state of the Itinerary in general, and the historical notion of the Romans being (at the time it was written) in possession only of the south of the wall of Hadrian are a notion, and an idea taken up against authority and against evidence, and have led the author wildly astray" and the far larger part of the criticism is spent in contradicting the latter of these opinions, to this therefore I shall confine my remarks, that I may not tresspass too much upon your pages.

"That the country between the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus was not given up," it is observed, "nor meant to be given up by Hadrian, is demonstrable from several points." And these demon<strations are declared to be, certain antiquities, found at Riechester and Risingham beyond the wall; and the evidence of Mr. Whitaker. "At Riechester, in Northumberland, some miles to the north of Hadrian's Wall, has been found an inscription on a stone, that was assuredly a part of a temple there, for the safety of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. This temple therefore was erected in the reign of one of the Antonine's, when the Romans were in full possession of parts north of the wall, built by Hadrian, and in such secure possession, as to be building a temple. Several coins of the same Emperor have been found at the same place. An inscription was also found at Risingham to one of the Antonines. These sufficiently prove, that this region, north of the wall, was not given up in the reign of Hadrian, and that his immediate successors, the Antonines, still retained garrisons in it.. What then can be said for a writer, who, with these evidences all before his eyes, could presume to contradict, yet not venture to discuss, them? Nothing can be said, but that, enslaved to an hypothesis, he put a bandage over his own eyes???

The triumphant shout in the conclusion would have been certainly better omitted, because it can be proved very easily, that these evidences have really not been contradicted. It is stated by me, that "Hadrian's wall continued most probably the bounds of the Empire in this island, during the remainder of his reign, about the term of eighteen years." The very next line adds, “under Antoninus Pius, another wall was built. Camden has settled the place between the Friths of Edinburgh and Dunbarton, where its claim has remained undisputed, nor can I see any reason to dispute it." The plenary possession of Antoninus Pius being thus fully admitted in the country, even to the second wall, how car. it be said with any truth, that I have contradicted these evidences? I have really allowed more than they prove. For the inscription, found at Risingham, shews no more, if it does so much, than that Antoninus the philosopher, the successor of Pius, and whose reign did not com mence before, at least twenty years after the death of Hadrian, occupied that station. And the inscription at Riechester, Horsley clearly makes out, must have belonged to Caracalla, between whom and Hadrian, was an interval of seventy years. Horsley modestly infers from these premises, that" about that time, the Romans possessed these stations." But, the Reviewer carries the inference even to the proving the constant and uninterrupted possession of

NO. XXXII. VOL. VIII.

Q

Hadrian

Hadrian in these parts, to which point they certainly have not the smallest reference. If the possession of countries by Hadrian's successors is allowed to be direct evidence, that Hadrian never relinquished them, history has no doubt traduced the character of this Emperor, in attributing to him the first retrograde movement of the god Terminus. He could not make the Euphrates the bounds of the Empire in the east; for it is certain the Romans had passession of Mesopotamia, and other countries beyond that river to a very late period of the Empire. But if it is granted, that it was Hadrian's peculiar humour and polity to abandon countries, and set bounds to the Empire, why might he not indulge it in one country as well as another? The building of his wall appears to be a positive proof, that he did so in Britain. And the Itinerary of Antoninus adds great weight to this supposition by giving the name of Limes to this vallum, which word cannot well be interpreted to mean any thing but the boundary of the Empire. If the inscriptions and coins abovementioned had absolutely belonged to Hadrian, they could not have been considered as a demonstration of the falsehood of this opinion, because it is more than probable that Hadrian's forces were in possession of the country to some distance beyond his wall, sufficient time to erect inscriptions and leave coins, before the wall was finished, and established as the boundary of the Empire.

But these arguments, I presume, did not appear to the Reviewer himself perfectly conclusive; he therefore proceeds to make the matter clearer by a quotation from a work, which he observes,

seems to be as familiar to me as Horsley's, the arguments of which I have chose to contradict, though not ventured to discuss. This work is Mr. Whitaker's History of Manchester, which to my great astonishment he calls a juvenile work. This is an epithet not calculated to add weight to its authority; yet, at the same time, he rather perversely blames me for nor paying implicit obedience to all its decisions. The evidence of a modern, nay of an author, actually living in the last year of the eighteenth century, adduced in proof of an historical fact, which occurred in the early part of the second century, must be allowed to be not a very common, nor yet convincing mode of arguing. And why introduce Mr, Whitaker in a manner so disagreeable for a purpose so unusual? He must have drawn his information from sources open to other writers. It would have been much more satisfactory to have produced his authorities, instead of bringing him forward so invidiously as a testimony, which no one ought to dare to contradict. I should think very unworthily of this learned author, if I could believe him gratified by such an officious exaltation.

The only propositions in the quotation from the History of Manchester, immediately connected with the matter in dispute, are the two, in which it is asserted, that "Hadrian by erecting his wall did not mean to cede Valentia to the enemy" and " Valentia was constantly in the power of the Romans." But as these are positions, which after a careful examination, did not appear to me supported

by

by the authorities, I considered myself at liberty to pass them unnoticed. The latter circumstance, indeed, is not very easily reconciled with the relation given, in the same quotation, a few lines before, of " the Caledonians, in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian overrunning not only Valentia without the wall, but Maxima within." This surely admits a temporary suspension of the Roman power in these parts, and I contend for nothing more. If Mr. W. means that Hadrian did not cede Valentia by treaty to the Caledonians, I entirely agree with him. I understand, that Iovian was the first Emperor, who brought that disgrace upon the Empire. But I am well assured, that no antient author or other evidence can be produced to contradict the idea, excited by Antoninés Itinerary, that Hadrian, when he built his wall, made that wall the limes, or boundary of the Roman Empire in this island, and that he gave up to the natives the possession of the country, which lay beyond it. Pursuing the same argument, though not openly and directly, that" the Romans had possessions beyond the wall, when the Itinerary was written," the Reviewer proceeds to criticise the situation of two towns, one of which has been supposed by several antiquaries certainly to lie beyond the wall, and the other has been allotted a situation upon the wall, which countenances the supposition, that two others also lay beyond it. To these two towns, which are Bremenium and Luguvallium, I have thought myself authorised by the Itinerary to assign situations, different from those which have been generally given to them by all former writers upon this subject. To these alterations this critic objects with great warmth; but I cannot say his arguments have in the least tended to change my opinion.,

"The first iter, he observes, is made to commence its career, a limite, id est, a Vallo and a Bremenio together." But this ought not so much to be objected to me as to my author. Antoninus made the iter to commence in this manner, That Limes, and Vallum are intended to express the same thing must be allowed, since the latter is only added in explanation of the former, a Limite, id est a Vallo. And the repetition of the preposition a, before Bremenio, so completely proves the connection of the town. with a Limite and a Vallo, the place of which a Bremenio supplies, that it seems very strange, that any one could ever suppose them not to mean one and the same spot. If Bremenio had appeared without the preposition, there might have been more reason to suppose a possible omission of some towns before it, but in the present state of the terms, no doubt of the kind can be entertained. And this is farther confirmed by the commencement of the second iter, where we again read a Vallo in the title, and a Blato Bulgio as the first town. Blatum Bulgium, Camden has supposed to mean Bulness, and the situation agrees so exactly with the description of the Itinerary, that there seems no reason to dispute his determination, Horsley, indeed, has ventured to propose the situations of both Blatum Bulgium, and Castra Exploratorum beyond the wall, but it is plain he has not done so without some hesitation. His interpretation

interpretation of the phrase, a Vallo, is far from giving its natural. and direct meaning. Nor can I perceive how the wall could be made the commencement of an iter in any other way than we here see it. Every iter is a journey from one principal town to another. When, therefore, an iter is said to begin from a wall, it must be expected, that the author means from some town, adjoining the wall. And this is found to be the case in two very positive instances, and whoever seeks these towns in any other place, not connected with the wall, cannot take the authority of Antoninus for his guide. The first iter begins a Vallo; the first town is Bremenium, and in the place expected, we find Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a town of great consequence in these parts, and the Roman antiquity of which has never been disputed. It is agreed, I believe, by all our antiquaries, that Corstipitum, the second town in the Itinerary, stood near the present town of Corbridge, about three miles from Hadrian's wall, and within it. Now no other wall but Hadrian's could be mentioned by Antoninus, if the age assigned to this work in my introduction is admittel. If the Itinerary was finished before the death of Hadrian, it cannot be supposed to speak of the wall of Antoninus, which could not be erected till some years after that event. Bremenium then must be expected to be found in contact with the wall of Hadrian, at about twenty miles distance from Cor bridge. Towards the west there is no town, or ruins of a town, of any consequence at that distance whereas on the eastern side, there lies a town, which in every respect precisely answers the description of the Itinerary. The second iter also begins a Vallo, and a town called Bulness is found exactly in the situation described by Antoninus for his Bulgium. The communication with the. second town, in both the first iters, is by a road, which lies by, or near, the wall, or parallel with it. It cannot appear more extraordinary, that the first should begin at Newcastle, and pass along the wall road to Corbridge, than that the second should commence at Bulness, and pass along the same road to Carlisle. If the abrupt turn in the road in the first iter should seem to any one ah objection to the claim of Newcastle, the similar turn in the second iter may reasonably be admitted as an answer to the objection.

"But," says the critic, " Bremenium has been fixed at Riechester, and there fixed upon the best of authorities, a Roman inscription, bearing the very appellation of Bremenium; and it is here attempted to be transferred only in subserviency to a hastily adopted hypothesis." In removing Bremenium from Riechester, I am also described" as anxiously struggling against overpowering evidence, which I am unable to throw off." To these propositions I am by no means inclined to subscribe. I am not convinced, that it can be said with truth, that " Bremenium has been fixed at Riechester." Camden is the first, who conjectures that it might be there. Horsley acquiesces in his determination. But neither of these authors has admitted this opinion without difficulty, as I shall have occasion to shew. Gale and Gibson have thought differently. "It is gratis

dictum, the latter observes, (and ought to be well proved, before the weight of the objection can be taken off) that the words, id est a Vallo, are an interpretation of the transcriber." He opposes these words plainly to the authority of the inscription. Mr. Whit aker and myself, as living authors, have added á vote to each party. Votes then are equal, and the thing cannot properly be said to be decided, as far as such evidence reaches.

The authority of the inscription, I have so fully discussed in the work, that I have nothing material to add upon the subject. The Reviewer's general position that " when a town is mentioned upon an inscription, the natural conclusion is, that the name belongs to the place, where the inscription is found," will not, I am certain, be adopted by any one, who will take the trouble to consider the point in a full and careful manner. It may sometimes be the fact, but by no means generally true. The instance in the inscrip tion at Bath, the critic is obliged to allow to be a positive exception. And if one exception is found, why may not another be supposed? He calls Glev. the well known appellation of another town, and therefore it cannot be applied to the town, where found. Why then confine Bremen to the place where found, when an equally good reason can be given why it cannot be so applied? And this is, that the town, mentioned in it, is described by a very antient author as lying upon a certain wall, which was the boundary of the Roman Empire in Britain; whereas Riechester stands near twenty miles beyond that wall.

In examining this inscription I have said, that the word BREMEN in it is plainly a contraction, and much more likely to be an adjective to EXPLOR, Exploratorum Bremeniensium, than the name of the town Bremeni. My Reviewer tells his readers that "I did not advert at the moment, that the name is no contraction, but at full length on the altar itself BREMENI, and only obscured by the last letter being complicated in the mode very familiar in inscriptions, with the letter immediately preceding." I shall willingly allow it possible, that this complication may be, as it is here stated. But Bremeni is not the second case of Bremenium, and so this writer knew full well, for he is under a necessity of reading Bremenum, contrary to all the copies of the Itinerary, to support his assertion. A much more innocent alteration of the text, by Surita, is pronounced by this critic, "a slight of hand disgraceful to his probity," and I am accused, though falsely, of adopting this slight of hand with the same injudiciousness of "mind." I am however entirely disposed to admit the reading to be Bremeni, since it adds one more letter, and makes the evidence stronger, that the word was intended for Bremeniensium, the reading proposed by me, As to my anxiously struggling against overpowering evidence in removing Bremenium from Riechester," it will perhaps be found, that this is more strictly applicable to those antiquaries, who placed it there than to me, whose only wish it is to give it its true place, wherever that may be found. For what says Camden? After copying the inscription, he observes in his modest and very pleasant

"

manner,