largely under future years: remarking only, that it is by no means impossible for a Watch-tower and gate to have stood upon the Bridge, even from its very first erection, seeing that it was, as it were, a new key to the City. A sort of Barbican, Mr. Geoffrey, such as you derive your name from; for you remember the essential importance which such buildings were of, and how Bagford speaks of them in his Letter to Hearne, which I have already quoted, page lxii. ‘Here,’ says he, ‘they kept Cohorts of Souldiers in continual service’—for your Barbican Tower was of Roman invention,—‘to watch in the night; that if any sudden fire should happen, they might be in a readiness to extinguish it, as also to give notice if an enemy were gathering or marching towards the City to surprise them. In short, it was a Watch-tower by day; and at night, they lighted some combustible material on the top thereof, to give directions to the weary traveller repairing to the City, either with provision or on some other occasion.’