ROMANO-BRITISH NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 



remarkable circumstance of the bending of the road on leaving it,' while 

 the bishop adds as further proof the proximity of the Trent to the road, 

 the correspondence of distance, and the neighbourhood of Southwell, which 

 he believed to be a Roman station. The same arguments are quoted by 

 Throsby in his additions to Thoroton, on the authority of ' a gentleman of 

 .high respectability,' perhaps the bishop or his friend ; but in a later passage 

 he mentions a tradition of a bridge across the Trent from Thorpe Bar to 

 Southwell, and suggests that the supposed station of Ad Pontem might 

 have stood on an eminence at East Stoke commanding it. 38 Thorpe was 

 subsequently also accepted by Watkin and others. 87 We have, however, 

 no evidence that a bridge ever existed at Thorpe or Farndon. The same 

 objection applies to Throsby's theory (adopted by Compton) 38 advancing 

 East Stoke as the locality. 



Lower down the river traces ot a bridge were, according to Dickinson, 39 

 observed in 17923 north of Newark at Winthorpe. He brought this 

 forward in support of his view that Ad Pontem was to be identified with 

 Southwell. But the subsequent discovery in 1877 and 1884 of remains of 

 an undoubtedly Roman bridge three miles below, between Cromwell and 

 Collingham, 40 demonstrated that Dickinson was either mistaken in the 

 locality he gives, or that he had given too free rein to his imagination. But 

 even accepting the Winthorpe bridge as Roman, the absurdity of placing 

 Ad Pontem at Southwell remains as great, involving as it does, firstly, an 

 irreconcilable discrepancy with the mileage of the Itinerary, secondly an 

 inconceivable detour from the line of the Fosse, entailing two crossings of the 

 Trent ; and this though Southwell cannot have been a place of much im- 

 portance in Roman times. 41 Yet Dickinson's theory, in part if not wholly, 

 has been seriously considered by recent writers, 42 even Dr. Raven writing in 

 1902 'that the Trent had to be crossed by a bridge is manifest,' and regard- 

 ing the Cromwell bridge as 'admirably suited to the name Ad Pontem.' 

 Perhaps to the name, but hardly to the locality ! 43 It is obvious that both 

 Farndon and Thorpe correspond far better with the distance and line of route 

 than any other site, although in neither case is there any evidence for the 

 existence of a bridge. Nor can we safely accept another suggestion which 

 has been made. It has been pointed out that Ad Pontem is equally possible 

 Latin for ' to the bridge ' and ' at the bridge.' It is not therefore essential to 

 predicate the existence of a bridge over the Trent at all. A glance at the 

 Orographical map of the county in Volume I will show that Farndon and 

 Thorpe lie in very low ground (not exceeding 50 ft. above the sea) between 

 the Trent and the Devon. It is conceivable that there was here, if not a 



M Hist, of Notes, i, 71, 148 ; see also Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xli, 43. Throsby also seems to suggest 

 Newark or Ponton in Lincolnshire as possibilities. 



" Standard, 5 Nov. 1884 ; Arch. Journ. xliii, 22 ; Antiq. xxxviii, 297. Watkin's statement that 'at least 

 as much masonry has been found here as at Southwell ' is not clear. It is not the case (see Index, s.v. Thorpe), 

 and if it was, would prove nothing. 



38 Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xli, 43 ff. 



Antiq. in Notts. \, 92 ; see pp. 5, 36 ; also the map in Dickinson at end of part i. 



40 See Index, s.v. Cromwell. 



41 Cf. Nichols, Hist, and Antiq. ofLeic. i, cxlix ; "Nottingham Daily Guardian, 20 Feb. 1877 ; Arch. Journ. 

 xliii, 28 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xli, 43. 



" Standard, 31 Oct. and 3 Nov. 1884 ; Antiq. xxxviii, 297. 



4> A writer in the Standard, 5 Nov. 1884, places Ad Pontem at Cromwell, taking the road along the 

 right bank of the Trent to Littleborough. 



