the great Roman Bath. More credit than this he has never claimed; less
than this only the churlish and envious will grudge him."]

All these fragments I have lately proved to be portions of the great
Roman Bath (_Plates VII. and VIII._), and being within instead of
without that building. The Rev. Prebendary Scarth omits altogether to
figure the southern rectangular _exedra_, found at the same time as
the last named discovery. He also omits the discoveries made in 1809
(?) beneath the houses at the north-western end of York Street. In
1790 very valuable discoveries were made in digging the foundation of
the present Pump Room. Many writers have treated of them and expressed
opinions as to the character of the work and the meaning of the
design, and Mr. Scharf, in _Archæologia_, Vol. XXXVI., has done ample
justice to these most interesting vestiges: They have been described
by Pownall, Lysons, Warner, Collins, Scharf, Tite, and Scarth,
as being portions of a Temple of the usual type, dedicated to Sul
Minerva. Whitaker, in a review of Warner's History of Bath, printed
in the _Anti-Jacobin_, Vol. X., 1801, differs from all these writers,
although believing the remains to be a portion of a temple, and
thought they were a part of a building of the form of "_a rotunda_,"
as the Pantheon. "The _Pantheon_ of Minerva _Medica_, an agnomen very
similar in allusiveness to our prænomen _of Sulinis_, for Minerva is
noticed expressly by Ruius and Victor in their short notes concerning
the structures of Rome, as then standing in the Esquiline quarter. The
form of a Pantheon is made out by the multiplicity of niches,... and
such, we believe, was our own Temple of Minerva at Bath." It would
occupy too much space were I to attempt to add to this paper my views
of this discovery, but I may briefly say, that I am satisfied that
they were not the remains of a Temple, but a portion of the central
Portico and grand Vestibule of the Baths. I have not gone fully into