Wednesday, 8th November 1786 – St Giles-in-the-Fields churchyard
The bells tolled seven as I passed beneath the lichgate, and the November fog lay thick upon the stones. I came here not from piety but from a species of compulsion I can scarce name – as if the dead themselves had summoned me to account.
I have spent the afternoon amongst the monuments, tracing with cold fingers the inscriptions that time and London’s foul air have begun to erase. Here lies one who died in the reign of the late King; there, a merchant’s wife whose virtues are catalogued in letters already softening into the Portland stone. The sexton, seeing me linger, enquired whether I sought a particular grave. I told him no, though in truth I seek them all – or rather, I seek what remains when flesh and memory both have perished.
The question haunts me still, the one put to me last evening in the coffee-room near Lincoln’s Inn: “What discourse fills your ear of late? What voices do you hearken to?” The gentleman meant it idly, I think, asking after sermons or public lectures I might recommend. Yet the question has worked upon me like a barb. For I find myself attending, these past weeks, to voices that offer no instruction, no improvement – only reproach.
I listen to the voice of Mr Pitt’s measures, as debated in every coffee-house and tavern: his Sinking Fund to discharge the nation’s debt, his new taxes upon servants and carriages. Men speak of economy and national honour, of accounts balanced and credit restored. Yet what of the scholar’s account? What fund shall discharge the debts I have accumulated – not in guineas but in neglected duties, in knowledge hoarded rather than shared, in truths buried for the sake of reputation?
I listen, too, to the reports from Prussia, where the old King Frederick lies now three months in his tomb. They say he wished to be interred beside his hounds at Sans Souci, spurning the vault of his fathers. Even in death, the philosophe-king desired to be remembered on his own terms. But here, amongst these London graves, I see how memory serves its own cruel economy. The great are commemorated; the humble are forgot. And I – I have spent my years pursuing a legacy built upon foundations I now mistrust.
It was whilst examining a table-tomb near the northern wall that I noted how the inscription had been rendered in lamp black and sepia, the pigments already fading to a sickly brown. The stone-cutter’s art, like the scholar’s, relies upon materials that betray. I thought of my own manuscripts, my years of annotating texts in iron-gall ink that even now corrodes the very pages it adorns. What seemed preservation reveals itself as slow destruction. The umber and burnt sienna I have used to illuminate marginalia now appear to me as stains – as evidence of vanity masquerading as learning.
A woman passed as I stood there, carrying a spray of rosemary. She placed it upon a small grave, unmarked save for a wooden cross. I asked her whom she mourned. “My daughter,” she said, “dead these two years of the fever. The parish would not grant her a stone.” She spoke without bitterness, as one reciting a fact of nature. When she had gone, I stood a long while before that anonymous plot, thinking upon all that is lost for want of record – and all that is recorded to no purpose save pride.
The fog thickened as dusk approached, and I fancied I could smell the charnel-house miasma, though the sexton assures me the vaults are well-sealed. Perhaps it was only the coal-smoke and the river-damp. Yet it seemed to me the very air was freighted with the substance of dissolution – that which reduces kings and beggars, scholars and children, to the same indifferent dust.
I have been listening to the wrong voices. The coffee-house philosophers and parliamentary orators speak of legacy as if it were a monument to be erected, a reputation to be secured through publication and preferment. But here, in this acre of the forgotten, I hear a different sermon. It speaks of mercy shown, of bread given, of small kindnesses that leave no record save in the reckoning that surpasses all our earthly accounting.
When I return to my chambers, I shall take up my pen – not to annotate another ancient text, but to write to the widow in Clerkenwell whose husband’s debt I might forgive, and to the young scholar whose manuscript I have too long delayed recommending. These are poor remedies for years misspent, yet they are what remains to me.
The sexton has begun his rounds, calling that the gates will soon be locked. I must away. But I shall carry with me the image of that wooden cross, and the knowledge that the truest monuments are not hewn from stone or written in pigments that endure, but rather inscribed upon the hearts of those whom we have served in charity and truth.
The fog closes round. I go.
Late eighteenth-century Britain saw fiscal reform under Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, notably the 1786 Sinking Fund intended to reduce the vast national debt accumulated after the American War of Independence. The fund dedicated £1 million annually and placed repayments under independent commissioners to prevent diversion, operating effectively until renewed war with France in 1793 forced heavy borrowing. In the same year, the Eden Commercial Treaty (1786) eased Anglo-French trade barriers, while Europe marked the recent death of Frederick II of Prussia (August 1786) and succession by Frederick William II. Pitt’s measures influenced later debt management, though the Sinking Fund’s strict logic faltered amid wartime finance and was largely abandoned in the 1820s.
Bob Lynn | © 2025 Vox Meditantis. All rights reserved.
Vox Meditantis 
Leave a comment