344 THE TOPOGRAPHY OF WORCESTERSHIRE. 



purposes, as Helbury Hill and the Toot Hill adjoining it on the eastern 

 side of Worcester, Ambury Hill, near Stourl)ridge, and the Bambury 

 Stone, near the summit of Bredon Hill ? 



Under ** Roman" remains, only one station, *' Dom," is given, and 

 Mr. Tymms states, that '*this county appears to have been but little 

 known to the Romans." Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Salop, and 

 Warwick, were, however, well known to the Romans, and what, there- 

 fore, could have prevented that warlike people from penetrating into the 

 recesses of this county, instead of making a detour to avoid it ? Mr. 

 Tymms himself states, that the Romans had encampments at Bredon, 

 Kempsey, Kinver Edge, Malvern, Wassail Hill, near Bewdley, Wichbury 

 Hill, near Hagley, and Woodbury Hill, near Witley. It is reasonable to 

 suppose the Romans must have gained some little insight with regard to 

 the country from these numerous posts, but according to Mr. Ty'^™^ 

 they had no "Roads," only "some few remains of apparently vicinal 

 ways." He is, however, obliged to admit "thePortway from Worces- 

 ter through Over Areley;'* and it afterwards comes out, but under 

 Herefordshire, that there was a Roman road from Worcester to Ken- 

 chester. Now, with a regular line of communicErtion from Worcester to 

 Kenchester on the west, "the Portway" to Areley, on the north, and a 

 road to Aulcester on the east (a portion of it still called the Porte Fields 

 Roads) how can we resist the conclusion of General Roy,* that Worces- 

 ter itself was a Roman station, the Brangonum of Richard's map ? 

 No idea of this kind, however, enters the imagination of our "Family 

 Topographer,", and he is equally silent as to Droitwich, the Salines of 

 Richard of Cirencester , and the station fixed by Dr. StukeJey, at Upton. 

 It is very convenient to say, " Worcestershire was " but little known to 

 the Romans'" but we know that an inscription in honour of Constantine 

 was found at Kempsey, and still exists there, from which it would 

 appear that the Romans had time and opportunity to rear altars and 

 sculptures in our county, which they could hardly have done if only 

 pausing upon their march. 



Passing a bill of amnesty for omissions relative to such ancient times, 

 let us turn to the 



"present state and appearance" 



of the county, and if we find all correct here, we will acknowledge that 

 we have been a little too fastidious. As a specimen, we will select 

 Mr, Tymms's summary account of our " Cathedral. Worcester, founded 

 by Ethelred King of Mercia in 680 ; rebuilt by St. Oswald in 983 ; 

 destroyed 11th century ; present building began 1084 by Bp. Wulstan, 

 finished 1 374 ; length 395 feet, height of tower 200 feet." Short as 

 this summary confessedly is, yet if it were accurate we should be content. 

 But our topographer involves the foundation of the see of Worcester 

 with that of the cathedral. The old cathedral, which Bosel found here 

 when he was appointed bishop in 679, was altogether abandoned in 969, 

 when Bishop Oswald persuaded the secular clergy to resign it to the 

 monks of St. Mary's, a rival and adjoining structure. Oswald then 

 erected a larger cathedral on a new site, which he completed in 983, and 

 this is doubtless worked up substantially in the present edifice. Oswald's 

 edifice bring partly destroyed by the forces of Hardicknute, in 1041, 

 Wulstan, in 1084, laid the foundation of a new cathedral, which again 

 suffered by fire in 1113, when the roof was destroyed, and it was again 

 injured by conflagration in 1202, so that it was unfit for public worship 



* Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain. 



