THE LONDON REVIEW, FOR MA Y, 1777. Archaeologia: or Mifcellaneous Tracts, read at the Society of Antiquaries. Vol. IV. 4to. 11. 1s. in fheets. It is with a pleafing reflection, much to the credit of British literature, that we fee the memoirs of this refpectable fociety make fo promifing and elegant an appearance in print. Not that we entertain fo high an idea of the importance of antiquarian refearches as is conceived by many; efpecially of fuch as relate to fimple difcoveries, that afford room only for fruitlefs inveftigation and vague conjecture. Of greater eftimation, indeed, are fuch as ferve to elucidate antient hiftory, and point out the fudden revolutions, or trace the progreffive changes, in the manners of mankind. To this purpofe tend feveral of the papers contained in the prefent volume, which is illuftrated by twenty-five detached plates well engraved by Bafire, befides a number of smaller defigns imprinted on the fheets of letterprefs. ART. I. An Account of fome Remains of Roman and other Antiquities in or near the County of Brecknock in South Wales. By John Strange, Efq; This account is a continuation of Remarks on the fame fub jet, published in the 1ft volume of the Archaeologia, in which the writer expreffed his diffidence of the opinion, generally received among the learned, that the principality of Wales fupplies very few remains of Roman Antiquities.-In the prefent paper, Mr. Strange gives his reafons, for thinking those remains much more numerous than they have been generally VOL. V.: Tt been been thought: taking an opportunity to correct a double miftake of Doctor Stukeley's in his Itinerarium Curiofum; in which that writer implicitly follows Camden in fixing Bullaeum at Buahlt, and placing it in Radnorfhire inftead of Brecknockshire, to which it properly belongs. ART. II. On the Term Lavant. By the Honourable Daines Barrington. In this paper, the author cenfures as groundless a conjecture of Dr. Stukeley's, that the original name of the river Lavant, paffing by Chichester, was Autona. The term Lavant, he fays, is applied in Suffex to all brooks the channel of which is dry at particular seasons. ART. III. An Enquiry into the Nature and Caufe of King John's Death; wherein is fhewn that it was not effected by Poifon. By the Rev. Mr. Pegge. This is a curious article, on a fubject of fo much importance in English Hiftory, that we are perfuaded our readers will think themfelves obliged to us for a pretty copious abstract of it. Mr. Pegge fets out with an apology for reconfidering a fubject, which was apparently fettled by Rapin and his learned annotator Morant; the former of which declares that the story of the poifon is improbable, to which the latter adds that it is not mentioned by any hiftorian that lived within fixty years of the time. Hence," fays he, " one would imagine there could be no occafion for re-confidering this point: but the late Mr. John Lewis of Margate, partly in vindication of his favourite William Caxton, and partly from the forwardnefs of his zeal against Popery, has endeavoured to puzzle the caufe, and to invalidate the affertions of the judicious Frenchman, and his learned English annotator; fo that it is become abfolutely neceffary to review this particle of our hiftory, and to bring it to a new hearing. "You will pleafe to fuppofe the king to be at Linn in Norfolk, ir Oct. 1216-17, and to have it in his attention to remove thence to Lincoln, or Lindley, after which, the narrative of the attack and progrefs of his last illness is briefly this. In his road from Linn, it was neceflary for the king to crofs the washes, as they are called, which part the two counties of Norfolk and Lincoln *, and there he very narrowly efcaped drowning with his whole army; for before he was quite gor over,' the tide coming up the river Wellftream, which overflows the wathes at high water, put him in great danger, and though he escaped himself, he could not fave his baggage, which was all fwallowed up and loft. He arrived that night at Swinefhead abbey, where he * These washes are between a place called the Cross-Keys in Norfolk, and Fofdike in Hoiland, in the county of Lincoln. Annot. on Rapin, and Brady, p. 516. As for the Wellftream, fee Dr. Brady, p. 516. + R. Higden makes him dine there. This was 14 Oct. Brady, p. 516. lodged, I lodged, and began to be ill, or, as is pretended, was poifoned. However, he fet out thence next morning* on horfe-back for Sleford +, but was forced to betake himself to a litter. At Sleford he was feverely handled by a dyfentery, and next day was carried to Newark caftle, where he died, as all our best authors agree, a few days after; his bowels were buried at Croxton |, in the county of Leicester, and his body at Worcester §." Such is Mr. Pegge's fimple relation of the fact; which, he obferves, has been fo mifreprefented, by the Popish writers on the one hand and the Proteftants on the other, that the truth of the matter cannot at this distance of time be competently judged of by relying on either. Laying afide prejudice and partiality, therefore, he proceeds to confider the evidence, on which it refts, in the following fenfible and fatisfactory manner. "King John died at Newark 18 Oct. 1216**, and the next year Matthew Paris was old enough to be profeffed in the monaftery of St. Alban's. He may therefore be esteemed a contemporary hiftorian, and the account he gives of the cause of the king's illness at Swinefhead is this: "Ubi, ut putabatur, de rebus à fluctibus devoratis tantam mentis incurrit triftitiam, quòd acutis correptus febribus, coepit gra"viter infirmari;" infomuch that grief and anxiety were then thought to be the fource of the king's malady, and to have thrown him into a fever. The fever, however, was afterwards increased by the patient's own imprudence; for the author goes on, "Auxit autem aegritudinis "moleftiam perniciofa ejus ingluvies, qui nocte illâ de fructu perficorum, et novi ciceris potatione nimis repletus, febrilem in fe calorem “acuit fortitèr et accendit.”—But whether Matthew may be deemed a contemporary or not, Roger Wendover, who died A.D. 1236, and whom Matthew tranfcribes in the former part of his work, certainly And the narrative, no matter whether Roger's or Matthew's, is literally tranfcribed by Thomas Rudburne without the leaft impeachment or contradiction §§. was. * According to Caxton, an English Chronicle cited by Mr. Lewis, John Fox, and my MS. Chronicle, he stayed two days at Swinefhead. But fee Brady, p. 515, and Appendix, p. 163. Sleford cattle, and Newark caftle mentioned afterwards, were both of them now in the king's hand. P. Langtoft fays he died at Hauche, but read Nau che, i. e. Nauerche, or Newark. The abbot of Croxton (perhaps Ralph de Lincoln, Willis Mitr. Abb. II. p. 109.) was his physician at Newark. M. Paris, p. 288. § Dr. Brady, p. 515. and Append.x, p. 164. **So most authors. See Dr. Brady, p. 517 +f Tanneri Biblioth. p. 572. It Cyder; Since M. Wekminster calls it pomarium, for which word fee Du Frefne. This part of the country was famous for its pippins called Kirton-pippins. Fuller's Worthies in Lincolnshire. Dr. Brady, P. 517. calls it new Bracket; but fee Fox, p. 333. Tanneri Bibl. p. 757. Wats, Prolegom. ad M. Paris. "Richard de Morins, author of the annals of Dunftaple, was also living at the time. He was elected prior of his houfe, A. 1202*, and died A. 1242†; and fays, without intimating any thing of poifon in the cafe, that the king died in the cattle of Newark, in craftino Sancti Lucae. And fo the annals of Margan, which terminate foon after A. D. 1232, and the annals of Waverley, written probably about the fame time, only fay, the king died after three or four days illness at Newark. The annals of Mailros continued to the year 1270, and the annals of Burton, whofe author is thought to have been contemporary with Matthew Paris, agree in the fame. "Nicolas Trivet, born about A. 1260, fays expressly, without tranfcribing any body," Interim Joannes Rex-in ipfo belli apparatu "morbo correptus decubuit, et poft paucos dies defungitur apud Newark, " &c." "The fame may be faid of Matthew of Westminster, who flourished about A. D. 1307; for he, without copying either Roger Wendover or Matthew Paris, gives the fame account of the king's diforder as they do, imputing it, without any infinuation of poison, to grief and uneafinefs of mind, aggravated by intemperance and mifmanagement. "I obferve fecondly, that Mr. Morant had certainly good reason for faying, that the story of the king's being poifoned" is not mentioned "by any hiftorian that lived within fixty years of the time," or before 1276. Mr. Lewis ||, however, was not fatisfied with this affertion, but remarks in answer to it, that "it is mentioned in a Latin chronicle written by John abbat of Peterburgh, which ends 1259 §." Thus doubts are raised, or rather we are given to understand, that king John was certainly poisoned. And indeed, if this affair of the Peterborough chronicle were true, it would be much to the purpose. Mr. Morant would not only be convicted of a mistake or á false affertion; but, Peterborough being a neighbouring abbey of confequence, the abbot thereof would be likely enough to know the truth of what had paffed at Swinefhead. But it appears to me that Mr. Lewis had never read this author, but had only confulted him in the year he quotes, there being full proof that this chronicle was not written till towards the end of the 14th century, long enough after the year 1259. It is true the title of this Peterborough chronicle bears the name of John the abbat; and they who look no further esteem the author of it to be John de Caleto or de Caux, the former part of the work ending A. 1259, and this abbot dying A. 1262. But Mr. Sparkes, in his preface (had Mr. Lewis but peeped into that) abjudicates the performance from John de Caleto, and declares that the book was either bought and given to the house by another abbot of the name of John, viz. John de Deepings, and fo was called the chronicle of abbat John, or that it has been interpolated. For my part, when I recollect the cafe of another *Hearne's praef. p. 21. + Willis, Mitr. Abb. II. p. 2. Cave's Hift Lit. Appendix, p. 9. Rex-caedibus et incendiis vacans de Northfolk verfus Lyndeley per abbathiam Swynefherede venit; ubi, fecundum quofdam, potionatus tran. fit Staford. Chron. Petriburg. p 96. ・of of our chronicles which paffes under the name of John Brompton, abbat of Joreval (for which I fhall refer you to Mr. Selden's prolegomena ad X Script. p. xxxv. & feq.), I find it fo fimilar to Mr. Sparkes's firft fuppofition, that I cannot but fubfcribe to that. But the evidence of this Peterborough chronicle, be the author of it who he will, really amounts to little or nothing." Ubi," fays he, " fecundum quofdam, potionatus [Rex Johannes] tranfiit Slafford," ending at lait in vulgar rumour. 66 "But of this general rumour you may hear more hereafter. In the mean time I fhall go one step further than Mr. Morant has done, and shall venture to affert, upon as good grounds as can be had in a negative argument, that no author has ever mentioned the poifon till above eighty years after the event. For now that we have discarded John abbot of Peterborough, Barth. de Cotton, a monk of Norwich, who flourished A. 1298, according to bishop Tanner, is the first person that notices the poifon; and his words, as cited by Hearne ad Gul. Neubrig. III. p. 815. are thefe: "Anno 1216 die S. Lucae Evangeliftae Johannes Rex obiit, veneno "extinclus apud Swinefheid, a quodam hofpitali dictae domnus, et fepultus eft apud Wigornian. 66 "He is pofitive, you oblerve; but betrays his ignorance at the fame time, by faying the king died at Swinefhead the 18th of October, at which time the king was not there, and actually died at ano her place. Other authors are more cautious. 66 "Thomas Wikes, whofe history ends with the death of Edward I. A. 1307, fays, "Rex Johannes-intoxicatus, ut dicebatur, continuo coepit, ex violentia veneni, contabefcere, &c." and fo the Polychronicon, "But the comyne fame telleth, &c." and Knyghton, " Tra"dit tamen vulgata fama," and afterwards," juraverat enim ibidem, "ut afferitur." And the like doubtful and wary expreffions we have in John of Tinmouth, Thomas Otterburn, Scala mundi, and Hift. de Geftis Reg. Joh. in the Cotton Library, now in the British Mufeum. "Peter Langtoft may range with Thomas Wikes, as he wrote the life of Edward I. who died A. 1307. He confequently was not born when king John died. "John Tinmouth did not flourish till 1336; and the author of the Eulogium, a MS. in the British Museum, died about A. 1366. So that neither of them were living within eighty years of the king's death." Here our ingenious antiquary drops the difplay of his acquaintance with farther hiftorical authorities, regarding any recital from the later English chronicles as fuperfluous. His critical obfervations, which follow on the various reprefentations of the fact, are acute and pertinent. "The poifoners," fays he, at firft, either fpoke doubtfully, or kept to generals. But, as it is the nature of rumour to increafe and improve, -virefque acquirit eundo; fo in a fhort time, our falfificators began to invent a formal story, and to embellish it with particulars, Thus Walter Hemingford, or rather Hemingburgh, |