he has undertaken; and we hope that they will both profit by his labours and promote his future success. CORRESPONDENCE. A letter from Mr. Gifford, politely acknowleging himself indebted to our remarks on his translation of Juvenal, (see the last Review,) reminds us of two or three slips of the pen which occurred in transcribing some passages from that work. In p. 16. of the article, the following line, - Spasm, sudden death, and age without a will,' is quoted without inserting the word age, by which omission it ap pears deficient in quantity. Our objection to it, however, was derived from its want of rhithm, which still remains. In p. 12. line z. black should be bleak; and near the bottom of that page, dwindled should be dwindling. Mr. Mason, author of the Supplement to Johnson's Dictionary, (see Review for October last,) has addressed a letter to us, in which he maintains the propriety of swelling that work by adding to it every word which he knew to be in Spenser.' We cannot be of this opinion.-Dr. Johnson, by excluding that writer from his collection of English poets, has given a decided proof that he considered Spenser as obsolete. The word Airy, which we pointed out as omitted in the Supplement, Mr. M. says is inserted twice, viz. under Aerie and Eyry: but it would most generally be sought under the former orthography, and therefore, as in our case, would not be found. Surf, he rightly alleges, is in its place: we know not how we overlooked it. Donkey, he informs us, was omitted as belonging to cant dialect: but we doubt this decision. Gerkin he considered as a corruption of Gorkem, which is inserted: but this also may be questioned. We have been "moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil," the primeval tempter of mankind, to violate the resolution which we have formed, and of which we lately gave notice, respecting new impressions of books: but we are determined to shew that we can resist "Satan and all his works.”—Sat. sap: verb. We find our suspicion to be well founded, that the matter again recommended to us by MM. Jafozi and Vahotsav is not an object of our attention. In the APPENDIX to Vol. xxxix. of the M. R. which was published with our last Number, p. 522. 1. 23. for auriating,' T anointing; and in the INDEX, article Pyramid, after in it,' add, 532MS. said to be fount in it, &c. Art. Tiger, after Ganges, add, 481.. In the Rev. for January, p. 12. 1. 2. for black,' r. bleak; and 1. 4. fr. bott. for dwindled, r. dwindling. P. 16. 1. 28. alter and,' insert age. P. 104. 1. 9. transpose the word only, and place it after, add P. 105. I. 15. for works,' T. productions. Man P. 157. C.10. for neither, r. either. 185. ( . 24. for comparative of the charges, r. of the comp (.24. tive charges. as reached 195,6. dele some of the hyphens, as near 210 L-12.fr bett. for Juvenal, v. Inverile. THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For MARCH, 1803. ! ART. I. The History of Bath. By the Rev. Richard Warner. WE E have formerly had, and shall soon again have, occasion to make our acknowlegements to Mr. Warner *, for the amusement and information which, in his character of tourist, he has imparted to us: but we now meet him in a new department, and that confessedly a very difficult one. Here an author finds that his materials relative to the periods which most awaken curiosity are very scanty, and blended with fable; as he advances, indeed, they multiply, and become more authentic, but not till they almost cease to interest, and lose their title to a place in the historic page. It is to be considered also, that readers of works of this sort are of various descriptions, all of whom it is impossible to please; some look for elaborate antiquarian researches, while others expect a complete account of modern transactions and circumstances; general readers blame the author for having been too diffuse; and those who are connected with particular places censure him for omissions.-The usual judgment and address of Mr. Warner do not forsake him amid these dilemmas. If it be praise not to have strikingly failed, where none have completely succeeded, that praise is his just due. We wish, indeed, that he had omitted the fable of Bladud, and all of what he calls the British history of Bath; (or, at least, that he had stated these matters with the utmost conciseness, in a preface or a note ;) we expected farther illustrations of the Roman period from his diligence and ingenuity; and we found, in that part of his narrative, more of conjecture mixed with history than we deem allowable. It must be admitted, however, that the suppositions are highly probable; that the circumstances which shew the great importance of the place in the time of the Romans are See Rev. vols. xxvi. xxxi., and xxxiv. N. S. Some additional vols. of tours, also, are now on our table. Q VOL. XL. boldly boldly and happily presented to view; that the events which occasioned its decline have been industriously traced; that they are luminously stated; and that all the information which history imparts respecting the character of this city, from the Roman æra to the present time, is to be collected from the facts brought together in this volume,-facts which not only elucidate the immediate subject of the writer, but which speak the complexion of the several periods, and mark the progress of society. We may add that, if a great number of Mr. W.'s pages recite matters which have only local interest, still we have to thank him that the proportion of these is less considerable than in most other similar publications. To the visitors of Bath, for whose use the work, probably, was chiefly designed, it will prove an useful and satisfactory companion. While we applaud the effusions of a manly independent spirit, and those of honest zeal for our constitutional liberties, in the narratives of the author's excursions, we have no hesitation in stating our opinion that the laudable feelings natural to such a person are to be restrained when he holds the historian's pen in that case, not only lasting fame but genuine integrity call on him to communicate the fruits of his researches, free from any tincture of his own sentiments and prejudices; and to let facts, as far as it can be done, speak for themselves. In the historic page, we should discover the historian only as the consummate master; and it should not reveal whether he be a tory or a whig, a high or a low churchman, an Athanasian or a latitudinarian, a scholastic theologian or a scriptural divine. We cannot be supposed to refer to statements which connect with events their clear legitimate consequences, but to the colouring derived from the particular views of a writer, and imparted to the transactions recorded, whether remote or recent. It is observed by Mr. W. as a comment on a well known passage of Tacitus, that, With respect to Britain, the Romans were more indebted for the long duration of their dominion there, to the arts of their policy, than to the prowess of their legions. This observation applies par ticularly to the part of England which engages our attention at present. A splendid city, raised by the Romans, adorned with all the elegancies of architecture, supplied with all the means of luxury, opened its gates to the artless Britons of Somersetshire and Glouces tershire, who readily fell into the snare, flocked to its delights, and sacrificed the pride of independence, and the blessings of liberty, at the altars of pleasure and sensuality. That this was really the case, and that Bath (under its various Roman names) contributed greatly to enervate the natives of this part of Britain, may be fairly con cluded from their quiet and peaceable state for upwards of four cen turies; II turies; for, with the exception of a transient insurrection of the Hadui in the joint reign of Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Verus, they seem to have slumbered under the heavy yoke of Roman domina tion, during the whole period, in tame inaction and uncomplaining servitude.' This idea is by no means destitute of probability; and the latter part of the observation applies to what follows: During the period of Claudius's command we may look for the origin of Bath, since it appears from many testimonies, that his troops were for some part of the time in this neighbourhood. Whilst they continued here, it was hardly possible that so singular a phænomenon as the hot springs of this valley should escape their observation. Extremely curious with respect to natural appearances, the bituminous cuticle covering the surface of the morass, and the warmth of the waters stagnating under this mantle, would catch their attention. An immediate investigation of the causes of these phænomena would take place, and the mineral springs, which had hitherto burst unnoticed from the ground, and wasted their medicinal virtues on the desart around, would be at length discovered, cleared, and collected together. Addicted as the Romans were to the use of the tepid bath, this discovery must have been considered by them as a very important one, and would immediately tempt them to form a permanent station on the spot where it occurred. This they would probably be further instigated to by Scribonius, the physician of Claudius, and his companion in this expedition, who seems to have entertained an high opinion of the efficacy of warm-bathing, and prescribed it as a specifick in certain disorders. His advice induced them to forego their usual principles in the choice of situations for camps, and (instead of choosing any of the surrounding hills) to build a town in the morassy hollow of a close vale. As the stay of Claudius in these parts was very short, he would merely have time to give directions for cleansing and collecting the springs, and securing the treasure by the erection of a city on the spot where they issued from the earth. His imposition of the Greek name (in which language he was skilled) Yara Orgu, warm water, in allusion to the natural wonders of the place, before he left the army to return to Rome, would follow of course. Admitting the above suppositions to be probable, we arrive at the origin of Bath, and may iix the building of the first town on the spot about the year of our Lord 44, exactly seventeen hundred and fifty-five years ago.' In the year 78, Julius Agricola, the accomplished General of Domitian, succeeded Julius Frontinus in the command of the Roman forces in Britain. Shortly after his arrival, Arviragus, the prince of the Silures, rebelled against the Romans, and called the attention of Agricola towards Wales. A large part of the forces taken with him in this expedition were probably drafted from the different stations lying along the banks of the Severn and Avon, a country contiguous to the scene of insurrection; and Bath contributed her quota of of Legionaries on the occasion. It was on the return of Agricola from this successful campaign, that he put in practice that refined policy described by Tacitus in a passage quoted before-softening the minds of the Britons, and fashioning them for bondage, by giving them a taste for Roman luxury, sensuality, and refinement. Time has spared some fragments of masonry, which may be considered as vestiges of the munificence of Agricola towards the city of Bath, during his stay in this part of Britain. They consist of the remains of a temple dedicated to Minerva. This supposition will be countenanced, if not confirmed, when we recollect that the goddess of wisdom was the favourite deity of the emperor Domitian; that he worshipped her with peculiar assiduity, and, as Suetonius observes, cultivated her good graces with childish superstition. Now erecting a temple in honour of a deity particularly reverenced by the reigning emperor, in the different cities of the provinces they governed, was a compliment frequently paid by those entrusted with a command. Agricola, a wise and sagacious man, who blended the politician with the soldier, deeply versed in the knowledge of the human heart, and well acquainted with the weakness of human nature, thought there could not be a better mode of offering a delicate sacrifice to the vanity of Domitian, than by building a magnificent fane to the goddess whom (in the madness of his conceit) he wished to be considered as his mother; thus paying at the same time a tribute of honour to the deity, and of respect to her son and devotee. In the city of Bath, too, such a compliment would be peculiarly happy and appropriate; as the goddess, to whom the temple was erected, had long been considered in heather mythology as one of the deities presiding over waters.' Speaking of the wars between the Saxons and Britons, the author remarks: During the greater part of this gloomy, agitated, and sanguinary period, Bath appears to have enjoyed a state of comparative repose. Situated at a considerable distance from the great scene of action, the southern and eastern coast of Britain, the sword of the invader did not, for many years, extend its devastations to the northern shores of Somersetshire, or disturb the quiet of the towns upon the Severn. Continual reinforcements from the continent, however, enabled the Saxons to gain successive advantages over the Britons, and gradually to enlarge the limits of their acquisitions, till their forces penetrated into the interior of Somersetshire. This happened about the year of our Lord 493, when, for the first time since their arrival, the Saxon hordes threatened the town of Bath; and under the command of Ella, and his three sons Cymenus, Pleting, and Cissa, encamped on Lansdown, and formally besieged the city. At this period the spirits of the Britons were somewhat revived, by the extraordinary talents and invincible courage of Arthur, the most renowned of all our British worthies, who appears, even through the clouds of fable which involve his atchievements, to have been a great and accomplished hero. Apprised of the operations of Ella, the British leader hastened after him, and reaching his camp before he - 6 had |