part i, 1897, p. 860. Müllenhoff justly remarks that the account

which Diodorus gives in v, 22 of the mode in which the tin trade was conducted must have been derived from an eye-witness; and that of all the ancient writers Pytheas was the only one who saw with his own eyes what went on at Ictis. Professor Ridgeway assumes that Diodorus’s account of Ictis was borrowed from Posidonius; but the descriptions which Elton (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, pp. 30-1, 34-5, 92) and Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 45-6) have published of the visit of Posidonius to Britain are purely imaginary; for there is absolutely no evidence that he ever crossed the Channel. Elton refers to a passage in the _Solutiones_ of Priscian of Lydia, a writer of the sixth century (_quaest._ vi, p. 571 of F. Dübner’s edition), which proves nothing about Posidonius. See J. Bake, _Posidonii Rhodii reliquiae doctrinae_, 1810; _Fragm. hist. Graec._, ed. C. Müller, iii, 1849, pp. 245-96; R. Scheppig, _De Posidonio_, 1869, p. 7; _Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, p. 378; and M. Dubois, _Examen de la géogr. de Strabon_, 1891, p. 327.

[2344] Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 45) says that, according to Diodorus, the tin was brought ‘to the outlet of the Rhone, that is to say, to the meeting of the Rhone and the Saone’, &c. But πρὸς τὴν ἐκβολὴν τοῦ Ῥοδανοῦ ποταμοῦ can only mean ‘to the mouth of the Rhône’. Ἐκβολή sometimes means the issue of a river from a mountainous country: it cannot mean that part of a river where it is joined by an affluent; and I doubt whether the professor would seriously maintain that ‘the outlet of the Rhône’ is at Lyons.

[2345] v, 38, § 5.--Πολὺς δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Πρεττανικῆς νήσου διακομίζεται πρὸς τὴν κατ’ ἀντικρὺ κειμένην Γαλατίαν, καὶ διὰ τῆς μεσογείου Κελτικῆς ἐφ’ ἵππων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμπόρων ἄγεται παρά τε τοὺς Μασσαλιώτας καὶ εἰς τὴν ὀνομαζομένην πόλιν Ναρβῶνα.

[2346] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 16(30), § 104.--Timaeus historicus a Britannia introrsum sex dierum navigatione abesse dicit insulam Mictim in qua candidum plumbum proveniat; ad eam Britannos vitilibus navigiis corio circumsutis navigare. E. H. Bunbury (_Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 1879, p. 603, n. 9) remarks that ‘it is impossible to say what sense we are to attach to the word “introrsus”, upon which the interpretation of the whole passage, in a geographical sense, depends’. I shall show presently (p. 505, _infra_) that only one sense which is not nonsense can be attributed to _introrsum_.

Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 471) holds that Pliny confused the distance of Ictis from Britain with that of Thule, which, as he says in an earlier passage (_Nat. Hist._, ii, 75 [77], § 187), was ‘six days’ sail northward from Britain’ (_sex dierum navigatione in septentrionem a Britannia_). See p. 505, _infra_.

[2347] The geographical position of Corbilo cannot be fixed. Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 1876, p. 288) was originally inclined to place it near Beslon in the peninsula of Guérande, because the neighbourhood is ‘rempli de souvenirs celtiques’. Beslon is no more on the Loire than Margate is on the Thames; and if the tin had been landed there, it would have been necessary either to tranship it and carry it across the Loire, or to take the pack-horses by a roundabout route up the valley of that river. Afterwards (_ib._, ii, 1878, pp. 139, 484-5, 485, n. 1) Desjardins changed his mind, and identified Corbilo with St.-Nazaire: ‘cet emplacement’, he remarked, anticipating one of the objections which I have just made against his former view, ‘cet emplacement s’accorde-t-il beaucoup mieux que celui de Beslon avec le texte de Strabon, qui porte cet ancien port sur la Loire, et non sur la mer.’ He relied mainly upon the investigations of an engineer, M. René Kerviler, who, ‘ayant eu l’occasion de faire des travaux d’approfondissement à Saint-Nazaire, y a découvert des substructions qui avaient fait vraisemblablement partie de l’ancien port de _Corbilon_.’ See _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., xxxiii, 1877, pp. 145-53, 230-9, 342-53. M. Kerviler himself identified the remains with those of the _Brivates portus_ of Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 8, § 1.

[2348] _Geogr._, iv, 2, § 1.--πρότερον δὲ Κορβιλὼν ὑπῆρχεν ἐμπόριον ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ ποταμῷ, περὶ ἧς εἴρηκε Πολύβιος, μνησθεὶς τῶν ὑπὸ Πυθέου μυθολογηθέντων, ὅτι Μασσαλιωτῶν μὲν τῶν συμμιξάντων Σκιπίωνι οὐδεὶς εἶχε λέγειν οὐδὲν μνήμης ἄξιον ἐρωτηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Σκιπίωνος περὶ τῆς Βρεττανικῆς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ Νάρβωνος οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ Κορβιλῶνος, αἵπερ ἦσαν ἄρισται πόλεις τῶν ταύτῃ.

[2349] Cf. _Folk-lore_, i, 1890, pp. 85-6, and H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 36.

[2350] Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 471, and D. Detlefsen in W. Sieglin’s _Quellen und Forschungen_, &c., Heft 9, p. 77.

[2351] _Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 34.

[2352] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 46.

[2353] Mr. Alfred Tylor blunders even more hopelessly than Elton. ‘The transhipment of tin’, he says (_Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 233), ‘was described by ancient writers as taking place at Vectis, six days’ sail from Cornwall.’

[2354] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, pp. 95-7.

[2355] _Ib._, pp. 98-101.

[2356] See pp. 250, 359-60, _supra_.

[2357] Mr. Alfred Tylor (_Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 233) argues, in favour of the identification of Ictis with the Isle of Wight, that ‘Stans Ore Point is said to be named from Stannum (tin)’; and Elton (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 230) thinks that ‘the course of the metal-trade may be indicated by the names of places on the coast-road leading eastward from the Exe, as ... Stans Ore Point’. Now, as O. Schrader points out (_Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, 1890, p. 217), _stannum_ probably did not get the meaning of ‘tin’ before the fourth century A.D.; and even if the derivation in question could be established, it would not prove that Ictis was the Isle of Wight. Tin was doubtless conveyed eastward from Cornwall; but not for the supply of the Mediterranean markets.

[2358] _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 236.

[2359] vi, 2, § 6.--ᾬκουν δὲ καὶ Φοίνικες περὶ πᾶσαν μὲν τὴν Σικελίαν ἄκρας τε ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἀπολαβόντες καὶ τὰ ἐπικείμενα νησίδια ἐμπορίας ἕνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Σικελούς.

[2360] B. Jowett, _Thucydides translated into English_, i, 1881, p. 409.

[2361] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1865 (1866), p. 71.

[2362] _Trans. Roy. Geol. Soc. Cornwall_, iii, 1828, pp. 91-4.

[2363] _Principles of Geology_, i, 1875, pp. 546-7.

[2364] The italics are mine. Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 471-2) asserts that ‘Ictis can only be looked for at the promontory of Belerium’ [the Land’s End], and that ‘it is undoubtedly one of the small islands off the Land’s End, which are marked on the Ordnance Map (sheets 32 and 33)’. It must be presumed that Müllenhoff came to this singular conclusion because Pytheas landed at Belerium. But there is no reason to suppose that he landed at the precise spot which we call the Land’s End; and if he did he certainly went on to visit the tin mines. If Müllenhoff had known the Cornish coast, or even studied the map carefully, he would have seen that tin could not have been conveyed in carts down the cliffs opposite the small islands to which he refers, and that, as Dr. Barham says (_Trans. Roy. Geol. Soc. Cornwall_, iii, 1828, p. 91), ‘there is not ... any other island [besides St. Michael’s Mount] on the Cornish, or any neighbouring shores to which carts can pass at low water; there is no other spot, at all answering to the description of Diodorus, which becomes alternately an island and a peninsula with the changes of the tide.’

George Smith (_The Cassiterides_, p. 114) points out that ‘twelve miles to the west of St. Michael’s Mount, and eighteen miles to the east of it, comprehend almost the whole of the ancient tin mining district’. Professor Rhys, on the other hand, states (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 44) that the tin districts ‘in ancient times were chiefly Dartmoor, with the country around Tavistock, and that around St. Austell, including several valleys looking towards the southern coast of Cornwall’; and he adds that ‘in most of the other districts where tin existed it is supposed to have lain too deep to have been worked in early times’. I do not know whether among these ‘other districts’ he includes the one near St. Michael’s Mount; but it is certain that the tin in this district was worked in early times. It was the district of Belerium, where the tin-workers mentioned by Diodorus lived; and he says that there were veins of tin in the hard rock near the surface (αὕτη δὲ πετρώδης οὖσα διαφυὰς ἔχει γεώδεις, ἐν αἷς τὸν πόρον κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τήξαντες καθαίρουσιν [v, 22, § 2]. Cf. Strabo, iii, 5, § 11, and _Ency. Brit._, 9th ed., vi, 425). Mr. P. W. Flower (_Hist. of the Trade in Tin_, 1880, p. 26) tells us that from pre-Roman days ‘Cornish men have been sinking deeper and deeper in their search for cheaper metal’; while Prof. Haverfield (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 122), after remarking that ‘the tin districts of Dartmoor [were] worked largely in the middle ages’, says, ‘The Dartmoor tin is, I believe, far more difficult to work than the Cornish, and this fact may explain the Roman neglect of it.’ See also, for evidence that Cornish tin was won in the Bronze Age, _Archaeologia_, xvi, 1812, p. 137, pl. 10; xlix, 1885, p. 181; and _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxi, 1874, pp. 53, 60. I am astonished to find that M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 235-6), noticing a paper the writer of which maintains that no tin was worked in Britain until after the date of Domesday Book, says, ‘Cette manière de voir, bien que contredite par les textes, mérite réflexion.’

[2365] _Archaeologia_, lix, part ii, 1905, pp. 281-8.

[2366] _Principles of Geology_, i, 1875, pp. 543-4.

[2367] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1865 (1866), p. 71.

[2368] _Geol. Mag._, 1879, pp. 74-5.

[2369] _Chips from a German Workshop_, iii, 1870, pp. 330-57. Elton, even in his second edition (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 37), repeated the obsolete argument alluded to in the text.

[2370] See p. 31, _supra_.

[2371] See p. 222, _supra_.

[2372] iv, 16 (30), §§ 103-4. Prof. Ridgeway (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904, p. 343) affirms, Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 304) apparently denies that _Ictis_ and _Vectis_ were phonetically connected. See Addenda, p. 740.

[2373] See p. 499, n. 5, _supra_.

[2374] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 85.

[2375] See p. 221, _supra_.

[2376] _Dicuili liber de mensura orbis terrae_, ed. G. Parthey, 1870, pp. 42-4 (7, 11-4). Dicuil was an Irish monk, who wrote A.D. 825.

[2377] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 146.

[2378] Φιλόξενοί τε διαφερόντως εἰσὶ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ξένων ἐμπόρων ἐπιμιξίαν ἐξημερωμένοι τὰς ἀγωγάς.

[2379] This is admitted, or rather maintained, by Prof. Ridgeway.

[2380] See p. 499, nn. 2 and 5, _supra_.

[2381] _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 223.

[2382] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, p. 105.

[2383] See p. 501, _supra_.

[2384] _B. G._, iii, 8, § 1. Cf. Strabo, iv, 4, § 1.

[2385] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 1.

[2386] I cannot see how Mr. Reginald Smith (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 85) reconciles his theory, that the route in ‘the opening years of the first century B.C.’ passed through Kent with his previous assertion (p. 84) that ‘about 90 B.C.’ it left the British coast at the Isle of Wight.

[2387] As Professor Ridgeway assumes that Posidonius was the authority whom Diodorus followed both in v, 22 and in v, 38, he would be compelled to maintain that in the passage which served as the basis of the former chapter Posidonius was describing only the route which the tin trade followed in the time of Pytheas, in the other that which it followed in his own time. How can the professor prove this?

[2388] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 119.

[2389] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 47-50.

[2390] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, pp. 83-4.

[2391] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, p. 178.

[2392] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, pp. 119-20.

[2393] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 122.

[2394] Numerous Roman inscribed objects of lead have been discovered in Spain (_Corpus Inscr. Lat._, ii, 4964, and Suppl., 6243, 6247-8); but so far as I can ascertain, none of tin.

[2395] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlvii, 1890, p. 232.

[2396] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, pp. 119-20.

[2397] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlvii, 1890, pp. 230-3; xlix, 1892, p. 178; _Corpus Inscr. Lat._, vii, 13.

[2398] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 120.

[2399] _Ib._, p. 122.

[2400] _Ib._, p. 118.

[2401] _Ib._ What puzzles me is how Professor Haverfield reconciles his view that in the third century ‘Cornish tin began to take its place as an article of commerce in Roman Britain’ (_Mélanges Boissier_, 1903, p. 251) with his own suggestion (_ib._, p. 250) that ‘either the tin ores had never been so rich as fancy painted, or the accessible deposits had been worked out [two centuries earlier], or ... Spanish competition had ousted British tin’. Evidently the accessible deposits had not been worked out; and British tin must have had superabundant vitality if it reasserted itself two centuries after it had been ousted.

[2402] _Hist. Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients_, pp. 451-5.

[2403] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 910.

[2404] _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 419. Cf. F. J. Haverfield in _Mélanges Boissier_, p. 249, n. 1. Mr. Reginald Smith (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 137) suggests, with the approval of Mr. C. H. Read, that a bronze statuette, found near Aust-on-Severn, may have been deposited ‘by Phoenician traders to our shores’. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 192.

[2405] See G. Smith, _The Cassiterides_, p. 54.

[2406] G. Smith, _The Cassiterides_, pp. 47-9. See also pp. 56-7, and E. H. Bunbury, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 12.

[2407] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 329.

[2408] See pp. 484-6, _supra_.

[2409] _Tin Mining in Spain_, p. 28.

[2410] _Ora Maritima_, 113-6.--

Tartesiisque in terminos Oestrymnidum Negotiandi mos erat: Carthaginis Etiam coloni, et vulgus, inter Herculis Agitans columnas, haec adibant aequora.

See also H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 110-1.

[2411] Prof. Haverfield (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xix, 1904, p. 746) thinks that ‘the “Periplus” of Avienus cannot safely be attributed to Himilco’; but M. Camille Jullian (_Ann. de la Faculté des lettres de Bordeaux,--Bull. hisp._, v. 1903, p. 109; _Journal des Savants_, nouv. sér., No. 2, 1905, pp. 95-8) supports my view. I am not sure, however, that Prof. Haverfield means to express a doubt whether the Periplus was _ultimately_ based upon Himilco’s report. Cf. _Rhein. Mus._, l, 1895, p. 336.

[2412] _Hist. Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients_, p. 455.

[2413] E. Hübner, _Monumenta linguae Ibericae_, 1893, p. xxvi; H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, &c., p. 42.

[2414] _Nat. Hist._, ii, 67, § 169.--Hanno Carthaginis potentia florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae navigationem eam prodidit scripto, sicut ad extera Europae noscenda eodem tempore Himilco. I find that Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 93-5) has anticipated a remark which I was about to make, namely, that the object of Himilco’s voyage was undoubtedly to open up new markets for trade, and not merely to explore. See also Lord Avebury’s _Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 57-67, though I think that his argument might have been more valuable if he had taken note of Mr. Borlase’s _Tin Mining in Spain_.

[2415] Mr. W. C. Borlase (_Tin Mining in Spain_, pp. 24-6), remarking that ‘there is an extremely rare form of [the palstave], namely with two loops, and that has been found exclusively in Cornwall and Devon (in the mining districts especially), in Ireland, and in the western and north-western portion of the Iberian Peninsula’, and that ‘bronze celts of this class belong ... to ... 1250 to 1050 B.C.’, concludes that ‘at that period then--the very period to which has been assigned the foundation of Gades--Cornwall and the west coast of Spain were already in communication’. Perhaps; but not necessarily Cornwall and Gades. Similar celts have also been found in France (J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 96-7).

Müllenhoff also argues (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 5-8) that the passage in the _Odyssey_ (x, 81-6) which describes the country of the Laestrygones, where the days in summer were very long and the nights very short, would seem to be based upon stories told by Phoenician mariners; but, as I have already remarked (p. 218), if Homer’s lines were founded upon fact, it is more probable that the stories came to him from Scandinavia.

[2416] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 910.

[2417] _The Builder_, Aug. 26, 1865, p. 604.

[2418] C. F. Wiberg (_Der Einfluss der klassischen Völker_, &c., 1867, p. 13) thinks that ‘the promontory of Herakles’, or Hartland Point (Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 2), may owe its name to the Phoenician worship of Hercules; but I do not know that any one except Prof. Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 461) attaches any importance to this suggestion.

[2419] _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, p. 401.

[2420] i, 13, § 5.--οἰκοῦντες γὰρ τὴν πόλιν οἱ Κορίνθιοι ἐπὶ τοῦ ἰσθμοῦ ἀεὶ δή ποτε ἐμπόριον εἶχον, τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸ πάλαι κατὰ γῆν τὰ πλείω ἢ κατὰ θάλασσαν, τῶν τε ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσου καὶ τῶν ἔξω, διὰ τῆς ἐκείνων παρ’ ἀλλήλους ἐπιμισγόντων, &c.

[2421] B. Jowett, _Thucydides translated into English_, i, 1881, p. 10.

[2422] See p. 126, _supra_.

[2423] See p. 485, n. 5, _supra_.

[2424] _Nat. Hist._, vii, 56 (57), § 194.

[2425] _Fabulae_, ed. M. Schmidt, 1872, CCLXXIV (p. 149).

[2426] _Variarum_ iii, 51 (J. P. Migne, _Patrologiae cursus completus_, lxix, 1848, col. 594).

[2427] See C. Müller’s edition of Diodorus, i, 1842, p. 316 (Reliquiae libri vii, 13). The commencement of the maritime supremacy of the Phoenicians is here dated 58 years after the commencement of that of the Phrygians, and 279 years after the Trojan War.

[2428] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 18; _Essex Naturalist_, i, 1887, pp. 266-76.

[2429] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., vii, 1900, p. 252.

[2430] See pp. 151, n. 4, 253, 256, _supra_.

[2431] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 252.

[2432] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., vii, 253-4.

[2433] _Nat. Hist._, xvii, 8 (4), § 45. Cf. _Essex Naturalist_, i, 249.

[2434] _Ib._, pp. 249-50.

[2435] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., x, 1904, pp. 98-101.

[2436] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 250.

[2437] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 19.

[2438] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., x, 1904, p. 98. Cf. _Times_, Sept. 30, 1905, p. 3, cols. 3-4.

[2439] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 250-1.

[2440] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 453.

[2441] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 453.

[2442] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 326-7.

[2443] J. A. H. Murray, _New Eng. Dict._, iii, 192-3.

[2444] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 457.

[2445] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vii, 1900, p. 253.

[2446] _Vict. Hist. of ... Essex_, i, 310-1.

[2447] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 4.

[2448] A. Joanne, _Dict. géogr. ... de la France_, 1869, p. xli.

[2449] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 349 and n. 3, 391.

[2450] In particular C. de Laroière in _Annales du comité flamand de France_, x, 1868-9 (1870), pp. 249-322.

[2451] See _Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique_, 3^e sér., viii, 1884, pp. 681-9. Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 391) admits that it is only ‘probable’ that it existed at that time. Cf. R. Blanchard, _La Flamande_, 1906, pp. 134-46.

[2452] _Rev. sc._, 2^e sér., xv, 1878-9 (1879), pp. 90-3. According to M. V. J. Vaillant (_Classis Britannica_, 1888, pp. 66-7), an inscription (_SALINATORES CIVITATIS MORINORVM_), ‘cité par I. Gruter, nous rapporte à une époque où la mer pénétrait librement jusqu’au delà de Saint-Omer et où les marais salants étaient exploités sur les rives de ce large golfe par les Morins et les Ménapiens.’ M. Vaillant gives neither the reference nor the date of the inscription: it was found at Ariminum in Cisalpine Gaul, and makes mention of the emperor Vespasian; and it is reproduced in Gruter’s _Inscr. ant. totius orbis Romani_, ii, 1707, p. MXCVI, 4. Needless to say, it does not prove that the ‘gulf’ existed in Vespasian’s time, but only that there were salt-works in the territory of the Morini.

[2453] See pp. 565-7, 572, 586-7, _infra_.

[2454] _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 359-61.

[2455] A. Joanne, _Dict. géog. ... de la France_, p. xlii.

[2456] _Hist. eccl._, i, 25. Cf. Solinus, ed. Th. Mommsen, p. 114.

[2457] _Archaeol. Cant._, xii, 1878, p. 3. See also _Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 48.

[2458] _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., 1774, pp. 137-9; _Archaeologia_, i, 1770, pp. 79-83.

[2459] _Hist. of Sandwich_, 1792, p. 865.

[2460] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 207.

[2461] _Itin. Ant._, ed. P. Wesseling, 1735, p. 472.

[2462] The reference is incorrect. For ‘30’ read ‘230’.

[2463] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 207.

[2464] Sheet 290.

[2465] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, pp. 212-3.

[2466] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxiv, 1900, p. 110.

[2467] _Ant. of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne_, 1850, pp. 53-4. See also _Archaeol. Cant._, xiv, 1882, pp. 368-9; xxiv, 1900, p. 108; and _Archaeologia_, li, 1888, p. 465. Beale Poste (_Britannia antiqua_, 1857, p. 282) states that in one of the sand-hills, half a mile north of Sandown Castle, a large number of coins of Victorinus, Probus, Tetricus, ‘and others of the lower empire’ were found in 1839.

[2468] See _Archaeol. Cant._, viii, 1872, pp. 13-4. Boys, quoted by Roach Smith (_Ant. of Richborough_, &c., p. 53) remarks that, ‘in digging to lay the foundation of Richborough sluice, the workmen, after penetrating through what was once the bed of the river that runs close by ... came to a seashore that had been suddenly covered with silt.’

[2469] ‘Just north of the Isle of Richborough’, says Dowker (_Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xl, 1884, p. 272), ‘is a large artificial excavation in the hill. I gave a description of this when I wrote the account of the ... excavation at the Castrum; and I drew attention to its being a Roman harbour. It is just opposite a farm that goes by the name of “Fleet”.’

[2470] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 356.

[2471] _Ib._, xxxiii, 1876, p. 71.

[2472] _Ib._, facing page 64.

[2473] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxiv, 1900, p. 108.

[2474] _Dict. Nat. Biogr._, xlviii, 15.

[2475] _Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, p. 505.

[2476] _The Cinque Ports_, 1888, p. 229.

[2477] I am glad to find that this remark has been anticipated by Mr. C. R. S. Elvin (_Records of Walmer_, 1890, p. 30).

[2478] _Itinerary_, 2nd ed., vii, 1744, fol. 127 (p. 116). Professor Burrows may perhaps have followed Hasted, who says (_Hist. of Kent_, iv, 1799, p. 163) that ‘_Upper Deal_ was composed of the habitations of a few poor fishermen only, though at a less distance from the sea than at present, owing to the great increase of beach thrown on this shore afterwards’; and in note _e_ he observes that ‘Leland ... seems to confirm this’. Leland, as I show in the text, does no such thing. Hasted goes on to say that ‘Even so late as the year 1624, a house ... on the _west_ side of the _Lower Street_ (the farthest at this time from the sea shore) is described in a deed of that date to abut _ad le sea bank versus orientem_’. Very likely: but the fact does not prove that the west side of Lower Street was an inch nearer the sea in 1624 than it is now; for the breadth of ‘_le sea bank_’ is not stated. Anyhow Deal Castle has not moved since 1624: therefore, if Hasted is right, the sea must then have made a sudden bend landward immediately north of Deal Castle, and formed a bay; which is absurd. The west side of Lower Street is now about 550 feet from the high-water mark of ordinary tides (_Six-Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheets 58 and 58A).

[2479] The distance from the ‘high-water mark of ordinary tides’ to the nearest point of Upper Deal appears to be about 3,900 feet (_Six-Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 58).

[2480] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, p. 71.

[2481] _Ib._, p. 58.

[2482] _Ib._, p. 59.

[2483] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 1885-6 (1887), pp. 174-5.

[2484] ‘It is certain,’ wrote Dowker in 1876 (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 59), ‘that when the sea swept the Stonar beach, Deal had no existence.’ Even men of science sometimes use the word ‘certain’ a little rashly. At that time Dowker asserted that the Stonar beach ‘must have travelled from the cliff between Dover and Deal’. In 1887 (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 174-5) he ‘pointed to the stones of which it is composed as evincing their origin from the cliff at Pegwell.... To imagine it to have travelled from the south, we must,’ he said, ‘have a shore-line cutting far back beyond the Deal beach, of which at present there was no evidence.’

[2485] _Itin. curiosum_, 2nd ed., 1776, pp. 126-7.

[2486] It must be borne in mind that Stukeley wrote before the great increase of shingle in the neighbourhood of Walmer.

[2487] _Ib._; C. R. S. Elvin, _Records of Walmer_, pp. 2-3, 5.

[2488] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series_, of James I, 1611-8, p. 324 (vol. lxxxii, 129), under date 1615; _ib._, Charles I, 1625-6, p. 321 (vol. xxv, 82), under date 1626; _ib._, 1627-8, p. 200 (vol. lxv. 62), under date 1627. In the British Museum is a print, called ‘N.W. View of Deal Castle’, published in 1735, from which it would appear that at that time the castle was as close to the sea as it is now,--neither more nor less.

[2489] _Records of Walmer_, p. 5.

[2490] _Coast Erosion_, p. 3.

[2491] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1888 (1889), p. 910. The following table, compiled by Major A. C. Hepper, R.E. (_ib._, 1885, p. 440), illustrates the movements of the shingle during the period between 1741 and 1884:--

_Increase_ _Decrease_ _Place_ _From_ _To_ _Feet_ _Feet_ Walmer Castle 1741 1841 308 -- ” ” 1841 1859 34 -- ” ” 1859 1872 33 -- ” ” 1872 1884 10 -- Deal Castle 1741 1859 85 -- ” ” 1859 1872 -- 40 ” ” 1872 1884 35 -- Sandown Castle 1741 1859 -- 145 ” ” 1859 1872 -- 50 ” ” 1872 1884 -- 5 No. 2 Battery 1859 1884 140 --

The encroachment of the sea north of Deal between 1848 and 1856 was due to the extraordinary prevalence of north-easterly winds.

[2492] _Britannia antiqua_, 1857, p. 282.

[2493] In regard to this statement, and also that of Roach Smith, recording the discovery of coins at Stonar (see p. 520, _supra_), Sir John Evans has written to me, ‘I have no personal knowledge of either of the finds of Roman coins that you mention. Roach Smith, however, and Beale Poste are competent authorities in such a case, and I see no reason why you should not accept their statements.’

[2494] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxv, 1902, p. 1.

[2495] _Ib._, pp. 4-5. This discovery stultifies Hasted’s remark (_Hist. of Kent_, iv, 1779, p. 173), that ‘towards the village of Walmer [as one comes from Deal] is a flat, many feet lower than the high-water mark, which the beach thrown up along the shore has fenced from the sea, and which probably when _Caesar_ landed on this coast might be all covered with water’. Cf. C. R. S. Elvin, _Records of Walmer_, p. 3.

[2496] See also _Archaeol. Cant._, xxvi, 1904, pp. 11-2.

[2497] Part i, 9th ed., 1900, p. 339.

[2498] _Britannia antiqua_, pp. 288-9.

[2499] _The Channel Pilot_, part i, 1900, p. 338.

[2500] _Geogr. Journal_, ix, 1897, p. 655.

[2501] G. B. Gattie, _Memorials of the Goodwin Sands_, 1890, pp. 3, 5-6.

[2502] _Principles of Geology_, 1875, i, 530-1.

[2503] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, ed. B. Thorpe, ii, 1861, p. 203.--An. M.XCIX.

[2504] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, pp. 235-6.

[2505] _Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent_, 1693, p. 24.

[2506] _Itin._, 1744, vii, 113.

[2507] _Villare Cantianum_, 1669, map facing p. 1.

[2508] See the fantastic map inserted between pages 330 and 331 of Guest’s _Origines Celticae_, vol. ii, in which ‘Lomea’ is placed N.W. of the Goodwins.

[2509] _Report of ... the Brit. Archaeol. Association ... _, Sept., 1844, p. 371.

[2510] _De rebus Albionicis_, 1590, pp. 24, 27-8.

[2511] According to Chambers’s _Ency._, v, 1901, p. 296, Lomea has been identified with ‘_Infera insula_ of the Romans’. The writer does not inform us by whom _infera insula_ was mentioned.

[2512] Part i, 1900, p. 337.

[2513] _Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts of Kent_, pp. 20-1.

[2514] _Hist. Maps of England_, p. 2.

[2515] Richard Lilburne (_Topographie ... of ... Kent_, 1659, pp. 262-3), alluding to the well-known legend as to the origin of the Goodwin Sands, says, ‘the most probable relation of the rise of the same is thus. _Goodwin_ ... was ... owner of a great quantity of flat Lands in the County (neer the _Isle_ of _Thanet_) defended from the sea by a great wall, which lands afterwards (in the year 1099) was parcell of the possessions of the Abbot of St. _Augustine_ (but reteyned the name of _Goodwin_ ...), and that Abbot, being then also owner of the Rectory of _Tenterden_, and having begun the building of this steeple ... the thoughts, and actions, of him, and his agents were so set upon the finishing of that work, that they neglected the care of watching, and preserving the aforesaid wall, and (3. of November in that year) the sea broke over, and ... drowned the aforesaid lands (overwhelming the same) with a light sand ... and the place thereby obteyned the name of _Goodwin Sands_ ... and thus (accidentially) this _Tenterden_ steeple is said to be the cause of _Goodwin Sands_.’

[2516] _Hist. of Deal_, 1864, p. 106.

[2517] See p. 524, _supra_.

[2518] _Coast Erosion_, 1899, p. 12.

[2519] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 284-5. According to Mr. Clement Reid (_Archaeologia_, part ii, 1906, p. 285) ‘the relative level of sea and land in the south of England appears to have remained unchanged’ since ‘late Neolithic times’. See, however, Addenda, p. 740.

[2520] There is not much force in Professor Boyd Dawkins’s argument (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 483), that an island on the site of the Goodwin Sands would not have escaped the notice of Ptolemy. Ptolemy does not mention Sheppey (or else Thanet) and other islands.

[2521] See pp. 657-9, _infra_, and cf. R. Blanchard, _La Flamande_, pp. 128, 133.

[2522] _The Cinque Ports_, p. 8.

[2523] _Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 57.

[2524] _Nouveau Dict. de Géogr. univ._, ii, 1884, p. 542.

[2525] According to M. Léon Lejeal, the author of an interesting article on ‘Le littoral’ in _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_ (i, 365), ‘certains hydrographes affirment qu’au Grisnez, la falaise s’entame de 0,25 centimètres par an.’ I presume that this was the authority upon which M. de St.-Martin relied.

[2526] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, p. 60.

[2527] _Naut. Mag._, 1850, p. 216.

[2528] In Capt. McDakin’s _Coast Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, 1899, pp. 7-9, a list is given of the notable falls which have been recorded. In 1853 there was a heavy fall near Holy Trinity Church, Dover; in 1872 at the East Cliff; in 1896 at the South Foreland; and (_Times_, Jan. 11, 1905, p. 7, col. 1, Jan. 13, p. 7, col. 2) in 1905 there were landslips at St. Margaret’s Bay, near Hope Point, and at Fan Bay.

[2529] Dowker (_Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 63) attributed this loss of shingle to the Admiralty Pier at Dover. ‘The formation of the Dover Harbour,’ he says, ‘has favoured the accumulation of beach west of that point; the current, moreover, after passing the obstacle, is deflected inland, and thus, at St. Margaret’s Bay, a former collection of beach is being removed towards Deal.’ On the other hand, Sir John Coode, who is described in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ (Suppl., ii, 52) as ‘probably the most distinguished harbour engineer of the nineteenth century’, states (_Parl. Papers_, lviii, 1873, p. 455[3]) that ‘so far from the pier having acted as a check to the passage of the shingle, there has been a considerable loss to the westward of it within the last 20 years’. ‘I have no hesitation,’ he adds (_ib._, p. 456[4]), ‘in stating, in the most distinct and positive terms, that this decrease [of shingle on various parts of the coast south-west of St. Margaret’s Bay] has not been caused by “the extension of the Admiralty Pier at Dover”, inasmuch as the various facts that have been brought out in the course of my recent investigation lead distinctly and unmistakably to the opposite conclusion ... having regard to the facts previously stated, as to the diminution of shingle to the westward of Folkestone, near Sandgate and Hythe, &c. ... I have arrived at the conclusion that this [decrease of shingle between Dover and St. Margaret’s Bay] is due to the remarkable accumulation of shingle, and consequent projection towards the south-east of Dungeness’ (_ib._, p. 457[5]).

About the year 1721 the supply of shingle was temporarily cut off by the fall of part of the Castle Cliff. See Capt. John Perry, _Account of the Stopping of Daggenham Breach_, &c., 1721, p. 119.

[2530] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1885 (1886), p. 439. See also pp. 406-7. According to J. B. Redman (_Proc. Inst. Civ. Engineers_, xi, 1851-2 [1853], p. 164) ‘it appears that at an early period there was no shingle at all at Dover ... which there is historical evidence to prove was the case; its gradual advance from the westward eventually blocked up the entrance’, &c. Where the ‘historical evidence’ is to be found Redman omits to say; and I cannot find it; but it is certain that the movement of shingle along the coast began long before the historic period (_Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, p. 489).

Capt. McDakin (_Coast Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, p. 5) remarks that ‘the Roman Pharos on the Castle Cliffs and the foundations of a similar building in the Redoubt on the Western Heights, give us no indication that the edge of the cliff has receded since those earliest of Roman buildings occupied their present site’.

[2531] Clement Reid in _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25, and _Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, pp. 488-9.

[2532] _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 469.

[2533] See _Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, p. 490.

[2534] _Ib._, p. 489. Cf. A. J. Jukes-Browne, _Handbook of Phys. Geol._, 1892, p. 171.

[2535] Angusti montes (_B. G._, iv, 23, § 3).

[2536] See p. 329, _supra_.

[2537] Experiments recently conducted by Captain McDakin (_Coast Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, pp. 3-4, 12) showed that ‘the average erosion of four years was unexpectedly small, only amounting to half an inch in a year’. He admits, indeed, that the average rate, since erosion began, ‘has probably been much more rapid.’ His general conclusions are, ‘that the heaviest falls ... take place after long continued rain.... That the springs issuing from the base of the cliffs play an important part in undermining and bringing down the cliffs; and that the sea charged with a small amount of shingle [which it discharges like a gun] attacks the undercliff and removes it, but where the shingle accumulates in large quantities, it defends and supports the base of the cliffs,’ &c.

[2538] Ed. Wesseling, p. 473. See also _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 1228.

[2539] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 157, note.

[2540] _Domesday Book of Kent_, ed. L. B. Larking, 1869, p. 93, and Extension, p. 2.

[2541] I need hardly say that Digges’s statement, which refers only to the inlet where the port of Dover had been, does not support Redman’s assertion (p. 529, n. 4, _supra_).

[2542] _Archaeologia_, xi, 1792, p. 212, note _a_. Archcliff Fort is about 400 yards west of the first groyne on the western side of the Lord Warden Hotel.

[2543] _Naut. Mag._, 1850, p. 269. See also John Leland, _Itin._, vii, 1744, fol. 128, p. 117.

[2544] About 1 mile 4,100 feet in a straight line from the present high-water mark of ordinary tides (_Six-inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 68).

[2545] Nearly 2 miles beyond Crabble (_ib._, Sheets 67-8).

[2546] _Archaeol. Cant._, xx, 1893, p. 129.

[2547] _Archaeologia_, v, 1779, p. 325; John Lyon, _Hist. of ... Dover_, i, 1813, p. 9; _Archaeol. Cant._, xx, 1893, p. 131.

[2548] _Ib._, xviii, 1889, p. 202.

[2549] See also T. Hyde Page, _Considerations upon the State of Dover Harbour_, &c., 1784, p. 6.

[2550] See _Phil. Trans._, xxix, 1716, p. 469; lxxvi, 1786, p. 220; W. Lambarde, _Perambulation of Kent_, ed. 1826, p. 154; _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, 1875, pp. 302, 315-6; _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xiii, 1895, pp. 40-7; Capt. McDakin, _Coast Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, pp. 7-9; _Pall Mall Gazette_, Jan. 18, 1906, p. 12, col. 2.

[2551] _Trans. Geol. Soc._, v, 1821, p. 17.

[2552] The quotation is from T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar_, 2nd ed., 1862, p. lvii.

[2553] Romney Marsh Proper extends eastward of the Rhee Wall, which runs from Appledore to New Romney.

[2554] _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, p. 251.

[2555] _Phil. Trans._, xxxv, 1727, pp. 551-2.

[2556] _The Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar_, 1862, p. lii. We learn from the late F. Drew (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, p. 206) that ‘whatever the soil may be near the surface, it is almost invariably the case that, at a depth of 10 or 20 feet, there is loose sand, often containing recent marine shells’, &c. See note 8, _infra_.

[2557] _Athenæum_, Aug. 5, 1865, pp. 184-5.

[2558] See _Geol. Mag._, 1869, p. 128. The writer, ‘W. T.,’ was evidently the late geologist, William Topley.

[2559] See _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, pp. 212-3, 222. As far as I can discover, the only absolutely trustworthy boring which has been made (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xliii, 1887, p. 204) shows that at Holmestone, near Lydd, which is outside the limits of Romney Marsh Proper, the recent strata, overlying Hastings beds, were as follows:--Shingle, 15 feet; Boulders, 4 feet; Brown Sand, 13 feet; Clay, 4 feet; Black and Grey Sand, 20 feet; Pebbles, 1 foot.

‘Mr. Elliott,’ says Drew (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye_, 1864, p. 16), ‘tells me that he bored 70 feet in the Marsh, of which the last 50 were in sand.’ ‘I contend, however,’ replies Dowker (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 212), ‘that this does not prove anything, since the sand probably belonged to the Hastings Beds.’

[2560] _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, p. 304. Topley goes on to point out that F. H. Appach, in _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, &c., p. 16, adopted a theory which had been originally put forward by James Elliott, but had been discovered by Elliott himself to be erroneous, attributing ‘the silting up of the area’ to ‘the presence of some supposed islands of Hastings Sand near Romney’.

[2561] _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye_, pp. 19-20.

[2562] See p. 543, n. 1, _infra_.

[2563] See p. 62, _supra_.

[2564] See p. 543, _infra_.

[2565] See _Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, xl, 1875, pp. 69-70.

[2566] _Ib._, pp. 109, 111. Lord Avebury, who refers to this paper in _The Scenery of England_, 3rd ed., 1904, p. 152, reports Sir Joseph Prestwich’s views as to the movement of shingle incorrectly. Prestwich considered it ‘well established’ that the general movement of the shingle along our south coast was eastward, although in the west bay of Portland it travels in the opposite direction.

[2567] C. Roach Smith, _Report on Excavations ... at Lymne_, 1852, p. 41.

[2568] _Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, vi, 1847, p. 467.

[2569] T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lxviii-lxix. See also p. lvi.

[2570] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 361-74.

[2571] Lewin observes (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lvii-lviii) that as far eastward as West Hythe Oaks the shingle ‘fulls’ all curve westward, having been bent in that direction by the inrush of the tides; while from West Hythe Oaks to Sandgate they all curve towards the east. This, he says, proves that when they were formed, the mouth of the estuary near Hythe had already been closed. Appach, on the other hand (_C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 21, § 9), does not believe that the shingle spit reached West Hythe Oaks. Referring to the change of curvature in the shingle fulls, he says that it was ‘evidently due to the cessation of the indraught’, which was ‘obviously caused by the erection of the ancient wall at West Hythe’. Hence, he concludes, ‘the fulls to the north of the point [where the change of curvature takes place] ... were not formed until after the wall at West Hythe was built; and as this is part of the north-eastern boundary of Romney Marsh, it follows that the fulls in question were formed after the formation of Romney Marsh.’ Lewin also mentions ‘the ancient wall at West Hythe’; but his final theory is that the erection of this dam became necessary because the shingle spit, after it had reached West Hythe Oaks, was burst by the waters, fed by the streams mentioned above (p. 532), which accumulated in the space between West Hythe Oaks and Hythe (see p. 547, _infra_). Appach holds that Romney Marsh was not formed until after the Romans had abandoned Britain; and he is therefore constrained to argue that Hythe Haven did not exist during the Roman occupation, and that the Portus Lemanis was at Lympne. Both of these theories will be refuted in this article (pp. 543-8, _infra_).

[2572] It is hardly necessary to point out that Dungeness is of recent formation. Various theories have been advanced as to its origin (see Mr. F. P. Gulliver’s paper in the _Geogr. Journal_, ix, 1897, pp. 536-46, and _Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, xi, 1852, pp. 212-21); and attempts have been made to determine the time at which the oldest of the shingle ‘fulls’ which constitute the ‘ness’ was formed, by calculating the rate at which the point has advanced seaward since observations began to be recorded. Elliott remarks (_ib._, vi, 1847, p. 476) that ‘from the best existing data’ Dungeness would appear to extend annually about two yards further out to sea; and that, as the rate of increase was probably more rapid at first, we may conclude that about nineteen hundred years have elapsed ‘since the sea first left the original “full” at Lydd’. According to Redman (_ib._, xi, 1852, p. 174), the increase has not been regular, and ‘during certain periods the Ness has even been stationary’: from the middle of the seventeenth to the middle of the nineteenth century, he adds, the average annual increase was nearly six yards. This is probably an exaggeration. Sir John Coode (_Parl. Papers_, lviii, 1873, p. 457) ascertained, from particulars recorded at the Trinity House, that ‘from the year 1792 to 1850 the point advanced seaward 530 feet, or say, at the rate of 9 feet per annum; whilst from 1850 to 1871, the advance was 280 feet, or at the rate of from 13 to 14 feet per annum’. Topley (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, p. 314) thinks that ‘the oldest fulls are 1,000 years or more old’. Similarly Drew (_ib._, p. 308) says that the shingle which forms Dungeness ‘must have been ... collected since the Rother first came to Romney’. See also H. J. Mackinder, _Britain and the British Seas_, 1902, pp. 42-3. ‘In early Roman times,’ he remarks, ‘Dungeness appears not to have existed’; and he suggests that its formation was due to ‘the diversion of the Rother mouth for the purpose of reclaiming Romney Marsh’.

[2573] _Cot._, Aug. I, i, 24-5.

[2574] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lvii-lx, cxx; _Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, xi, 1852, p. 169. Cf. _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, p. 312. Dowker (_Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 66) suggests that the Hythe beach may have come from the east!

[2575] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, pp. 211-23.

[2576] It would be a waste of time to catalogue these blunders, which will be obvious to any one who knows the literature of the subject: but I may remark that Dowker devotes several pages to a refutation of Elliott’s earlier theory, which Elliott himself corrected in the notes with which he furnished Lewin; and that he ignored or was ignorant of Elliott’s matured conclusions. He says (p. 214) that Elliott’s ‘first paper was written to assist Mr. Lewin ... and his theory was printed with Mr. Roach Smith’s “History of Further Excavations and History of the Roman Castrum at Lympne”’. Elliott’s first paper (_Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, vi, 1847) was not written to assist Lewin; nor was his second, which was printed, not in a book which neither Roach Smith nor any one else ever published, but as an appendix to Roach Smith’s _Report on Excavations made on the site of the Roman Castrum at Lymne_, 1852. The notes which Elliott wrote to assist Lewin were printed in the second edition of Lewin’s _Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar_, which appeared in 1862, and which Dowker never mentions. The unhappy man cannot even refer correctly to his own works. In his bibliographical note (p. 223) he quotes under his own name a paper ‘On the River Limen’, in _Archaeol. Cant._, vol. xviii, in which no such paper is to be found.

[2577] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, p. 219.

[2578] _Ib._

[2579] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, p. 222.

[2580] _Ib._, p. 214.

[2581] _Ib._

[2582] _Ib._, p. 221. See p. 527, _supra_.

[2583] See A. H. Jukes-Browne, _Handbook of Phys. Geology_, 1892, pp. 138-9, 219. The lower course of the Great Stour is a good example.

[2584] See p. 543, _infra_.

[2585] _Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, pp. 271-2.

[2586] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, pp. 221-2.

[2587] _Hist. of Kent_, iii, 1790, p. 532.

[2588] _Britannia antiqua_, pp. 262-3.

[2589] _Hist. of Romney Marsh_, 1849, pp. 16, 20.

[2590] _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye_, pp. 19-20.

[2591] _Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia_, ed. M. Pinder and G. Parthey, 1860, v, 31 (p. 438, 19).

[2592] _Geogr. Journal_, ix, 1897, p. 545.

Mr. H. E. Malden, who believes that Caesar landed somewhere near Hurst, which is in Romney Marsh, about two miles and a half west of Lympne, affirms (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, pp. 176-7, n. 1) that, in A.D. 893, ‘Hastings the pirate came here with his fleet ... and sailed four miles up the Rother to the Weald.’ There is not the slightest evidence that ‘Hastings’ came ‘here’ with his fleet. The record of his expedition is in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (ed. B. Thorpe, ii, 1861, p. 69). ‘In this year’ [893], says the chronicler, ‘the great army, of which we long before spoke ... came up to the mouth of the Limen with two hundred and fifty ships. The mouth is in the east of Kent, at the east end of the great wood which we call Andred.... The river, of which we before spoke, flows out from the weald. On the river they towed up their ships as far as the weald, four miles from the outward mouth, and there stormed a work.’ Mr. Malden (_op. cit._, p. 176, note) avows his belief that ‘the Romans embanked the marsh’, and immediately afterwards says that ‘the _Portus Lemanis_ after that became accessible only from the east, inside the shingle spit opposite Hythe’. It would appear, then, that, according to Mr. Malden, the mouth of the Limen, up which the Danes sailed, was ‘opposite Hythe’. But, according to the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, to which he refers, it was at Appledore (see p. 542, n. 4, _infra_); and doubtless the Danes reached it by sailing up the channel, formed by the Rhee wall (see p. 538, _supra_), which then connected the Limen with the sea.

[2593] C. Roach Smith, _Report on Excavations ... at Lymne_, pp. 39-40.

[2594] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, viii, 1883, p. 93. Topley, indeed, frankly admits that one argument may be adduced in support of the theory that the Rother flowed out opposite Lympne. This argument is identical with that of Drew, which I have quoted in the text; but, as Topley’s exposition is the more lucid, I give it here. He observes (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, pp. 303-4) that on Romney Marsh the shingle ‘has chiefly accumulated to the _windward_ of tidal harbours, whilst the blown sand has accumulated to leeward of those harbours’; and then, remarking that, on the south of West Hythe, the ‘fulls’, or ridges of shingle, ‘curve well round to the north-west, as though to a harbour here,’ and that ‘on the north of this there is again a little blown-sand’, he admits that these facts lend some support to the popular view: but, he adds, ‘no trace of the ancient channel is to be found along the northern side of the marsh.’ But Topley seems not to know his own mind; for he afterwards says (_ib._, p. 304) that ‘it is by no means unlikely that the ancient Rother had more than one mouth. There may have been one at Lympne, one at Romney, and one near Rye.’ However, in his final utterance on the subject (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, viii, 1883, p. 93) he says, ‘there is no evidence of any old river along the northern side of the Marsh.’

[2595] _Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 66. See also _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, pp. 216-7.

[2596] Cf. John Harris, _Hist. of Kent_. 1719, p. 366.

[2597] C. Roach Smith, _Report on Excavations ... at Lymne_. p. 42.

[2598] _Itin. Ant._, ed. Wesseling, p. 473.

[2599] _A Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent_, p. 42.

[2600] _Rerum angl. script._, &c., ed. H. Savile, 1601, p. 846 (Chronicle of Ethelwerd, lib. iv, cap. iii, _s.a._ 893, line 57 ff.).

[2601] _Perambulation of Kent_ (written in 1570), 1826, p. 165.

[2602] _The Itin. of John Leland_, iii, 1744, p. 158.

[2603] Mr. G. R. Wright (_Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xl, 1884, p. 247) suggests that ‘Shepway’ may have been derived from the Saxon word, _sceap_, ‘a sheep’, and may have ‘meant a sheep-way’.

[2604] See p. 542, n. 4, _infra_.

[2605] _The Itin. of John Leland_, vii, 1744, p. 132.

[2606] J. M. Kemble, _Codex dipl. aevi Saxonici_, i, 1839, pp. 92-3, LXXVII; pp. 308-9, CCXXXIV.

[2607] in loco qui dicitur sandtun. et in eodem loco sali coquenda, &c.

[2608] termini vero terrae illius hec sunt. ab oriente terra regis. ab austro fluvius qui dicitur limenaee. ab occidente et in septentrione hudan fleot.

[2609] Lewin (_Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 373-4) admits that the earlier of the two charters mentioned in the text ‘appeared at first sight to negative the hypothesis that the marsh was under cultivation in the time of the Romans’: but he adds that he consulted Elliott, who removed his doubts in the following letter:--‘The grant refers to _Romney_ and not to _Lymne_. The boundaries will do for Romney, but not for Lymne. If at Lymne, the salt-pans must have been in the marsh, and then on the east, south, and west would have been the sea, and on the north Lymne Hill. At Romney ... the description agrees. Sandtun would be the Sand hills, called the Warren, to the east of Romney, and the boundaries of the land would be as stated, viz.:--the King’s land on the east would be the territory to the east, about 100 acres, which was vested in the Crown until the reign of Elizabeth, when it was granted to Romney Corporation; the river on the south would be the Limen.... Hudanfleot, referred to as on the north and west, would be the fleet which may still be traced there, though it has lost its name,’ &c. Lewin (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lvi) remarks that in the neighbourhood of Romney ‘are still pools of stagnant water ... called Fleets’. As, however, the mouth of the Limen, in A.D. 893, according to the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (see p. 541, _supra_) was at Appledore, we must assume that the Limen mentioned in the charter was simply the body of water conducted into the channel enclosed within the embankments of the Rhee Wall.

That ‘the marsh was under cultivation [or, at all events, occupation] in the time of the Romans’, is not a ‘hypothesis’ at all: it is a fact attested by the discovery of numerous Roman remains. See p. 551, _infra_.

Professor Montagu Burrows (_The Cinque Ports_, p. 12) speaks of ‘Hudanfleot, afterwards called West Hythe’, and says (_ib._, p. 50) that ‘Hudanfleot’ means ‘the haven of the estuary’. Needless to say, he gives no authority; and how ‘the haven of the estuary’ could have been both ‘on the west and on the north’ of ‘the piece of land’ referred to in the charters he does not explain.

[2610] See pp. 545-6, _infra_.

[2611] See Roach Smith, _Report on Excavations ... at Lymne_, pp. 39-40.

[2612] _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., pp. 236, 239. See also J. M. Kemble, _Codex diplo. aevi Saxonici_, i, 103, No. LXXXVI. The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (ed. Thorpe, ii, 71, _s.a._ DCCC.XCIV) mentions ‘the great army ... which had before sat at the mouth of the Limen, at Appledore’.

[2613] Roach Smith, _Report on Excavations ... at Lymne_, p. 41.

[2614] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxiii; _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p. 369. I have remarked elsewhere (pp. 609, and 622-3) on Lewin’s inconsistencies. In his final utterance on the subject of Romney Marsh (_Archaeologia_, xl) he outdoes himself. On page 369 he says that the mouth of the Limen was at Appledore: on page 370 he says that ‘the river Limen must have flowed along the foot of the hills, and have discharged itself at Lymne’.

[2615] Drew (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye_, pp. 19-20), on the other hand, says that ‘Forest trees flourished on this surface, for the moor-logs in the peat have all the appearance of having grown on the spot. If this be so, it follows that since that time there has been a depression of the land, because the peat that occurs at Appledore, and along the shore between Rye and Dungeness ... is at too low a level for the plants to have grown at these places while the sea had access there.... There is no reason to believe that any of the depression of land took place ... from the time of the Romans downwards, for no human remains nor works of art have been found deep in the Alluvium.’ Dowker (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, p. 221) argues, in support of Drew’s opinion, that if the trees had been carried down by the Rother, ‘we should expect them to have been covered with mud or silt, which does not occur to any extent.’

[2616] See p. 535, _supra_.

[2617] See M. Burrows, _The Cinque Ports_, p. 11; _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, pp. 364-5: F. Haverfield (_Hist. Atlas of Modern Europe_, ed. R. L. Poole, 1896, pl. 15), &c. [Prof. Haverfield calls the harbour Portus Lemanae, not Portus Lemanis. Stukeley, however (_Itin. curiosum_, 1776, p. 133), believed that the Portus Lemanis was ‘about West Hithe’; and Somner (_Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent_, p. 37) says that some of ‘our English Chorographers’ were of the same opinion. So also was the famous geographer, Konrad Mannert (_Geogr. der Griechen und Römer_, Zweyter Theil, Zweyter Heft, 1795, p. 161). Somner (p. 38) argued that the port was at New Romney; but in order to sustain this opinion he was forced to read _XXI_ instead of _XVI_ (Roman miles),--the distance, according to the _Itinerary_ of Antonine (ed. Wesseling, p. 473) from Durovernum (Canterbury) to Portus Lemanis.]

[2618] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, &c., pp. 43-5, §§ 3-10.

[2619] 26,080, according to Appach; but he assumed that a Roman mile was equal to 1,630 yards, whereas it was really 1,617. Cf. Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Ant._, 3rd ed., ii, 159-60.

[2620] According to Appach, whose arithmetic was a little shaky, 25,840.

[2621] _Itin._, vii, 1744, p. 132.

[2622] _Perambulation of Kent_, p. 165.

[2623] _Ordnance Survey of England_, Sheet 289.

[2624] C. Roach Smith, _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., p. 255, n. 1.

[2625] _Athenæum_, Sept. 22, 1894, p. 394.

[2626] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p. 377.

[2627] See p. 542, n. 4, _supra_.

[2628] C. Roach Smith, _Report on Excavations ... at Lymne_, pp. 39-45.

[2629] T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. cviii.

[2630] This Theodosius was not Theodosius the Younger, as Elliott says, but the father of Theodosius the Great.

[2631] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lvi-lvii.

[2632] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 370.

[2633] _Proc. Roy. Inst. of Great Britain_, xvi, 1900, pp. 36-7. Cf. C. Roach Smith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, vii, 1880, pp. 158-9, and _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 18.

[2634] _Itin. curiosum_, 1776, pp. 132-3.

[2635] See also T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxvii. In his article in _Archaeologia_ (xl, 1866, pp. 364-5) Lewin argues that if the Portus Lemanis had been at the foot of Lympne Hill, ‘we should expect to find at least some vestiges, however faint, of the port itself’; but, he adds, ‘I have never heard or read (though I have often inquired) that any remnant of a pier or sunken vessel, or even any anchor or other part of a ship’s tackle was ever discovered in this part.’

[2636] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 361-74.

[2637] See p. 536, _supra_.

[2638] Both these maps are reproduced, in part, in the map which faces p. 531, of this book.

[2639] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 371-2.

[2640] _Ib._, pp. 360-7. I omit those arguments by which Lewin endeavours to prove that the Portus Lemanis was not at Lympne.

[2641] Cf. E. Guest, _Origines Celticae_, ii, 116-7, 358.

[2642] As far as I can see, if the western end of the port had been at West Hythe, the ‘deluged’ area would have been that between West Hythe Oaks and Hythe, which in the map prepared by Elliott for Lewin’s book (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. liii) is depicted as the western arm of the harbour, but which in the map that accompanies Lewin’s article on the _Portus Lemanis_ (_Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p. 369) is represented as covered partly by the ‘Duck Marsh’ and partly by shingle.

[2643] Ogilby (_Britannia_, 1675, p. 40) speaks of ‘_Hith alias Hide_ or _East-Hith_’.

[2644] Lewin refers, in support of his statement, to Harris’s _Hist. of Kent_, p. 367; but what Harris says is simply this:--‘that the present _Hythe_ was used as a Port, even before the Departure of the Romans.... Dr. _Plott_ thinks reasonable to conclude; from the paved Way made after the _Roman_ Fashion all along up the Hill, not only to Saltwood Castle ... but a Mile farther onwards, and leading into the _Stonestreetway_.’

[2645] Does _Portus Lemanis_ mean ‘the port at the lagoons’ (E. Guest, _Origines Celticae_, ii, 117), the plural having been used because, while on the east of Hythe Oaks extended the pool harbour, the marsh was still flooded on the west before the erection of the Rhee Wall? That _Lemanis_ or _Lemannis_ is not a nominative, but a locative plural, seems to be shown by the _Notitia dignitatum_ (ed. O. Seeck, 1876, Oc. xxviii, 5), where _Lemannis castellum_ is mentioned side by side with _Regulbi castellum_.

[2646] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxii, note.

[2647] _Lives of the Engineers_, i, 1861, p. 7.

[2648] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p. 369, note _b_.

[2649] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 13, § 6.

[2650] _Ib._, p. 12, § 6.

[2651] _Kentish Archaeology_, iv, 1880, p. 13.

[2652] _Perambulation of Kent_, p. 208.

[2653] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 3.

[2654] See Mr. H. Bradley’s article in _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, pp. 379-82, 389.

[2655] _Hist. of Imbanking and Drayning_, &c., 1662, pp. 16-7.

[2656] _Agricola_, 31,--corpora ipsa ac manus silvis ac paludibus emuniendis inter verbera ac contumelias conteruntur.

[2657] R. Furley, _Hist. of the Weald of Kent_, i, 29.

[2658] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, pp. 42-3.

[2659] _Ib._, pp. 137-8, § 11.

[2660] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 367-8.

[2661] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 60, 63. Cf. Roach Smith, _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., p. 245; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, i, 1845, pp. 40-2; and A. J. Dunkin, _Report of the ... Brit. Archaeol. Association_, Sept., 1844, pp. 116-9. Besides pottery, many human skeletons, and also tusks of boars and horses’ teeth were discovered. Roach Smith (_Retrospections_, i, 1883, p. 207) concludes from these discoveries that the marsh ‘could not possibly have been submerged in the time of the Romans’. Not, certainly, at the time when the articles in question were deposited there: but why not before? ‘The time of the Romans’ amounted to nearly four centuries.

[2662] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 136, § 9.

[2663] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p. 372. According to Elliott (_ib._, p. 365), a coin of Carausius, who ruled in Britain from A.D. 287 to 293, was found near Dymchurch.

[2664] R. Furley, _Hist. of the Weald of Kent_, i, 29. Against these facts Appach’s argument (_C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 134, § 3) that if Romney Marsh had existed ‘in the earlier period of the Roman settlement’ Stone Street, assuming that it existed, ‘would have been carried onward to Romney, the seaport,’ is of no avail. There is no evidence that Romney was ‘the seaport’ until long after the departure of the Romans.

[2665] See A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 348-50, and footnotes.

[2666] _Veterum Galliae locorum ... descriptio_ (printed in _C. Iulii Caesaris ... comm._, Lutetiae, 1544), s.v. _Itius portus_.

[2667] _Thesaurus geogr._, 1596, s.v. _Iccius_.

[2668] _Portus Iccius Iulii Caesaris demonstratus_, 1627.

[2669] See pp. 517-8, _supra_.

[2670] _Notitia Galliarum_, 1675, p. 249.

[2671] _Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, 1789, i, 221.

[2672] _Dissertatio de Portu Iccio_, 1694.

[2673] _Mém. de litt. tirés des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, xxviii. 1761, pp. 397-409.

[2674] _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, 1810.

[2675] _Géogr. des Gaules_, i, 448-57.

[2676] Giraldus de Barri, _The Itinerary of Archbishop Baldwin_, 1806, i, lxxix.

[2677] _Germania antiqua_, 1631, lib. ii, cap. xxviii, pp. 440-7.

[2678] _Notitia Galliae_, 1651, p. 856.

[2679] _Norman Conquest_, i, 1870. p. 486, n. 1.

[2680] _Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, pp. 163-78; xix, 1891, pp. 138-45, 193-9, 200-10; xx, 1892, pp. 63-4.

[2681] Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, 1897, p. 864.

[2682] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 693.

[2683] _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 230-1.

[2684] _Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, pp. 269-70, note (Eng. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note).

[2685] See p. 602, n. 5, _infra_.

[2686] It has been argued that _commodissimum_ in this passage means not ‘most convenient’, but simply ‘very convenient’. I have not the slightest doubt that the former is the right interpretation, just as in _B. G._, iv, 21, § 3, _brevissimus_ (in Britanniam traiectus) unquestionably means ‘the shortest’, and not ‘a very short’ (passage to Britain): but if I were wrong my mistake would be unimportant. It will hardly be denied that if Caesar had found a port from which the passage was more convenient than from the Portus Itius, he would have chosen it. See p. 574, _infra_.

[2687] Caignart de Saulcy (_Les campagnes de Jules César dans les Gaules_, 1862, p. 181) infers from this that the Portus Itius must have been so situated that vessels sailing thence for Dover _would have had the north-west wind right in their teeth_; and he remarks that, if Wissant was the Portus Itius, this condition was fulfilled. But it is hardly necessary to say that the condition is imaginary. The Portus Itius must have been so situated that while the north-west wind (or rather the wind called _Corus_, which may have blown from any quarter between N.W. and W. by N. ⅓ N.) was blowing, Caesar’s vessels could not have sailed thence to that part of the Kentish coast which he wished to reach; and it is certain that they could not sail closer than within about seven points of the wind. See _The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_, by James Smith, 4th ed., 1880, p. 215; and, on the winds as described by various ancient writers, Vitruvius, _De Architectura_, i, 6, §§ 5, 9-10, P. F. J. Gossellin, _Recherches sur la géogr._, iv, 1813, p. 410, and diagram facing p. 416, and J. Vars, _L’art nautique dans l’ant._, 1887, pp. 31-4.

[2688] _B. G._, iv, 21, §§ 1-4; 22, §§ 3-4; 23, § 1; 28; 36, § 4; v, 2, §§ 2-3; 5; 7, § 3; 8, §§ 1-2, 6; 23, § 4.

[2689] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.--τὸ Ἴτιον, ᾧ ἐχρήσατο ναυστάθμῳ Καῖσαρ ὁ Θεός, διαίρων εἰς τὴν νῆσον· νύκτωρ δ’ ἀνήχθη, καὶ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ κατῆρε περὶ τετάρτην ὥραν, τριακοσίους καὶ εἴκοσι σταδίους τοῦ διάπλου τελέσας.

[2690] _Geogr._, ii, 9, § 1.

[2691] _Gesch. Roms_, 1837, iii, 294, n. 13.

[2692] _C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, ed. 1880, p. 277.

[2693] See pp. 662, 664-5, _infra_.

[2694] _Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, p. 164.

[2695] _Portus Itius_, p. 5.

[2696] J. F. Henry argues (_Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, 1810, pp. 54-5) that Caesar could only have estimated the distance from the Portus Itius to Britain by making the voyage; that, as he was carried out of his course on the second voyage, the one by which he estimated the distance must have been the first; and consequently that in 55 as in 54 B.C. he must have sailed from the Portus Itius.

But Henry forgot that Volusenus, whom Caesar sent in 55 B.C. to reconnoitre the British coast, may have made the estimate. Or Caesar may have accepted the estimate of merchants, of seamen, or of Commius: it is useless to guess.

[2697] _Portus Itius_, p. 9.

[2698] In support of the view that Caesar reckoned the distance to the nearest port of Britain, Heller (_Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 172-3) argues (1) that if he had intended to indicate the distance to his landing-place, he would probably have written, not (quo ex portu commodissimum) _in Britanniam_ (traiectum esse cognoverat, &c.) but _ad eum locum quo est descensum_ (‘to the spot where the disembarkation took place’); (2) that when Strabo estimated the length of Caesar’s voyage at 320 stades, or 40 Roman miles, he must either have found (milium passuum) _XXXX_, which is not in any extant MS., in his copy of the _Commentaries_, or have concluded, from other information, that Caesar had underestimated the distance; and in either case the fact that he expressly mentions the time which Caesar took to reach his _anchorage_ shows that he did not take into account the additional 7 miles which separated the anchorage from the landing-place.

It will be seen, however, that, although I agree with Heller’s conclusion, the proofs by which I shall establish the identity of the Portus Itius are wholly independent of it.

[2699] See pp. 592-3, _infra_.

[2700] See p. 619, _infra_.

[2701] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, pp. 269-70, note (Eng. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note).

[2702] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 16 (30), § 103.

[2703] _B. G._, v, 13, § 2.

[2704] See pp. 561-3, _infra_.

[2705] See pp. 554-5, _supra_.

[2706] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 235.

[2707] Speaking of Druidism, Caesar says (_B. G._, vi, 13, §§ 11-2) _disciplina in Britannia reperta atque inde in Galliam translata existimatur, et nunc qui diligentius eam rem cognoscere volunt plerumque illo discendi causa proficiscuntur_. With this word the chapter ends; but it is undeniable that those who wished to study the tenets of Druidism did go to Britain.

[2708] _Ib._, iv, 21, §§ 3-4.--Ipse cum omnibus copiis in Morinos proficiscitur, quod inde erat brevissimus in Britanniam traiectus. Huc naves undique ex finitimis regionibus et quam superiore aestate ad Veneticum bellum fecerat classem iubet convenire.

[2709] _C. J. Caesaris comm._, &c., p. 278, note.

[2710] Lewin (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. v-vi), justly ridicules Airy’s desperate contention (_Athenæum_, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 337) that _in his locis_ is ‘a studiously indefinite expression’.

[2711] _B. G._, iv, 22, § 1.

[2712] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 235.

[2713] _B. G._, vi, 9, § 6.

[2714] _Ib._, iv, 22, §§ 1, 5.--Dum in his locis Caesar navium parandarum causa moratur, ex magna parte Morinorum ad eum legati venerunt ... reliquum exercitum Titurio Sabino et Aurunculeio Cottae legatis in Menapios atque in eos pagos Morinorum a quibus ad eum legati non venerant ducendum dedit.

[2715] _Ib._, v, 24, § 2.

[2716] The italics are mine.

[2717] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar_ (privately printed), 1865, p. 27.

[2718] _B. G._, v, 24, §§ 1-2.--Subductis navibus concilioque Gallorum Samarobrivae peracto, quod eo anno frumentum in Gallia propter siccitates angustius provenerat, coactus est aliter ac superioribus annis exercitum in hibernis conlocare legionesque in plures civitates distribuere. Ex quibus unam in Morinos ducendam C. Fabio legato dedit, alteram in Nervios Q. Ciceroni, tertiam in Esuvios L. Roscio, quartam in Remis cum T. Labieno in confinio Treverorum hiemare iussit, tres in Belgio conlocavit, &c.

[2719] _Ib._, vi, 44, §§ 1, 3.

[2720] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.--τῶν ὁμορούντων τοῖς Μεναπίοις Μορινῶν, παρ’ οἷς ἐστι καὶ τὸ Ἴτιον, &c.

[2721] _Athenæum_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 302.

[2722] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 1883, p. 358.

[2723] _e.g._, iv, 2, § 2.--παρὰ μὲν οὖν τοῖς Πετροκορίοις σιδηρουργεῖά ἐστιν ἀστεῖα καὶ τοῖς Κούβοις Βιτούριξι, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Καδούρκοις λινουργίαι; and iv. 3, § 3,--τὴν δ’ ἐπὶ τῷ Ῥήνῳ πρῶτοι τὴν ἁπάντων οἰκοῦσιν Ἐλουήττιοι, παρ’ οἷς εἰσιν αἱ πηγαὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἀδούλᾳ ὄρει. See also viii, 3, § 11.

[2724] _B. G._, iv, 36, § 4.

[2725] General Creuly (_Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 310) agrees with Airy.

[2726] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 237.

[2727] See H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, i, 843.

[2728] _Ib._, ii, 167.

[2729] ‘They crossed the Rhine ... 30 miles below the place where the bridge had been built.’

[2730] ‘It was announced ... that a large column was moving up the river, and that the sound of oars was audible in the same direction; and that troops were being ferried across the river in barges below.’

[2731] ‘He led out the remaining legions in light marching order; stationed a large number of baggage-cattle in the river on the upper and the lower side [of the ford]; and made the army cross over.’ Cf. _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 163-4.

[2732] _B. G._, v, 2, § 3.

[2733] Sometimes Airy makes Caesar anchor off St. Leonards; sometimes off Bexhill. We may give him his choice.

[2734] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 237-8. I find, to my amazement, that Desjardins agrees with Airy. ‘The text,’ he argues (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 360-1), ‘does not say precisely that the _Portus Itius_ is 30 miles from Britain; it only says (1) that Caesar had ascertained that it was a very convenient port; and (2) that Britain was about 30 miles from the continent. Here we have two distinct statements.’

It is worth mentioning that Airy, in quoting the passage, omits _transmissum_, while Desjardins retains it. It was originally deleted by Faërn, who has been followed by various editors, in defiance of the _MSS._ See C. E. C. Schneider, _Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, 1849, p. 11.

[2735] Airy seems to have felt the necessity of bolstering up his argument; for he remarks (_Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., p. 27) that ‘before the Triangulation of the year 1787, it was a fair and an insoluble question, whether the distance from the Continent to Britain was less than twenty or greater than forty miles’. Perhaps; but long before the aforesaid Triangulation sailors used to make wonderfully good guesses about this ‘insoluble question’. Cluver tells us that while staying with Sir Thomas Waller, Warden of the Cinque Ports, he questioned all who could give him trustworthy information, and particularly seamen, as to the passages between England and France. The unanimous reply was that the distance between Dover and Calais was 28 English miles, and that _the most convenient passage was between Dover and Boulogne_, and was 32 English miles (_Germania antiqua_, 1631, lib. ii, cap. xxviii, p. 445). Similarly, the Arab geographer, Edrisi, who died about 1180, affirmed that the distance between Wissant and England was 25 Roman miles (_Geogr. Nubiensis ..._, 1619, pp. 253-4).

[2736] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., p. 27.

[2737] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xii-xiii.

[2738] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236.

[2739] See E. A. Freeman’s _Norman Conquest_, iii, 386-99.

[2740] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xi-xiii, xvii.

[2741] _Dict. arch. de la Gaule_, ii, 45-7.

[2742] _Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, p. 270, note (Eng. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note).

[2743] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.

[2744] See pp. 577-9, _infra_.

[2745] _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, pp. 307-8.

[2746] ... the spirits of the dead ‘stretched out their hands in longing for the further shore’ (_Aen._, vi, 314).

[2747] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 164.

[2748] (They also wear the skins of wild beasts), ‘the riparian tribes in a careless fashion, those of the interior with more elegance’ (c. 17).

[2749] As a matter of fact, if the _Portus Itius_ was the estuary of the Liane, there _was_ an ‘objet disjonctif’ between it and Ambleteuse, namely, the headland north of Boulogne harbour.

[2750] Creuly also observes (_Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 307) that, while Ambleteuse was 31 Roman miles from Fort Sutherland on Romney Marsh, Boulogne was 36. But Caesar, as I shall prove (pp. 622-44), did not land on Romney Marsh; and the futility of arguments of this kind has been already pointed out (pp. 557-8).

[2751] It is worth noting that while Creuly pins his faith to Ambleteuse, he is not so foolish as to ask us to believe that Caesar’s 800 ships found room there. They anchored, he tells us (p. 310), in the roadstead. But Caesar says expressly (_B. G._, v, 2, § 3; 5. § 2) that they assembled in the Portus Itius.

[2752] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 143.

[2753] See J. F. Henry, _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 123.

[2754] In order to counteract the effect of the flood, it would of course have been necessary to keep the ships’ heads much closer to the wind than within seven points and a half, which would have been impossible.

[2755] See _Mém. de la Soc. des ant. de la Morinie_, i, 1833 (1834), p. 253; A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 349-50, n. 3; J. J. Chifflet, _Portus Iccius_, pp. 25-6; and V. de St. Martin, _Nouv. Dict. de Géogr. univ._, i, 1879, p. 568.

[2756] _Mém. couronnés par l’Acad. Roy. ... de Bruxelles_, vi, 1827, pp. 149-50; Allent, _Appendice à l’essai sur les reconnaissances militaires_, pp. 667-8 (in tome i [1830] of _Mémorial du Dépôt Gén. de la Guerre_); V. de St. Martin, _Nouv. Dict. de Géogr. univ._, ii, 542.

[2757] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 223. This suggestion, which was hailed by Freeman (see p. 553, _supra_) as a brilliant and conclusive discovery, was by no means new. Guest had been anticipated by Du Fresne (D. Haigneré, _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, ii, 1897, p. 431, n. 1) and by the Abbé de Fontenu (_Mém. de litt. tirez des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, xiii, 1734-7 [1741], plan between pages 416 and 417).

[2758] According to de Saulcy (_Les campagnes de Jules César dans les Gaules_, p. 172, n. 1), the inhabitants of the country believe that it extended only from the mouth of the ‘ruisseau du Phare’ to that of the ‘ruisseau d’Herlan’,--a distance of less than a mile and a quarter.

[2759] _Lettre à M. Bouillet ... sur l’article Boulogne de son Dictionnaire_, 1827, p. 20, n. 30. Cf. _Annales de géogr._, ii, 1893, p. 313. I have not been able to discover any historical evidence which would show that no dunes, small or great, existed at Wissant before the time of Edward III; but it is certain that immense quantities of sand were accumulated there in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. See _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 372.

[2760] _Annales de la Soc. géol du Nord_, xxviii, 1899, pp. 85-7.

[2761] _Annales de géogr._, ii, 1893, p. 312; _Annales de la Soc. géol. du Nord_, viii, 1882, p. 1; xxviii, 1899, pp. 86, 88; J. Gosselet, _Esquisse géol._, &c., 4^e fasc., 1903, p. 406.

[2762] _Ib._, pp. 411, 416.

[2763] _Étude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 89.

[2764] _Annales de géogr._, ii, 1893, p. 314; _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 372; R. Blanchard, _La Flamande_, p. 314.

[2765] _Geol. Mag._, iii, 1866, pp. 113-4.

[2766] _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 372-3.

[2767] It must have been very narrow when the coast extended further seaward, if indeed it existed.

[2768] _Mém. de l’Acad. d’Arras_, xxxv, 1863, p. 273. Haigneré (_Étude sur le Portus Itius_, pp. 87-8) very properly warns his readers not to place any reliance upon a certain ‘Vue du port de Wissant’, a copy of which exists in the Museum at Boulogne. ‘C’est une œuvre de fantaisie.’

[2769] _Chronique de l’abbaye de Saint-Riquier_, 1894, p. 241 (lib. iv, cap. xxiii).

[2770] _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 55.

[2771] _C. J. Caesaris comm._, &c., pp. 278, 285.

[2772] P. Ferrarius, _Lexicon geogr._, 1670, i, 370.

[2773] ‘The fact,’ says a writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ (Oct., 1900, p. 442), ‘that it was in mediaeval times a “frequented port” is, strictly speaking, not a fact at all ... the contemporary references to it which have been collected by French scholars show that it was neither a town nor a harbour, but an open beach, which travellers in a hurry could use with a favourable wind.’ These remarks are inaccurate: see p. 580, _infra_. The mediaeval port, or portlet, if local tradition is to be trusted, was, however, simply the mouth of the rivulet, variously called the Rieu de Sombre, Rieu d’Herlan, and Ruisseau du Moulin, which flows through the modern town of Wissant, enlarged and deepened (F. A. F. Mariette, _Lettre à M. Bouillet_, &c., p. 30, n. 20; D. Haigneré, _Étude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 91); and the tradition has been confirmed by the explorations of M. Rigaux (_Annales de la Soc. géol. du Nord_, xxviii, 1899, p. 88). In the dunes which border on the creek formed by the rivulet there have been found certain old balks of oak, mentioned by Haigneré (_op. cit._) and C. de Saulcy (_Les campagnes de Jules César dans les Gaules_, p. 172), which may have belonged to the quays of the mediaeval harbour.

According to Le Quien, the inhabitants of Wissant in his time (early in the eighteenth century) affirmed that the entrance of the harbour had been at the mouth of the Rieu de Ghibelen,--the rivulet nearest to Cape Grisnez (_Mém. de litt. tiréz des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, xiii, 1734-7 [1741], p. 417). I agree with Haigneré that the harbour, such as it was, was at the mouth of the Rieu d’Herlan. As he says (_Étude_, &c., p. 91),‘Pour s’assurer de l’endroit où était le port, il n’y avait qu’à se demander où était le village. Or, le village a toujours occupé l’emplacement sur lequel il est encore bâti de nos jours, savoir: partie à l’est du _ruisseau_ d’Herlan ... où les maisons se reconstruisent avec les débris des précédentes,’ &c. See also _Bull. de la Soc. de géogr. de Lille_, xix, 1893, p. 199.

[2774] C. de Saulcy, in an article in which he endeavours to prove that the Portus Itius was Wissant (_Les campagnes de Jules César dans les Gaules_, p. 161), frankly admits that not one of the natives of Wissant whom he interrogated had ever heard that there was such a name as ‘Esseu’, or that the Flemings called Wissant ‘Itzen’ (or ‘Isten’). A. Wauters, indeed, referring to B. E. C. Guérard’s _Cartulaire de Folcuin_, p. 161, a work which I have failed to procure, affirms (_Bull. de l’Acad. Roy ... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii, 1879, p. 114) that in a charter of the ninth century property in a place called Istem was granted to the abbey of St. Bertin: but he fails to prove the identity of Istem with Wissant; and even if that identity could be established, no competent etymologist would admit that it supplied an argument for identifying Wissant with the Portus Itius.

[2775] This derivation, which is now generally accepted, is mentioned by Lambert of Ardres, a chronicler of the thirteenth century, who speaks of _Britannicum secus portum, qui ab albedine arenae vulgari nomine appellatur Witsant_ (J. P. von Ludewig, _Reliquiae manuscriptorum_, &c., viii, 1728, p. 383. Cf. J. F. Pommeraye, _Hist. de l’abbaye royale de S. Ouen de Rouen_, 1662, p. 457), but is disputed by Le Quien (_Dissertation sur le Port Iccius_, pp. 342-3, printed in _Mém. de litt. et d’hist._, viii, 1749, by P. Desmolets). Remarking that Flodoard, a writer of the tenth century, calls Wissant _Guicsum_, he maintains that _Guicsum_ is identical with _Vvicsum_, which would mean ‘the port of Sum’, just as _Quantovic_ (Étaples) means ‘the port of the river Canche’. I agree, however, with Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 352, note) that it is not certain that by _Guicsum_ Flodoard meant Wissant.

[2776] _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 83.

[2777] J. Malbrancq, _De Morinis_, i, 1639, p. 27; _Mém. de la Soc. des ant. de Picardie_, iii, 1856, pp. 469-70; A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i. 356-7, note.

[2778] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 362-4.

[2779] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 363. Guest apparently forgot that if Wissant was the Portus Itius, Caesar’s ships, when they returned from the second expedition, must have been hauled up on the beach (_B. G._, v. 24, § 1).

[2780] _The Reader_, Oct. 10, 1863, p. 414.

[2781] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 181.

[2782] Cf. Livy. xxxvi, 45, § 8,--ad Canas classis venit; et, cum iam hiems appeteret, fossa valloque circumdatis naves subductae; _B. C._ iii, 23, § 3,--(Libo) adeo loci opportunitate profecit uti ad Pompeium litteras mitteret, naves reliquas, si vellet, subduci et refici iuberet; and Horace, _Carm._, i, 4, 1-2,--

Solvitur acris hiems grata vice veris et Favoni, Trahuntque siccas machinae carinas.

[2783] _Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, pp. 141-2.

[2784] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.

[2785] _Geogr._, iii, 3, § 5.

[2786] _Ib._, ii, 6, § 2.

[2787] iii. 6.

[2788] See p. 556, _supra_.

[2789] _Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, p. 142.

[2790] _Geogr._, ix, 1, § 15.--τὸ μὲν οὖν παλαιὸν ἐτετείχιστο καὶ συνῴκιστο ἡ Μουνυχία παραπλησίως ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν Ῥοδίων πόλις, προσειληφυῖα τῷ περιβόλῳ τόν τε Πειραιᾶ καὶ τοὺς λιμένας πλήρεις νεωρίων ... ἄξιόν τε ἦν ναυστάθμον ταῖς τετρακοσίαις ναυσίν, &c.

[2791] _Descr. Graeciae_, ii, 38, § 2.

[2792] _Geogr._, viii, 6, § 2.

[2793] Evidently ναύσταθμον had a wider range of meaning than _statio navium_. Plutarch (_Aristides_, 23) implies that a ναύσταθμον could be burned, from which Haigneré (_Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, iii, 1897, p. 455) infers that ‘un ναύσταθμος n’est pas une rade foraine, ni une anse, mais un lieu fermé, où se trouvent des arsenaux maritimes’. This was sometimes the meaning of the word, but only rarely. Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, iii, 8 [14], § 89) mentions a harbour in Sicily, called Portus Naustathmus. See also Stephanus, _Thesaurus Graecae linguae_, v, 1842-6, col. 1383-4. Professor Haverfield (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xviii, 1903, p. 335) insists that Strabo (iv, 5, § 2) meant by ναύσταθμον ‘the whole region of the Itian highland in which Caesar had his _portus Itius_ and his _ulterior portus_’.

[2794] _B. G._, v, 2, § 3; 5, § 2.

[2795] It is quite true, as General Creuly observes (_Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 306) that the author of _Bellum Africum_ (c. 10, § 1) applies the name of _portus_ to a mere anchorage (cf. Col. Stoffel, _Hist. de Jules César,--Guerre civile_, ii, 110-1, and pl. 20). But _Bellum Africum_ was not written by Caesar; and the question is, what Caesar meant by the word _portus_. Now there are certainly two instances in which he applies that word to a harbour very different from the estuary of a river. The harbour of Nymphaeum (now the bay of Medua) on the eastern coast of the Adriatic has a comparatively wide entrance, and is exposed to the full force of the south wind; but against all other winds it is perfectly safe, and it might fairly be called a _portus_ and not a _statio_ (_B. C._, iii, 26, § 4. Cf. Col. Stoffel, _Hist. de Jules César_, &c. pl. 14 _bis_). The harbour of Alexandria was formed, as Caesar says (_B. C._, iii, 112, § 2. Cf. Stoffel, pl. 19), by the island which extended opposite the city, and was divided into two portions by the mole which connected the island with the mainland: the western portion must have been exposed to south westerly winds, but the other offered complete shelter. The conclusion is that the word _portus_ had a somewhat elastic signification, but would not have been applied by Caesar to Wissant unless the anchorage there had been protected, as Dr. Guest imagined, by sand-dunes.

[2796] _The Reader_, Sept, 19, 1863, p. 317.

[2797] M. Bouquet, _Recueil des hist. des Gaules_, xi, 1767, pp. 40C, 75C.

[2798] This is undeniable. See J. F. Henry, _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, pp. 66-71; D. Haigneré, _Etude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 85, n. 1; and _Dict. arch. de la Gaule_, ii, 45. Henry calculated from the loss known to have been suffered by Cap d’Alprech and the promontory on which the Tour d’Odre stood during the two centuries and a half that preceded the year 1810, that in Caesar’s time they must have extended from 700 to 800 metres further seaward than in 1810. This, however, I believe to be an exaggeration.

[2799] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, pp. 227-8.

[2800] _Le Roman de Brut_, ed. Le Roux de Lincy, 1836, vv. 3937-40. Similarly Geoffrey of Monmouth (_Hist. Britonum_, iv, § 3) and Matthew Paris (_Chronica majora_, ed. H. R. Luard, i, 1872, p. 73) supposed that Caesar, after his second expediion, had returned to Boulogne.

[2801] _Nouv. Biogr. gén._, xxiii, 1858, p. 802.

[2802] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, pp. 387-94.

[2803] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 227.

[2804] _Journal of Philology_, xx, 1892, p. 192. Gosselin (_Recherches sur la géogr._, iv, 87-90) attempts to prove that Ptolemy confused two itineraries, and accordingly located the promontory between the Somme and Gesoriacum instead of on the north of the latter.

Henry (_Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, pp. 3-6, 33), referring to Pomponius Mela (iii, 7, §§ 59, 68), maintains that by the word _promontorium_ the ancients sometimes designated not merely a cape but also all its ‘collateral dependencies’; and accordingly he argues that the Ἴτιον ἄκρον comprised Capes Grisnez and Blancnez, and Cap d’Alprech!

Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 371-2) remarks that not only was Cap d’Alprech a more prominent headland 2000 years ago than to-day, but it is actually 9 metres, or about 30 feet, higher than Cape Grisnez; and he insists that the ancients, being unable to form an exact idea of the outline of a coast, took note of those geographical features which appeared to them remarkable, and would therefore have been more inclined to mention Cap d’Alprech than Cape Grisnez. I cannot help thinking that Desjardins would not have resorted to this argument if he had not persuaded himself that the identification of the Portus Itius with Boulogne depended upon the identification of Cap d’Alprech with the Itian promontory. The ancients did not know how to make accurate maps; but they had sufficient powers of observation to be able to see that Cape Grisnez marked the great bend in the coast of North-Eastern Gaul.

It is amusing to find that, whereas Desjardins in his first volume (p. 371) affirmed that the identification of the Itian promontory with Cape Grisnez, if it were admitted, would necessarily involve the identification of the Portus Itius with Wissant, in his third volume (p. 355) he queries his own identification of the promontory with Cap d’Alprech.

[2805] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 303.

[2806] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, pp. 224-5.

[2807] _Ib._, pp. 221-2.

[2808] _Norman Conquest_, i, xv.

[2809] _Longius delatus aestu_ (_B. G._, v, 8, § 2). According to Long (_Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 1872, p. 204), ‘the expression “too far” (_longius_) means that he was carried too far north and past the place where he had landed the year before.’ But as the direction of the current was ENE. (magnetic), the smallest drift would have been too far.

[2810] _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

[2811] See pp. 728-30, _infra_.

[2812] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 122-3. There is an obvious objection to this argument, to which Heller replies by anticipation. One of the three sides of Britain, says Caesar, looks southward towards Gaul; and one of the ‘angles’ (_alter angulus_) of this side is by Kent (_B. G._, v, 13, § 1). If Caesar landed, as Heller believes, between the South Foreland and the North Foreland, he had himself seen this angle, which is formed by the South Foreland; and if he believed that the coast, at the North Foreland, turned sharply towards the west, and had no knowledge of that part of the coast which trends northward beyond the mouth of the Thames, it is clear that he must have regarded the North Foreland and not the South Foreland, as marking the commencement of the northern side, in which case one might think that he would have described the coast between the South Foreland and the North Foreland as a separate side, and would have represented Britain not as triangular but as irregularly quadrilateral. But Heller argues that the word _angulus_, as used by Caesar, does not mean an ‘angle’ in the geometrical sense of the word, but only a strip of coast between two angles; and he compares a passage in Livy’s description of the siege of Saguntum (xxi, 7, § 5),--_Angulus muri erat in planiorem patentioremque quam cetera circa vallem vergens_.

[2813] Caesar started ‘about sunset’ (_ad solis occasum_): the wind dropped ‘about midnight’ (_media circiter nocte_); and the drift ceased at daybreak (_orta luce_). The sun set at 8.16 p.m.; and day broke about 3.20 a.m. It would be absurd to suppose that the voyage must have begun at the moment when the sun dipped under the horizon: we may fairly assume that it began at any time between 7 and 8. Similarly the drift may be assumed to have begun at any time between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. Let us suppose that the wind lasted 5 hours, and the drift 3 hours. For some time before the wind dropped it must have been gradually dying down; but, as the vessels kept steerage way, it may be assumed, so Captain Iron, the harbour-master at Dover assures me, that, even during the drift, there was not a dead calm. Major Rennell, indeed, affirms (_Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, p. 503) that when the wind dropped the ships were ‘left to the resources of their oars’: but Caesar does not confirm this; and if the oars had been used, why should the ships have drifted out of their course? Captain Iron says that with a light south-westerly wind the ships could easily have sailed 6 knots an hour. The voyage took place about the time of new moon (see pp. 728-30, _infra_), that is to say, a day or two before spring tide. For the first two hours the ships had to encounter the ebb tide, the rate of which, however, was not more than one knot an hour; and the flood, the rate of which increased from about three-quarters of a knot to nearly 3 knots, helped them from about 9 or 9.30 p.m. We may estimate, then, that in the 5 hours they sailed not less than 25 knots; while in 3 hours, aided by a faint breeze, they would have drifted about 6 knots (see p. 656, _infra_). I think, then, that the entire distance which Caesar sailed up to the moment when he ‘saw Britain lying behind on the port quarter’, may be estimated at not less than 31 knots, or about 57½ kilometres. After making this calculation, which must be taken for what it is worth, I find that, according to Napoleon’s map (_Hist. de Jules César_, Atlas, pl. 16), the distance was 57 kilometres. The reader may check my estimate by referring to the Admiralty _Tide Tables_, pp. 112-9, and _Tidal Streams, English and Irish Channels_.

[2814] See _Tide Tables for the British and Irish Ports_, p. 119.

[2815] For this reason I attach no importance to Heller’s remark (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 692), that, if Caesar had only drifted as far northward as the latitude of Deal, he would have written, not _sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit_, but _longius se a Britannia recessisse animum advertit_.

[2816] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 176; _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 691-2.

[2817] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 362.

[2818] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.

[2819] _The Reader_, Sept. 19, 1863, p. 317. ‘What Strabo says,’ writes Long (_ib._, p. 414), ‘is quite irrelevant to the matter in discussion, which must be decided by Caesar’s text.’ After which Long proceeds to devote a column and a half to arguing for his own view of what Strabo said.

[2820] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 368-70.

[2821] _The Reader_, Oct. 10, 1863, p. 414.

[2822] Long forgets that Strabo does not expressly say that ‘the Itius’ was a usual point of transit; he only says that Caesar used it as his naval station. If ‘the Itius’ was identical with the port used by the passengers who ‘cross from the country near the Rhine’, it was ‘a usual point of transit’; but it is precisely this identity which is the subject of dispute.

[2823] _Geogr._, v, 3, § 6.

[2824] _Ib._, iv, 6, § 9.

[2825] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 176. Heller puts the matter very clearly,--‘aber diese Ausdrucksweise ist auf gewisse leicht erkennbare Wendungen beschränkt. Jedesmal jedoch, wo καί weder die intendirende Kraft (in der Bedeutung “sogar”) besitzen kann, noch eine Hinzufügung begleitender Umstände vermittelt (“zugleich auch”, “denn auch”) noch auch verallgemeinernde Bedeutung hat (“auch immer”), kann es, wie hier, nur das Hinzutreten einer neuen Person oder Sache einleiten ... es darf deshalb gar kein Zweifel darüber aufkommen, dass Strabo in der That den _portus Itius_ von dem gewöhnlichen Hafen der Moriner hat unterscheiden wollen.’

[2826] _Portus Itius_, p. 13. Schneider, like myself, accepts Heller’s interpretation of Strabo’s meaning.

[2827] _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, pp. 46, 48.

[2828] _Les campagnes de Jules César dans les Gaules_, pp. 183-4.

[2829] D. Haigneré, _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, i, 96.

[2830] Napoléon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 1866, p. 168.

[2831] _Congrès arch. de France_, xxvii^e session, 1860 (1861), pp. 69-70.

[2832] _Étude sur le Portus Itius_, pp. 72-7; _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, i, 96-8.

[2833] On the day of Caesar’s first landing in Britain high water at Dover was about 6.21 a.m. (see pp. 610-1, _infra_); and when he was approaching the British coast in 54 B.C., the tide turned south-westward about ten miles east of Deal soon after daybreak, which was about 3.15 a.m. See pp. 655-9, _infra_. Supposing that Caesar landed in Britain in 55 B.C. on the 27th, not, as I believe (see p. 601, _infra_), on the 26th of August, it still remains true that the latter part of the voyage was made on the flood.

[2834] _Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii, 1879, pp. 134-61.

[2835] _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, ii, 439-40.

[2836] _Étude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 32.

[2837] See _Œuvres de Froissart,--Chroniques_, ii, 1867, p. 109 (ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove).

[2838] _Bull. de L’Acad. Roy.... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii, 1879, pp. 144-5.

[2839] _Const. Hist. of England_, i, 1880, p. 540.

[2840] _Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis_, ed. W. Stubbs, i, 1867, p. 60.

[2841] _Radulfi de Diceto ... opera hist._, ed. W. Stubbs, i, 1876, p. 377.

[2842] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 1.

[2843] ‘It has no port, nor is it easy to see how it ever could have had one.... Possibly Cape Blanc-Nez may have projected further seawards two thousand years ago than at present, and so have afforded it something like a shelter from the south-west wind.’ _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 221, note. But Cape Grisnez would equally have afforded Wissant ‘something like a shelter from the south-west wind’; yet Dr. Guest implies that at Wissant there could have been no harbour unless it had been protected by sand-dunes. And what about the north-west, the north, and the north-east wind?

[2844] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, xxvi, 1846, p. 256.

[2845] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 363.

[2846] This assumption, with the condition that the ships could work to windward, is approved by Captain Iron and by Commander Boxer, R.N., the harbour-master of Folkestone.

[2847] I assume what I shall afterwards prove (see pp. 595-665, _infra_), that Caesar landed in 55 B.C. between Walmer and Deal. If he had landed near Hythe or Lympne, the force of my argument would of course be increased.

[2848] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

[2849] See James Smith, _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_, 4th ed., 1880, p. 113, and Adm. W. H. Smyth, _The Sailor’s Word-Book_, 1867, p. 598.

[2850] A wind blowing from the north-east off Walmer or Kingsdown would be diverted a point or two southward off the south coast.

[2851] The statement in the text, which will commend itself to every one who reflects that the heights between Folkestone and Hythe would have afforded protection from the wind, is made with the approval of a Deal boatman and an ex-warrant officer who knows every inch of the Kentish coast.

[2852] _Marine Dictionary_, 1815, p. 220.

[2853] See Addenda, p. 740.

[2854] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 356-7, 388.

[2855] _Itin. Ant._, ed. Wesseling, pp. 356-63, 376-7; _La Table de Peutinger_, ed. Desjardins, p. 12, col. 3, p. 13, col. 1-3, p. 22, col. 1-3. The advocates of Wissant have pointed to two roads which connected Wissant with Thérouanne. One of these, known as the _voie de Leulene_, leads from Thérouanne to Sangatte, and, near Guines, throws out a branch, which terminates at Wissant; the other, called the _chemin vert_, leads to Wissant direct. Roman remains have been found on the _voie de Leulene_, but none on the branch; while both on the _chemin vert_ and on the branch road excavations have been made which proved that neither was a Roman road. See D. Haigneré, _Étude sur le Portus Itius_, pp. 100-1, 103; and _Mém. de l’Acad. d’Arras_, xxxv, 1863, pp. 272-3.

[2856] C. du Fresne, _Dissertatio de portu Iccio_, p. 95. See also A. Wauters (_Bull. de. l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii, 1879, p. 130).

[2857] _B. G._, v, 5, §3; 7, §3; 8, §§1-2.

[2858] I say ‘at least’ advisedly. In order to understate my case, I have assumed that the legions were of the exceptionally low average strength of 3,500 men (_B. G._, v, 49, §7; Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, pp. 563-7), and have not counted auxiliaries, although there were certainly both slingers and archers (_B. G._, iv, 25, §1). Probably we should be within the mark if we estimated the force at 40,000 infantry and auxiliaries, besides the 4,000 cavalry.

[2859] See E. B. Hamley’s _Operations of War_, 4th ed., 1878, pp. 34, 37.

[2860] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, pp. 224-5.

[2861] _B. G._, v, 23, § 4.

[2862] See A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 362.

[2863] I am aware that, according to Froissart (_Chroniques_, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, v, 1868, pp. 182-3), timber was conveyed after the battle of Crecy from the forests of the Boulonnais to Wissant by men and horses. But Wissant was then connected with the interior by roads.

[2864] The very earliest mention of Wissant to which its advocates can point refers to the year 566. But the anonymous life of St. Vulgan, in which the reference is to be found, is a work of no authority. See _Mém. de l’Acad. d’Arras_, xxxv, 1863, p. 253, and A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 351-2, note.

[2865] _Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. de Belgique_, 3^e sér., xviii, 1889, pp. 415, 421.

[2866] Cf. E. Lavisse, _Hist. de France_ (tome i, by G. Bloch, 1901, pp. 197-8).

[2867] _Lettre à M. Bouillet_, &c., pp. 26-7. Haigneré (_Étude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 122) argues that if Caesar started on his first voyage from Wissant, it is impossible to account for the fact that, on the return voyage, two of his ships failed to make the same harbours as the rest, that is to say, Sangatte and Wissant. Those two ships could not, he insists, have drifted further down the coast, that is to say, southward of Cape Grisnez, unless the wind had been unfavourable; and if the wind was unfavourable, how was it that the remaining ships succeeded in making the harbours? Captain Iron, however, attaches no importance to this objection.

[2868] _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 130.

[2869] _Bull. de la Soc. acad. de ... Boulogne-sur-mer_, i, 1873, pp. 132-3.

[2870] I mean, of course, on any part of the coast which can be regarded as lying within the limits required by Caesar’s narrative. The estuary of the Authie is about 11 miles further south than that of the Canche; and the estuary of the Somme is, as we have seen (pp. 558-63, _supra_) inadmissible.

[2871] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 376-80, and pl. xv. See also T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. c-ci, and _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 1899, p. 708. ‘Au xiv^e siècle,’ says M. Lejeal (_ib._, p. 369), ‘la mer pénétrait encore jusqu’à Isques.’

[2872] D. Haigneré, _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, ii, 416, 420-4.

[2873] _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 63.

[2874] See a map in the British Museum, called _Plan général du port de Boulogne, avec les dispositions proposées ... pour sortir du port dans une marée 300 batimens portant une armée de 60,000 hommes_, 1822. This from the small modern port.

[2875] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236.

[2876] E. Reclus, _Nouv. Géogr. Univ.,--La France_, 1877, p. 792.

[2877] For the second expedition the vessels were specially constructed of light draught (_B. G._, v, 1, § 2); and those which Napoleon built for the flotilla of 1804 did not draw more than 3 feet of water (Nap. III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 172). Even in Caesar’s first expedition the draught of the transports could not have been great, as the men were able to jump off them into the sea and wade ashore.

[2878] A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 378, 380.

[2879] Capécure is on the left bank, about two miles from the mouth of the river.

[2880] _Bull. de la Soc. acad. ... de Boulogne-sur-mer_, i, 1873, p. 278, n. 1; D. Haigneré, _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, i, 328-32, ii, 422. The latter passage is worth quoting:--‘On travaillait en 1861 au creusement du sas-éclusé dont la munificence du gouvernement ... a doté le port de Boulogne ... les ouvriers arrivèrent dans la couche la plus basse des sables qu’ils déblayaient dans la fouille! Nous y trouvions le radier de l’ancien port semé d’antiquités gauloises et de débris romains, portant, sur sa surface, de tuf glaiseux, la trace visible du roulis des vagues, avec une dépression marquée, formant une sorte de chenal qui se dirigeait vers l’ouest,’ &c. Airy, who insists (_Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236) that Boulogne harbour would have been too small for Caesar’s purpose, neglected to inform himself that there was much more space in the estuary in Caesar’s time than there is now.

Henry’s objection (_Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, pp. 58-9), that there would not have been enough water in the harbour at sunset, when Caesar set sail on his second voyage, therefore collapses; but even if his statement were true, the inference which he draws from it would be refuted by himself: for he tells us (p. 52) that in 55 B.C. the ships ‘ont dû partir du mouillage’. If so, why not in 54 B.C. also?

[2881] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., p. 28.

[2882] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xiii-xvi.

[2883] The distance by the new military road is, as Lewin warns his readers, much less.

Mariette (_Lettre à M. Bouillet_, &c., pp. 16, 51) actually holds that the _ulterior portus_ was the harbour of Bononia (see p. 591, n. 1, _infra_), as distinguished from that of Gesoriacum! The _ulterior portus_, he says, is generally assumed to have been eight Roman miles from the Portus Itius, simply because the eighteen ships which carried Caesar’s cavalry were detained eight miles from the Portus Itius by contrary winds. But, he insists, Caesar does not say that the place where the eighteen ships were detained was a harbour: he merely indicates the harbour where the cavalry embarked, without saying where it was; it was not the same place as that at which the vessels had been detained some days before.

I only notice this theory because Mariette was a really eminent man. If it were necessary to refute it, it would be sufficient to say, first, that, as Caesar tells us (_B. G._, iv, 22, § 4) that the eighteen ships (which he reserved for his cavalry) were detained by contrary winds at a place eight miles from the harbour which sheltered the rest of the fleet, and in the next sentence but two says that he ordered the cavalry to advance to the _ulterior portus_ (which he had not mentioned before), and embark, the inevitable conclusion is that the place where the eighteen ships had been detained was the _ulterior portus_; secondly, that if the _ulterior portus_ had been virtually in juxta-position with the port from which Caesar sailed, he would certainly have taken care that they sailed along with him.

[2884] See pp. 558, 581-2, _supra_.

[2885] See pp. 616, 651, _infra_.

[2886] _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

[2887] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 23 (37), § 122. Wauters (_Bull. de l’Acad. Roy ... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii, 1879, pp. 125-6) actually argues that because Lambert of Ardres, who wrote in the thirteenth century, called Wissant the _portus Britannicus_, therefore Wissant was the _portus Morinorum Britannicus_ of Pliny! He forgets that Lambert was not referring to the time of the Roman Empire: he simply meant that in his own time Wissant was a frequented port of departure for England.

Courtois insists (_Bull. de la Soc. des ant. de la Morinie_, iii, 1862, p. 391) that Pliny distinguishes the _portus Morinorum Britannicus_ from Gesoriacum. As well might a modern leader-writer be said to distinguish London from ‘the metropolis’.

[2888] See A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 363-8, 371-2, 383-8. Roman tiles, bearing the inscription CL. BR., have been found at Bréquerecque, east of Boulogne, on the banks of the Liane; and inscriptions found at Tintelleries and Bréquerecque prove that CL. BR. stands for _classis Britannica_ (_ib._, p. 364, and V. J. Vaillant, _Classis Britannica_, 1888, pp. 16-7).

[2889] A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 367-8.

[2890] _Divus Claudius_, 17.

[2891] _Itin. Ant._, ed. Wesseling, pp. 356-63; A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 387.

[2892] Zosimus (_Hist. Nov._, ed. L. Mendelssohn, 1887, vi, 2, § 2) says that Bononia was the first port to be met with in Germania (Inferior), that is to say, by a traveller coming from the east; and much stress has been laid upon this passage by the advocates of Boulogne: but it only proves what we knew already, namely, that if Wissant had ever been a Gallic port, it fell into complete disuse under the empire.

[2893] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 383.

[2894] _Portus Itius_, p. 12.

[2895] _Chorographia_, iii, 2, § 23.

[2896] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 16 (30), § 102; 23 (37), § 122.

[2897] Napoleon III (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 171-2) maintains that the fact of the great Napoleon’s having selected Boulogne for the embarkation of the troops with which he intended to invade England is a strong argument in favour of Caesar’s having done the same. I lay no stress upon this argument because it is superfluous if it can be shown that Wissant would not have served Caesar’s purpose equally well; and that this has been shown those who have read so far will not deny. It is hardly necessary to add that Boulogne was only one, though the principal, of several ports selected by Napoleon.

[2898] _Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 432. ‘If,’ says Long, ‘it was named Gesoriacum in Caesar’s time, why did he name it Itium?’ The obvious answer is that he did not name it ‘Itium’. He named it, or rather its harbour, _portus Itius_,--‘the Itian harbour,’ or, as Professor Rhys expresses it, ‘the Channel harbour.’

[2899] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 383-4, 473.

[2900] _Dict. arch. de la Gaule_, ii, 45-7.

[2901] _Portus Itius_, p. 19.

[2902] Desjardins also finds it necessary to explain why the name _Gesoriacum_ was succeeded by _Bononia_. His explanation (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 373) is that the port of Gesoriacum was different from the port of Bononia. Remarking that, according to Eumenius (_Paneg. Constantii_, c. vi), the port of Gesoriacum was blocked by the emperor Constantius Chlorus, in order to prevent the escape of Carausias, he says that ‘sans doute’ this port was then abandoned for the new (and hypothetical) port of Bononia, ‘aux Tintelleries,’ further down the Liane. This, he says, explains why the name Bononia was alone used (except in the itineraries) after the time of Constantine. I have noticed that Desjardins uses the words ‘sans doute’ when there is a doubt which he is unable to remove. As he insists that the ports of Bononia and Gesoriacum were different, he must, I think, have been off his guard when he quoted, in support of his contention, an anonymous writer, who mentions the arrival of Constantine at ‘Bononia, which the Gauls originally called Gesoriacum’ (_Bononiam, quam Galli prius Gesoriacum vocabant_ [M. Bouquet, _Recueil des hist. des Gaules_, i, 1738, p. 563B]). And in his own edition of the Peutinger Table (p. 13, col. 2) I find the words _Gesogiaco quod nunc Bononia_.

[2903] _The Reader_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 254.

[2904] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 16 (30), §102.

[2905] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 50, §2.

[2906] Ed. Wesseling, p. 463.

[2907] _The Reader_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 254.

[2908] The arguments of d’Anville, intended to prove that ten maritime stades were equivalent to one Roman mile, may be found in his _Traité des mesures anciennes_, 1769, pp. 71-6. Everybody knows that there were stades of various lengths, one of which was one-tenth of a Roman mile (_Itin. Hierosol._, ed. Wesseling, p. 609); but the stade by which Strabo usually reckoned was one-eighth of a mile (_Geogr._, vii, 7, § 4.--λογιζομένῳ, ὡς μὲν οἱ πολλοί, τὸ μίλιον ὀκταστάδιον. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, ii, 23 [21], § 85.--Stadium centum viginti quinque nostros efficit passus). See J. Wex, _Métrologie grecque et rom._ (trans. P. Mouat), 1886, p. 16; F. Hultsch, _Griech. und röm. Metrologie_, 1882, pp. 49, 59-60; and Ideler in _Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1826 (1829), p. 15; 1827 (1830), p. 127.

[2909] _The Reader_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 254.

[2910] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 174-5.

[2911] Cf. R. Schneider, _Portus Itius_, p. 10. No doubt the ancients did commonly overestimate distances; but any one who had time to go through Strabo could pick out exceptions. Thus he tells us (i, 4, §4) that the distance from Massilia to ‘the middle of Britain’ (εἰς μέσην τὴν Βρεττανικήν) is 5,000 stades, and (ii, 1, §40) that the distance from Carthage to Massilia is not more than 9,000. The latter, _in a straight line_, is about 10,500: the former, measured only as far as Portsmouth Harbour, about 5,200.

[2912] See p. 558, _supra_.

[2913] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, xxvi, 1846, p. 252.

[2914] D. Haigneré, _Étude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 108.

[2915] See also J. F. Henry, _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 190, and _Boulogne-sur-mer et la règion boulonnaise_, i, 369.

[2916] Haigneré (_Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, i, 377) questions whether there is any mention of Ambleteuse as a port earlier than the sixteenth century; but it is certain that a charter was granted to the town in the year 1209. See _Bull. de la Soc. acad. de Boulogne-sur-mer_, i, 1864-72 (1873) pp. 139-46.

[2917] _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 309.

[2918] _B. G._, iv, 37.

[2919] _B. G._, iv, 38, §§1-2.

[2920] See p. 561, _supra_.

[2921] _B. G._, ii, 31-3; v, 39, §3.

[2922] _Ib._, ii, 28; v, 38-9.

[2923] _Ib._, iv, 21, §5; 27; 30.

[2924] _Ib._, iv, 37, §1.--‘About 300 soldiers had landed from these two vessels and were making the best of their way to camp, when the Morini, who had been quite submissive when Caesar left them on his departure for Britain, surrounded them,’ &c. (_Quibus ex navibus cum essent expositi milites circiter CCC atque in castra contenderent, Morini, quos Caesar in Britanniam proficiscens pacatos reliquerat, spe praedae adducti ... circumsteterunt_ &c.)

[2925] See T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xlii.

[2926] See pp. 574-7, _supra_.

[2927] _B. G._, v, 8, §2.

[2928] _B. G._, v, 23, §6; 24, §1.

[2929] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 438-9.

[2930] _Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, pp. 269-70, note (Engl. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note).

[2931] _Julius Caesar_, 1892, p. 196.

[2932] _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 230-1.

[2933] _Pol. Hist. of England_, i, 1906, pp. 23-4.

[2934] _Formae orbis antiqui_, 1894, xxvi.

[2935] _B. G._, iv, 20, § 4. I agree with Meusel in adopting the reading (ad) _maiorem_ (navium multitudinem idonei portus), not _maiorum_. A moment’s reflection will show that we ought to read _maiorem_, even though there is no better _MS._ authority for it than the _codex Vratislaviensis I_. Caesar was not anxious to find out what harbours would accommodate a flotilla of large ships, but what harbours would accommodate a large flotilla. The draught of his ships was so small that when they were aground the men could jump overboard and wade ashore. See _Classical Review_, xv, 1901, p. 176.

[2936] See p. 554, _supra_.

[2937] Mr. H. E. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xxii, 1894, p. 168) remarks that the words _cuius loci haec erat natura atque ita montibus angustis mare continebatur uti ex locis superioribus in litus telum adigi posset_ have been ‘taken as applying to old Dover harbour’. It is true that they have been taken in this sense by commentators who were ignorant of the meaning of _angustis_; but even if they could be interpreted as meaning a creek or inlet hemmed in by precipitous heights, they could not apply to ‘old Dover harbour’, which occupied part of the Priory Valley, and was never hemmed in by ‘precipitous heights’. Hoffmann unnecessarily conjectures that Caesar wrote not _angustis_ but _anguste_.

[2938] See pp. 653-4, _infra_.

[2939] See p. 602, n. 5, _infra_.

[2940] _quae tamen ancoris iactis cum fluctibus complerentur, necessario adversa nocte in altum provectae continentem petierunt_ (_B. G._, iv, 28, §3). The meaning of _adversa nocte_ has been much discussed. According to C. Schneider (_Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, i, 397), who refers to a passage in the _Civil War_, ii, 31, §7--_namque huius modi res aut pudore aut metu tenentur, quibus rebus nox maxime adversaria est_--the word _adversa_ is equivalent to _obstante_, that is to say, ‘being unfavourable to them’: but, assuming that this is the meaning, did Caesar intend to convey that the ships stood out to sea _though_ night was unfavourable to the voyage, or _because_ night was unfavourable to their remaining where they were? I unhesitatingly reject the former alternative, for all Caesar’s voyages between Gaul and Britain were made by night, and, moreover, on this particular night there was a full moon: on the other hand, it would not have been more dangerous to remain at anchor in the night than in the daytime. I agree with Kraner-Dittenberger (_C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1890, p. 85), who hold that, just as _adverso colle_ (_B. G._, ii, 19, §3) means ‘up the hill’, and _adverso flumine_ (_ib._, vii, 60, § 3) ‘up the river’, so _adversa nocte_ means ‘in the face of night’ (‘der Nacht entgegen’, ‘in die Nacht hinein’), a translation which reminds one of Browning’s famous line ‘And into the midnight we galloped abreast’.

[2941] See p. 331, _supra_.

[2942] The meaning of _mollis_ is discussed on p. 630, _infra_.

[2943] See p. 680, _infra_.

[2944] See pp. 661-2, _infra_.

[2945] _B. G._, iv, 20-6, 28-9, 31-6; v, 1, §§ 1-3; 2, §§ 2-3; 5, §§ 1-2; 8-11; 12, § 5; 13; 23.

[2946] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 2.

[2947] See Napoléon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 174.

[2948] The time of the full moon was kindly calculated for me by Messrs. John A. Sprigge, William Frazer Doak, M.A., F.R.A.S., and T. Charlton Hudson, B.A., F.R.A.S., all of the Nautical Almanac Office.

[2948] _B. G._, iv, 28; 29, § 1.

[2950] _Geogr._, iv, 3, § 4.--δίαρμα δ’ ἐστὶν εἰς τὴν Βρεττανικὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ποταμῶν τῆς Κελτικῆς εἴκοσι καὶ τριακόσιοι στάδιοι· ὑπὸ γὰρ τὴν ἄμπωτιν ἀφ’ ἑσπέρας ἀναχθέντες τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ περὶ ὀγδόην ὥραν καταίρουσιν εἰς τὴν νῆσον.

[2951] See T. Bergk’s article in _Jahrbücher für class. Phil._, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 613.

[2952] S. H. Brown, _Diagrams and Tables of Tidal Streams_, &c., 1895, p. 51.

[2953] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 240.

[2954] xliv, 37, §§ 5-6.--C. Sulpicius Gallus ... pronuntiavit nocte proxima, ne quis id pro portento acciperet, ab hora secunda usque ad quartam horam noctis lunam defecturam esse.

[2955] At Sheerness on December 30, 1904, six days before new moon, ‘the tide rose to an extraordinary height [owing to a severe gale], at least 5 ft. above the natural level’ (_Times_, Dec. 31, 1904, p. 4, col. 2). ‘Them tides,’ said an old seaman to me at Dover, ‘is the queerest tides in the world; I’ve seen myself more flow of water at nips than at springs. It all depends on the wind.’

[2956] Napoleon III (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 175), after citing two irrelevant passages, asserts that ‘le _post diem quartum_ de César doit se comprendre dans le sens de quatre jours révolus, sans compter le jour du débarquement’; and then, remarking that the storm broke out on the 30th of August, he concludes that ‘quatre jours pleins s’étaient écoulés depuis le débarquement; cela nous conduit au 26. César prit donc terre le 25 août.’ To make things perfectly clear, let us put the matter in this way:--the orthodox view is that, according to the _common_ Roman method of reckoning, the fourth day after Monday would be Thursday; Napoleon’s view is that it would be Saturday! It is neither profitable nor exciting to slay the slain. I will therefore only remark that Napoleon’s interpretation of the words _post diem quartum_ is peculiar to himself, and that it has been demolished by Merivale (_Contemporary Review_, iii, 1866, pp. 125-6) and, still more effectively, by Heller (_Philologus_, xxvi, 1867, pp. 674-6).

Long (_Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 169), remarking that ‘the Romans sometimes reckoned inclusively and sometimes not’, concludes that ‘the expression “on the fourth day” is ambiguous’. The famous jurist, F. C. von Savigny (_System des heutigen römischen, Rechts_, iv, 1841, pp. 602-16), collected a large number of examples of both methods, which both Merivale and Heller have overlooked; and L. Holzapfel (see p. 719, n. 1, _infra_) shows that Cicero often used the exclusive method, which, for numbers from ten upwards, appears to have been invariable (Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 2nd ed., 1859, p. 163, n. 17, and L. Holzapfel, _Röm. Chron._, 1885, p. 353). Those, however, who are familiar with the language of the _Commentaries_ will have no difficulty in concluding that Caesar himself, in that work, used the inclusive method. In _B. G._, vi, 33, § 4, he writes, _discedens post diem VII sese reversurum confirmat_; and in vi, 35, § 1, _diesque adpetebat VII quem ad diem Caesar ... reverti constituerat_. Therefore, as Merivale observes, ‘_dies VII = post diem VII_.’ See also Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 2nd ed., 1859, p. 163, n. 317; L. Holzapfel, _Röm. Chron._, pp. 353-6; _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 74; and Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 723-5.

[2957] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 186, n. 2.

[2958] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, i, 147, n. 8.

[2959] xl, 1, § 3.

[2960] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 270.

[2961] _B. G._, v, 8, § 3.

[2962] See p. 599, _supra_.

[2963] S. F. Surtees, _Julius Caesar: did he cross the Channel?_ 1866; _Julius Caesar: showing beyond reasonable doubt, that he never crossed the Channel, but sailed from Zeeland, and landed in Norfolk_, 1868.

[2964] J. Wainwright, _Julius Caesar; did he cross the Channel. Reviewed_, 1869.

[2965] _Geogr. der Griechen und Römer_, Zweyter Theil, Zweyter Heft, 1795, p. 29.

[2966] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, 1865, p. 100.

[2967] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, &c., 1868. By F. H. Appach.

[2968] _Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 441.

[2969] _Julius Caesar_, 1892, p. 196, note.

[2970] H. F. Pelham, _Outlines of Roman History_, 1895, p. 257.

[2971] _Julius Caesar_, p. 196.

[2972] See pp. 518-52, _supra_.

[2973] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, pp. 235, 237; _Origines Celticae_, ii, 366. Dr. Guest’s notions about the Thames were perhaps incorrect. See p. 696, _infra_.

[2974] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 61, 63-4.

[2975] _Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 57.

[2976] This, as I have shown, is an assumption which we have no right to make.

[2977] _The Cinque Ports_, p. 8.

[2978] I have already shown (pp. 528-30, _supra_) that this estimate is enormously exaggerated.

[2979] _Athenæum_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 303.

[2980] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 241.

[2981] See pp. 601-2, _supra_.

[2982] _Archaeologia_, xli, 1867, p. 272.

[2983] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lxxxi-lxxxiii.

[2984] _Ib._, p. lxxxvi.

[2985] _Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, p. 172.

[2986] _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, p. 289.

[2987] _Ib._, pp. 300-2.

[2988] ‘Winds,’ says Beechey (_ib._, xxxiv, 1852, p. 239), ‘greatly affect the time of turn of the stream.’ ‘Strong winds,’ says Mr. S. H. Brown, Trinity House Pilot (_Diagrams and Tables of Tidal Streams_, &c., 1895, p. 4), accelerate and prolong the stream running in the same direction, retard the opposing stream,’ &c. See also _The Channel Pilot_, part i, 1900, p. 541, from which we learn that ‘on some occasions ... 8 hours north-eastern and only 4 hours south-western streams have been found’.

[2989] _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, p. 290.

[2990] _Ib._, pp. 290, 294, 301.

[2991] According to Admiral Smyth (_ib._, p. 301), 6 hours and 5¾ hours respectively.

[2992] Part i, 1900, p. 354.

[2993] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lxxxiv, lxxxvi.

[2994] _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, pp. 290, 294.

[2995] It is remarkable that most of the writers who have dealt with the question of Caesar’s landing-place should have taken so little pains to inform themselves about the tides. Thus Cardwell, who was in 1860 Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford, says that ‘If you know what was the time of high-water at Folkestone at any full moon during the present year, you know the time of high-water at the same place whenever the moon was full a hundred or a thousand years ago. It is also a fact that each successive tide is later by twenty-five minutes than the one which had preceded it’ (_Archaeol. Cant._, iii, 1860, p. 7). Both these statements are grossly inaccurate, as the professor might have seen if he had taken the trouble to devote half an hour to the study of the _Admiralty Tide Tables_. Thus, taking the August full moon of the years 1883-1900, the time of high tide at Folkestone varied between 11.5 a.m. in 1896 and 10.17 a.m. in 1900; while the time of high tide of the fifth day before the full moon varied between 6.21 a.m. in 1893 and 4.46 a.m. in 1898; and high tide on the morning of August 19, 1896, was 90 minutes later than high tide on the morning of August 18, not 50 minutes, as it should have been according to Cardwell. If he had said that ‘_on the average_ each successive tide is later by twenty-five minutes than the one which had preceded it’, he would have told the truth.

[2996] See p. 666, _infra_.

[2997] On the day when the stream turned westward soonest--only 3 hours 40 minutes after high water--the force of the wind was all but imperceptible (_Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, p. 290).

[2998] See p. 608, n. 3, _supra_.

[2999] See p. 608, n. 3, _supra_.

[3000] See pp. 600-1, _supra_.

[3001] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236.

[3002] _Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, pp. 141-2.

[3003] See the note at the end of Airy’s article in _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852; Sir C. Lyell, _Principles of Geology_, 1875, p. 534; and _Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, clix, 1905, p. 129.

[3004] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 239, 242.

[3005] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 2.

[3006] Viscount Wolseley, _The Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, p. 491.--‘Good eye-sight can distinguish bodies of troops at 2,000 yards; at that distance a man or horse appears like a dot; at 1,200 yards cavalry is distinguished from infantry,’ &c. I am aware that in certain primitive districts, for instance the islands of Inishbofin and Inishshank off the coast of Galway, the average range of vision is abnormally great (_Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iii, 1893-5, p. 324); but we may reasonably assume that Caesar could not see eight or nine times as far as a modern Englishman.

[3007] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xxxiv.

[3008] See p. 610, _supra_, and _Tide Tables for the British and Irish Ports_, p. 225.

[3009] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 239.--‘At full and change of the moon,’ says Admiral Beechey, ‘close in shore off Hastings the stream turns to the west at 11^h; but the turn becomes later as the distance off shore increases, and at 5 miles distance the stream turns to the west at 1^h.... The stream runs to the west about 6½ hours,’ &c.

[3010] Airy himself, as we have seen, makes no allowance for any variation which may have been produced by wind or other causes from the normal hour of the turn of the stream. I am willing to make any reasonable allowance; but the intelligent reader will have seen that no such allowance would disturb the conclusion which I have reached in the text.

[3011] See pp. 648-9, _infra_.

[3012] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

[3013] _Ib._

[3014] According to Falconer’s Marine Dictionary, 1815, p. 220, the lee-way of a ship in a gale varies from 5½ to 6½ points. The amount of course depends upon the force of the gale, the build of the ship, and other circumstances.

[3015] See Addenda, p. 740.

[3016] I need hardly say that if Caesar’s transports had been anchored off Pevensey on the night of the full moon a north-north-easterly gale could not have driven them ashore unless they had been inside the harbour, which Caesar would have mentioned.

[3017] Instead of ‘eight’ Airy should of course have written ‘seven’.

[3018] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 239, 241-2.

[3019] Lewin (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xxxii-xxxiii) points out that if Caesar approached the British coast anywhere near Pevensey, ‘he must have anchored, in the first instance, somewhere off the high cliffs between Hastings and Cliff’s End,’ because at no point between Hastings and Pevensey are the ‘precipitous heights’ off which he anchored to be found. But, continues Lewin, if he anchored at any point between Hastings and Cliff’s End, ‘eight Roman miles would not carry him so far as Pevensey Marsh.’ [For ‘eight’ read ‘seven’.]

[3020] _Athenæum_, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 338.

[3021] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xxiv-xxv.

[3022] _Athenæum_, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 338.

[3023] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xxvi.

[3024] E. A. Freeman’s _Norman Conquest_, iii, 532-4; _Journal of Philology_, xx, 1892, pp. 63-4.

[3025] See p. 571, _supra_.

[3026] When Professor Ridgeway resuscitated Airy’s theory, he found himself called upon to meet the objection which we have just considered. Mr. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, pp. 197-8) told him that Caesar would never have landed ‘opposite the Great Wealden Forest, where resistance would be easy and supplies scarce’. The professor replied (_ib._, p. 206) that a passage in Caesar’s narrative proves that he _did_ land opposite the Wealden Forest. The passage will be found in the ninth chapter of Caesar’s Fifth Book, in which he describes the combat which took place on the banks of a stream, about 12 miles from his camp, the day after his second landing. The Britons, on being driven from the banks, withdrew into woods (_repulsi ab equitatu se in silvas abdiderunt_). Mr. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xx, 1892, p. 63) makes the obvious reply:--‘All that Caesar tells us is that there were woods in which the Britons took refuge ... but Caesar does not lead us to believe that he landed in a place where his march inland was barred by an all but impenetrable forest 30 to 40 miles wide.’

[3027] _Athenæum_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 302.

[3028] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 240.

[3029] Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 553.

[3030] _Ib._, p. 553.

[3031] _Journal of Philology_, xx, 1892, p. 197.

[3032] The late arrival of some of Caesar’s ships (_B. G._, iv, 23, § 4) can only be accounted for on the assumption that during the voyage the wind shifted to an unfavourable quarter,--an assumption which is verified by Caesar’s express statement (iv, 26, § 5) that the cavalry transports were unable ‘to make the island’, and had to put back.

[3033] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., pp. 35-6.

[3034] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 2-4.

[3035] _Ib._, vii, 57, § 4; 58, §§ 1-2.

[3036] _Ib._, v, 8, § 2.

[3037] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., p. 33.

[3038] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xxvii-xxviii.

[3039] See _Tidal Streams_, &c., and _Admiralty Tide Tables_, pp. 112-3, 119.

[3040] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-2.

[3041] _Athenæum_, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 338.

[3042] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xxvii.

[3043] _B. G._, v, 11, §§ 8-9.

[3044] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 240.

[3045] _B. G._, v, 2, § 3.

[3046] _Ib._, 23, §§ 5-6.

[3047] _Att._, vi, 8, § 4.

[3048] _Aen._, v, 763-4.

[3049] _Ib._, vii, 6-7.

[3050] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., pp. 31, 34-5.

[3051] Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, _Correspondence of Cicero_, iii, 1890, p. 246, note.

[3052] _Att._, x, 18, § 1.

[3053] _B. G._, iii, 15, § 3.

[3054] _Tranquillitas_, in the singular, does of course sometimes mean ‘fine weather’: but in such cases the context makes the meaning clear; and if Caesar had intended to express this meaning, he would, as his _usus loquendi_ shows, have written _nactus idoneam ad navigandum tempestatem_. Cf. H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, ii, 689.

[3055] _Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, p. 205.

[3056] According to Jean Brant of Antwerp, who published an edition of the _Commentaries_ in 1606, some scholars affirmed that _XXXX_ was to be found in ‘good _MSS._’ (_C. I. Caesaris quae exstant_, ed. G. Jungermann, 1606, p. 501 of notes): but this vague statement, which C. Schneider (_Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, p. 10) naturally discredits, is incapable of confirmation. The reading _XXXX_ is not attested in any critical edition.

[3057] See p. 558, _supra_.

[3058] _Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, pp. 205-6.

[3059] _Ib._, xx, 1892, p. 63.

[3060] _Ib._, xix, 1891, pp. 197-8.

[3061] See _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

[3062] See pp. 574-7, 616, _supra_.

[3063] _Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, pp. 210-1.

[3064] Caesar’s men certainly did not begin to row at 3 a.m. Daybreak did not occur before 3.15; and, as Mr. Peskett remarks (ib., xx, 1892, p. 198), ‘the starting on the right course with the turn of the tide of a large and probably somewhat scattered fleet is not a momentary act which you can assign to a particular minute of the day.’

[3065] _B. G._, v, 8, § 5.

[3066] _Ib._, iv, 23, § 2.

[3067] _Ib._, v, 8, § 3.

[3068] See _Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, pp. 206-10.

[3069] As a matter of fact it would have been against them much longer. See _Admiralty Tide Tables_, pp. 112, 115, 118, and S. H. Brown, _Diagrams and Tables_, &c., 1895.

[3070] The professor denies that Caesar’s men could have taken all the time from daybreak to noon to row with the tide from a point off the South Foreland to Romney Marsh; and, on the assumption that they landed on the eastern end of the marsh, he is unquestionably right. But there is no evidence that they began to row at daybreak (see p. 620, n. 3, _supra_): we are not obliged to assume that because _all_ the ships, including stragglers, had reached Britain by about noon, rowing went on in all till twelve o’clock; and the professor would have done better to conclude, not that they rowed to Pevensey, but that they drifted as far as the latitude of Deal, and rowed to a point on the eastern coast of Kent.

[3071] The theory that Caesar landed between St. Leonards and Bulverhythe, which was advocated by R. C. Hussey (_Archaeol. Cant._, i, 1858, pp. 94-110), requires no comment; for the same arguments that are fatal to Airy’s theory are fatal also to it.

[3072] See p. 609, _supra_.

[3073] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. ciii.

[3074] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 364-5.

[3075] I have reproduced the relevant part of Lewin’s map on the map facing p. 531.

[3076] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxxv.

[3077] _Ib._, pp. lxxiii-lxxiv.

[3078] _B. G._, iv, 26, § 5.

[3079] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxxiv.

[3080] _Ib._, p. xciii.

[3081] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxxiv.

[3082] _B. G._, v, 11, § 5.

[3083] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 87.

[3084] _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

[3085] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. cxxiii. If the reader will consult Lewin’s map in _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p. 369, or my reproduction of it, he will see that even if Lewin’s final view of the topography of Hythe harbour could be accepted (see pp. 547-8, _supra_), the absurdities involved in his theory of Caesar’s disembarkation would still remain.

[3086] I mean of course that this would have been their true course.

[3087] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 59-60.

[3088] Information supplied by Commander Boxer, R.N., Harbour-Master at Folkestone.

[3089] See Falconer’s _Marine Dictionary_, 1815, p. 220.

[3090] The harbour-master of Dover, who fully endorses my argument, thinks that four points would be a fair estimate.

[3091] See p. 613, _supra_.

[3092] See pp. 606-11, _supra_.

[3093] _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, pp. 309-311.

[3094] See p. 611, _supra_.

[3095] _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, p. 307.

[3096] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxxxix.

[3097] _Ib._, p. 31

[3098] _Ib._, p. xlviii.

[3099] See p. 632, _infra_.

[3100] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 39-40.

[3101] This statement, as Caesar’s narrative (_B. G._, iv, 26, § 5) shows, is incorrect; and Lewin himself corrects it when he says (p. xlvii) that on the day of Caesar’s first voyage ‘the eighteen transports ... set sail, according to orders, but had been forced to put back by stress of weather’.

[3102] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xlvi-xlvii.

[3103] In regard to Caesar’s use of the word _nanciscor_, see H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, ii, 688-9. Long (_Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 434), commenting on the inference which Lewin draws from the word _nactus_, says that ‘this is not a certain conclusion’, and quotes _B. G._, v, 9, § 4 (_repulsi ab equitatu se in silvas abdiderunt, locum nacti egregie et natura et opere munitum, quem domestici belli, ut videbatur, causa iam ante praeparaverant_). I doubt whether this passage is relevant.

[3104] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 39-40.

[3105] Lewin afterwards saw that if Caesar landed at Hythe, he could not have anchored off Dover, and accordingly transferred his anchorage to a point off Folkestone. See p. 635, _infra_.

[3106] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 33-4.

[3107] _Ib._, p. xc.

[3108] I am glad to find that Heller (_Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 111) has anticipated my argument.

[3109] Obviously it would have been invisible if Caesar had anchored off Dover. See n. 1, _supra_.

[3110] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 5.

[3111] p. 629, _infra_.

[3112] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 44.

[3113] _Pharsalia_, ii, 571-2.

[3114] _Caesar_, 16.

[3115] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 2.

[3116] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. cxxi.

[3117] iii, 2, § 23.

[3118] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 43-4.

[3119] _Ib._, Preface (p. vi), p. lxxiii; _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, p. 313.

[3120] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 64-5.

[3121] _Caesar_, 16.

[3122] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 239.

[3123] _Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 166.

[3124] _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

[3125] For the meaning of _molli_ see p. 630, _infra_.

[3126] _Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, 45-6.

[3127] On the meaning of _apertus_, as used by Caesar, cf. H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, i, 283-4. In _B. G._, i, 41, § 4, _loca aperta_ means a country free from woods and other features which would have made marching difficult: in _B. G._, ii, 18, § 2, and vii, 18, § 3, _collis apertus_ means a hill free from woods.

[3128] See _B. G._, ii, 10, § 4; 23, § 2; 27, § 5; v, 32, § 2; 49, § 6; 51, § 1; vi, 8, §§ 1, 3; vii, 45, § 9; 49, § 1; 52, § 2; 53, § 1; 83, § 2; 85, § 4; and numerous passages in the _Civil War_ (cf. H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, ii, 170-2, s.v. _iniquitas_, _iniquus_).

[3129] See pp. 546, 622, _supra_.

[3130] See p. 655, n. 3, _infra_.

[3131] Schneider maintains (_Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, 45-6) that ‘molle idem esse quod leniter acclive, imprimis apto exemplo demonstravit Heldius, 7, 46, _ad molliendum clivum_ non aliter dictum docens’. I do not think that Schneider is right in arguing that _mollis_ should be _translated_ by ‘gently sloping’, though that meaning is doubtless implied. My friend, Professor Postgate, who agrees with me, has kindly referred me to a passage in Ovid (_Ep. ex Ponto_, i, 2, 61-2)--

_Cum subit Augusti quae sit clementia, credo Mollia naufragiis litora posse dari--_

which seems to justify my explanation. Professor Postgate has also written me a most interesting letter, in which he remarks that while _aperto_ describes the approach to the shore, which was not blocked by rocks, _molli_ connotes both a gentle slope and a soft surface: he refers to a passage in Pomponius Mela (i, 19, § 102), where the Black Sea is described as _non molli neque harenoso circumdatus litore_.

[3132] See _Pharsalia_, ed. C. E. Haskins, 1887, p. 67, note to line 571, and cf. Ovid, _Fasti_, iv, 278. The word _incerti_ apparently refers to the tides.

[3133] See C. Kempf’s edition of Valerius Maximus, 1854, pp. 26-33, and _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 96.

[3134] The statements of Plutarch, Dion Cassius, and Valerius Maximus, to which Lewin refers, are as follows:--‘Ἐν δὲ Βρεττανίᾳ τῶν πολεμίων εἰς τόπον ἑλώδη καὶ μεστὸν ὑδάτων ἐμπεσοῦσι τοῖς πρώτοις ταξιάρχοις ἐπιθεμένων στρατιώτης, Καίσαρος αὐτοῦ τὴν μάχην ἐφορῶντος, ὠσάμενος εἰς μέσους καὶ πολλὰ καὶ περίοπτα τόλμης ἀποδειξάμενος ἔργα, τοὺς μὲν ταξιάρχους ἔσωσε, τῶν βαρβάρων φυγόντων, αὐτὸς δὲ χαλεπῶς ἐπὶ πᾶσι διαβαίνων ἔρριψεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς ῥεύματα τελματώδη καὶ μόλις ἄνευ τοῦ θυρεοῦ, τὰ μὲν νηχόμενος, τὰ δὲ βαδίζων, διεπέρασε. Plutarch, _Caesar_, 16. κἀνταῦθα [_i.e._ at the landing-place in 55 B.C.] τοὺς προσμίξαντάς οἱ ἐς τὰ τενάγη ἀποβαίνοντι νικήσας ἔφθη τῆς γῆς κρατήσας, &c. Dion Cassius, xxxix, 51, § 2. Bello quo C. Caesar ... Britannicae insulae caelestis iniecit manus, cum quattuor commilitonibus rate transvectus in scopulum vicinae insulae, quam hostium ingentes copiae obtinebant, postquam aestus regressu suo spatium, quo scopulus et insula dividebantur, in vadum transitu facile redegit, ingenti multitudine barbarorum affluente, ceteris rate ad litus regressis solus immobilem stationis gradum retinens, undique ruentibus telis et ab omni parte acri studio ad te invadendum nitentibus, quinque militum diurno proelio suffectura pila, una dextera hostium corporibus adegisti. Ad ultimum destricto gladio audacissimum quemque modo umbonis impulsu, modo mucronis ictu depellens hinc Romanis, illinc Britannicis oculis incredibili, nisi cernereris, spectaculo fuisti. Postquam deinde ira ac pudor cuncta conari fessos coegit, tragula femur traiectus saxique pondere ora contusus, galea iam ictibus discussa et scuto crebris foraminibus absumpto, profundo te credidisti ac duabus loricis onustus inter undas, quas hostili cruore infeceras, enatasti, visoque imperatore armis non amissis, sed bene impensis, cum laudem merereris veniam petiisti quod sine scuto rediisses &c. _Factorum et dictorum memorabilium_, iii, 2, § 23.

[3135] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 65, n. 1.

[3136] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 96-7.

[3137] Cf. Herodotus, viii, 129, § 1,--Ἀρταβάζῳ δὲ ἐπειδὴ πολιορκέοντι ἐγεγόνεσαν τρεῖς μῆνες, γίνεται ἄμπωτις τῆς θαλάσσης μεγάλη ... ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ βάρβαροι τέναγος γενόμενοι &c. (‘while Artabazos was besieging the town, there came to be a great ebb of the sea backwards ... and the barbarians, seeing that shallow water had been produced’, &c. [G. C. Macaulay, _The Hist. of Herodotus_, ii, 1890, p. 285]). See also Strabo, iii, 5, § 11,--ὁ ναύκληρος ἑκὼν εἰς τέναγος ἐξέβαλε τὴν ναῦν.

[3138] See p. 654, _infra_.

[3139] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 60, lxx-lxxi, lxxiii, lxxv, xc, cxxi.

[3140] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3.

[3141] _Ib._, 33, § 3.

[3142] It should be noted by the way that Caesar’s remark about ‘steep places’ (_B. G._, iv, 33, § 3) is purely general, and does not necessarily refer to any combat which took place between his troops and the Britons.

[3143] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 59-60.

[3144] According to the map facing p. liii of Lewin’s book, Hythe haven was about 3 miles long, and in many places more than a quarter of a mile broad.

[3145] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 27.

[3146] _Ib._, pp. 87-8, 90.

[3147] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., p. 36.

[3148] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xxix.

[3149] _Ordnance Survey_ (25 inches to one mile), Sheet LV, 11; personal observation.

[3150] _B. G_., vii, 69, § 1.

[3151] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xxx.

[3152] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 2-6.

[3153] _Mém. de litt. tirés des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, xxviii, 1761, p. 408.

[3154] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 1-2.

[3155] _Ib._, v, 8, § 2.

[3156] _Ib._, v, 1, § 2.

[3157] See p. 576, n. 1, _supra_.

[3158] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xcviii. Cf. _Philologus_, xxii. 1865, pp. 305-6.

[3159] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 33, 39-40, xlviii.

[3160] _Ordnance Survey_ (one inch), Sheets 289, 306.

[3161] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xlviii.

[3162] _Ib._, p. 52.

[3163] _Ib._, p. xlviii.

[3164] _B. G._, iv, 20, § 4; 21, § 1.

[3165] _Ib._, 26, § 5.

[3166] _Ib._, 35, § 1.

[3167] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 62.

[3168] See pp. 549-52, _supra_.

[3169] Lewin himself remarks (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lxiv-lxv) that when the marsh was enclosed, it ‘was at the same time intersected by sluices’.

[3170] See p. 623, _supra_.

[3171] Lympne Hill rises 288 feet in 1823, and between Hythe and Seabrook the hill rises 282·2 feet in 1723. See _Ordnance Survey of England_ (6 inches to 1 mile), Sheet LXXIV, SW. and SE. The angles are 9° 5′ 25″ and 9° 25′ 7″ respectively.

[3172] _B. G._, v, 9, § 8. Cf. ii, 11, §§ 2-3.

[3173] _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, pp. 305-6.

[3174] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

[3175] ‘A little lower down and more towards the west.’

[3176] ... ‘one side is opposite Gaul. One corner of this side, by Kent--the point which almost all ships from Gaul make for--has an easterly, and the lower one a southerly outlook.’

[3177] _B. G._, iv, 32.

[3178] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 56, 62-4.

[3179] See pp. 546, 622, _supra_.

[3180] See pp. 622-3, _supra_.

[3181] _Julius Caesar_, 1892, p. 196.

[3182] _Outlines of Roman History_, 3rd ed., 1900, p. 257, n. 2.

[3183] See pp. 605-11, _supra_.

[3184] _Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, pp. 167-78.

[3185] See pp. 622-4, _supra_.

[3186] See pp. 535-7, 545-9, _supra_.

[3187] _B. G._, vii, 83, § 2. Cf. 85, § 4,--_exiguum_ [v.l. _iniquum_] _loci ad declivitatem fastigium magnum habet momentum_ (‘a slight downward inclination of the ground has a great effect’).

[3188] _Ib._, v, 9, § 1.

[3189] See p. 539, n. 7, _supra_.

[3190] See p. 640, n. 4, _infra_.

[3191] See p. 629, _supra_.

[3192] _Six-inch Ordnance Survey_,--Kent, Sheet LXXIII, SE.

[3193] _C. J. Caesars Brit. Expeditions_, pp. 72-3, § 6.

[3194] See pp. 543-5, 551-2, _supra_.

[3195] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 138, § 1

[3196] _Ib._, p. 49, §§ 4-5.

[3197] See W. Topley, _Geology of the Weald_, pp. 402-3, and R. Furley, _Hist. of the Weald of Kent_, i, 12, and map facing p. 26. The strip of country extending two or three miles northward from Hurst to Kennardington is still thickly covered by woods: no less than eleven are named on the One-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheet 305).

[3198] Furley (_ib._, p. 13, n. *) has noted this objection. Lewin would perhaps have argued that the buildings were in Romney Marsh, as he finally concluded that the marsh had perhaps been enclosed by the Britons in pre-Roman times; but the absurdity of this theory has been already demonstrated. See pp. 549-52, _supra_.

[3199] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, pp. 48, 65, § 14. Appach (_op. cit._, pp. 56, § 5, 71, §§ 3-4) assumed that Caesar in 55 B.C. steered for Hythe, intending to land there if the Britons were friendly, and otherwise to sail either to Deal or Bonnington; that he was ‘of course completely ignorant of the turn of the stream in the Channel’; that while he was at anchor he gave orders for a landing at Deal; but that when the stream turned westward he changed his mind and issued new orders for a landing at Bonnington! Appach failed to see that since Caesar, when he was at anchor, saw how the stream was running, Volusenus could have done the same. To say that Caesar was ‘completely ignorant’ is to assume that Volusenus was a fool. Besides, did not Caesar’s Gallic seamen know the Channel by heart?

[3200] _B. G._, v, 13, § 1.

[3201] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, pp. 69-70, § 1.

[3202] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 3.

[3203] In _B. G._, vii, 36, § 2, Caesar describes the various elevated points of the mountain mass of Gergovia by the words _omnibus eius iugi collibus_, though they could not be called separate hills; and Long (_Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 438, note), referring to _B. G._, iii, 18, § 8, remarks that ‘“fossae” often signifies every part of a “fossa” which surrounds a camp’.

[3204] Viewed from the sea about half a mile off the Foreland, there are eight. See p. 736, _infra_.

[3205] The steepest rises 282·2 feet in 1723, forming an angle of 9° 25′ 7″ (p. 636, n. 1, _supra_).

[3206] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, pp. 77-8, § 6.

[3207] _Ib._, pp. 75, note a, 78-9, § 7.

[3208] See G. Dowker in _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, p. 58, and his _Coast Erosion_, p. 3.

[3209] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 2.

[3210] _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 102, § 5.

[3211] I am glad to find that Heller (_Philologus_, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10) has anticipated my argument. If, he remarks, the Romans had already known where Caesar’s landing-place was, the expression _sub sinistra_, coupled with _Britanniam relictam_, might have been superfluous; but it was precisely from these words that they first learned whereabouts to look for it.

[3212] Ἀννίβας δὲ παραδόξως, τοὺς μὲν χρήμασι πείσας τῶν Κελτῶν, τοὺς δὲ βιασάμενος, ἧκε μετὰ τῶν δυνάμεων, δεξιὸν ἔχων τὸ Σαρδόνιον πέλαγος, ἐπὶ τῶν τοῦ Ῥοδανοῦ διάβασιν. Polybius, iii, 41, § 7. Even the best modern historians, in trying to bring a scene vividly before the imagination, sometimes mention geographical facts which are known to everybody.

[3213] See p. 656, _infra_.

[3214] See p. 616, _supra_.

[3215] See Th. Mommsen, _Chronica minora_, iii, 1898, p. 114, and _La Grande Encyclopédie_, xxiv, 927.

[3216] Iulius Caesar ... venit ad Brittanniam cum sexaginta ciulis, et tenuit in ostium Tamesis, in quo naufragium perpessae sunt naves illius dum ipse pugnabat apud Dolobellum, qui erat proconsul regi Brittannico &c. (_Chronica minora_, ed. Th. Mommsen, iii, 1898, p. 162). Besides _apud_ there is another reading, _contra_; and one _MS._ has _Dorobellum_ instead of _Dolobellum_. Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his fabulous account of Caesar’s first invasion (_Hist. Brittonum_, iv, 3), says that ‘Cassibellaunus’ came _ad Dorobellum oppidum_. It is not surprising that an uneducated writer like S. Pritchard (_Hist. of Deal_, pp. 1, 10, 39) should assure his readers that Caesar called his landing-place _Dola_; but when a scholar like Dr. Guest (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 242) gravely points to ‘the use of the phrase “apud dolo”’ in the Vatican _MS._ of Nennius, and argues that _dolo_ means Deal, I am amazed. The reading _dolo_ is not so much as mentioned in Mommsen’s _apparatus criticus_; but let us provisionally accept it, and then consider how Dr. Guest would have construed the passage:--_Iulius Caesar ... pugnabat apud Dolo, qui erat proconsul regi Brittannico_ &c. _Dolo_, says Dr. Guest, means Deal; _Dolo_, says Nennius, was _proconsul_, or commander-in-chief, under the British king. Whatever Nennius may have written, it is clear that he believed Caesar to have landed somewhere on the north of the South Foreland, and probably on the coast of East Kent; for, as Battely pointed out (_Antiquitates Rutupinae_, 1711, p. 46), the mouth of the Thames, in which Nennius places the landing, had a wider signification in the Middle Ages than it has now; and William of Malmesbury (_De gestis Pontificum Anglorum_, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, 1870, lib. ii, § 73 [p. 140]) actually made it extend as far as Dover.

[3217] _Le Roman de Brut_, ed. Le Roux de Lincy, 1836, vv. 4651-3.

[3218] _Itin._, vii, 1744, p. 127 (116-7). See also Camden’s _Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, i, 218.

[3219] According to Geoffrey of Monmouth (_Hist. Brittonum_, iv, 3, 9) and Matthew Paris (_Chronica Majora_, ed. H. R. Luard, pp. 72-4), who seems to have copied Geoffrey’s amusing fable, Caesar landed _in ostium Tamensis fluminis_ on the occasion of his first expedition, and, when he invaded Britain for the third time (!), in the harbour of Richborough (_in Rutupi portu_).

[3220] _B. G._, iv, 20, § 4; 21, §§ 1-2, 5-8.

[3221] See p. 635, _supra_, and F. H. Appach, _C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 47, §§ 4, 6. Appach observes that at Dover ‘there was a very fine harbour’, but that it was ‘probably dangerous to enter in bad weather’. But the fact remains that it was continually entered; and when Caesar sailed to Britain the weather was good.

[3222] It is possible that the reason why Caesar approached Britain a little eastward of Dover harbour was that he intended to run into the harbour on the ebb, or westerly-going stream. Long (_Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 438), like Appach, fatuously remarks that Caesar ‘was ignorant of the turn of the stream in the Channel’. See p. 641, n. 1, _supra_.

[3223] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, p. 29.

[3224] _Hist. of the War in the Peninsula_, i, 1851, pp. 120-1.

[3225] See E. B. Hamley, _Operations of War_, 1878, p. 221, and C. Oman, _Hist. of the Peninsular War_, i, 1902, pp. 228-9.

[3226] This appears to have been Kiepert’s view (see his large wall-map of Gaul). But even if Caesar had anchored off Kingsdown, he would have first reached Britain (_attigit Britanniam_) off the South Foreland.

[3227] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 4.

[3228] _Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, p. 174.

[3229] See pp. 638-9, _supra_.

[3230] See pp. 605-11, _supra_. Heller (_Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 116-25), after an elaborate argument, which, if his premisses are correct, is unanswerable, arrives at the conclusion that, assuming high water to have occurred at Dover on the 27th of August, 55 B.C., at 7.31 a.m., the stream off Dover turned between 4.26 and 5.21 p.m.; and that, as the turn must have been accelerated by the favourable wind which Caesar mentions (_B. G._, iv, 23, § 6), ‘one may say, without fear of error, that the stream turned at 4.26 p.m.’: but it is unnecessary to examine his argument, because he was not acquainted with the results of the observations which, as we have seen, were made in 1862 by Surveyor Calver.

Neither have I taken any notice of the argument by which the late Professor Cardwell (_Archaeol. Cant._, iii, 1860, pp. 14-7) endeavoured to prove that if high tide had occurred at Dover on the day of Caesar’s landing at 7.31 a.m., he must at 3 p.m. ‘have gone up Channel on the first of the flood and proceeded to the eastward’; for the evidence upon which the professor relied has been shown by Airy (_Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, pp. 304-6) to have been misleading.

[3231] See pp. 600-3, _supra_.

[3232] _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, p. 290.

[3233] See p. 608, _supra_.

[3234] Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 553. In the latitude of Paris the ninth hour lasted on the 26th of August till 3.27 p.m.

[3235] See pp. 610-1, _supra_.

[3236] See H. Houssaye, _Waterloo_, 38th ed., 1902, pp. 195, n. 4, 275, n. 2, 277, n. 2, 313, n. 1, 366, n. 1, 413, n. 1. These discrepancies arose, I presume, from lapses of memory.

[3237] Cf. _B. G._, v, 13, § 4.

[3238] Cf. Varro, _De lingua Latina_, vi, 89.

[3239] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 127. Heller’s argument may be summarized as follows:--Caesar does not say that he weighed anchor in the ninth hour; had he done so, he would not have used the words ‘weighing anchor’ (_sublatis ancoris_) in the later passage in which he describes how he quitted his anchorage: he only says that he waited at anchor till the ninth hour for the overdue ships. Meanwhile, as he tells us, he issued his orders to the officers of the vessels which had already arrived; and, as orders had also to be given to the captains who were late in arriving, and they were obliged, after receiving their orders, to get back to their ships, delay was inevitable. That the turn of the stream did not take place until after the ninth hour is to be inferred from Caesar’s having used the words (His dimissis et ventum et aestum) _uno tempore_ (nactus secundum), which refer only to _et ventum et aestum_ (_Philologus_, xxii, 1865, p. 308).

Dr. Guest (_Origines Celticae_, ii, 347, note) puts the matter well. ‘_In anchoris exspectare dum_ can only,’ he observes, ‘mean, to wait at anchor for the happening of the event. If we add the words _ad horam nonam_, surely we make the ninth hour the limit, not of lying at anchor, but of waiting for the event.... Caesar probably steered for Dover with the view of landing his men as the vessels came in, but finding his landing opposed, he awaited the arrival of his other vessels _in anchoris_, _i.e._ in the roadstead. The emphasis [laid on _in anchoris_] marks the change of plan occasioned by the unexpected opposition he met with.’

[3240] Lewin, indeed, objects (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xci) that ‘had another interval of two hours occurred [after the ninth hour] Caesar could not fail to have mentioned it’. But, in the first place, as the reader will have seen, it is unnecessary to assume that the interval lasted as long as two hours, or even one; and, in the second place, there was no reason why Caesar should mention it, except for the benefit of stupid readers, whom he invariably left to their own devices. Some interval there must have been unless the captains of the laggard ships were left without the instructions which had been given to the rest.

[3241] See pp. 610-1, _supra_.

[3242] If, then, he really did weigh anchor in the ninth hour, and if in the ninth hour the stream was running down the Channel on the 26th of August, he must have landed on the 25th; and it has been shown (p. 600-3, _supra_) that he may have done so.

[3243] George Long, who was a very able man, was nevertheless capable, if hard pressed in controversy, of writing sheer nonsense. Having only the most superficial knowledge of the tides, he submissively accepted the assertion that, at the time when Caesar weighed anchor off the Kentish cliffs, the stream was running westward; yet he insisted that Caesar landed at Deal! Let him speak for himself. ‘When Caesar says that the tide (_aestus_) was favourable, he means that he had water sufficient to keep near the shore. There is only one meaning of _aestus_ in Caesar.... Caesar says that he went with wind and tide favourable. If “tide” means stream, his statement is not true. If he means by “tide” what I have said--and there is not the least doubt of that--I should like some sufficient reason to be given why he could not go to Deal, though the stream was against him’ (_The Reader_, Sept. 5, 1863, pp. 254-5). This singular argument was demolished with somewhat needless vigour by Dr. Guest (_Origines Celticae_, ii, 1883, pp. 364-5). If in the often quoted passage, _longius delatus aestu orta luce sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit_, the word _aestus_ does not mean ‘the tidal _stream_’, it means nothing. That it does mean what I have said Long virtually admits when, in his edition of the _Commentaries_ (p. 225), commenting on this very passage, he observes that Caesar ‘was carried out of his course by the flood tide’.

[3244] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 6.

[3245] _Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 434.

[3246] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 129. See also _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 238.

[3247] See H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, ii, 1245-7.

[3248] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 2.--ἄκραν οὖν τινα προέχουσαν περιπλεύσας, &c.

[3249] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 52.

[3250] See pp. 558, 582-3, 613, 618-9, 624-5, 639, 643, _supra_.

[3251] This statement has been approved by Commander Boxer, R.N., Harbour-Master of Folkestone, to whom I submitted it. See Addenda, p. 740.

[3252] In March, 1898, a north-easterly gale sent the waves rushing over the sea-wall at Deal and across the road. W. H. Wheeler, _The Sea-Coast_, 1902, p. 301. Cf. C. Seymour; _New Topographical ... Survey of Kent_, 1776, p. 410.

[3253] See p. 329, _supra_.

[3254] See p. 614, _supra_.

[3255] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c., p. 29.

[3256] See pp. 644-7, _supra_.

[3257] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 240-1.

[3258] See pp. 309, 645, _supra_.

[3259] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xc.

[3260] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 5. On p. lxxv Lewin himself maintains that Caesar, before he sailed from Gaul, ‘was well enough informed of the smaller havens on the British coast,’ &c.

[3261] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 6.

[3262] See _One-Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 290.

[3263] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xciii; _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, pp. 312-3.

[3264] _Ib._, p. 313.

[3265] _Ib._; _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 50. Dr. Guest, on the other hand, maintains (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 239) that ‘the marshy lands off Deal’ correspond exactly with Caesar’s description. Caesar does not describe any marshy lands.

[3266] _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863. p. 313.

[3267] See pp. 523-5, _supra_.

[3268] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3.

[3269] _Ib._, § 2.

[3270] See p. 629, _supra_.

[3271] ‘PLANUS proprie est aequus ... in quo nihil eminet,’ &c. (Forcellini, _Totius latinitatis lexicon_, iv, 1868, p. 695). That the shore where Caesar landed was only relatively _planum_ is proved by the existence of the ‘shallow places’ (_vada_), the situation of which was known to the Britons but not to the Romans (_B. G._, iv, 26, § 2).

[3272] See pp. 630-1, _supra_.

[3273] iii, 2, § 23.

[3274] T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. li, 87.

[3275] G. B. Gattie, _Memorials of the Goodwin Sands_, 1890, p. 297, note.

[3276] _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 302.

[3277] _B. G._, iv, 28.

[3278] See p. 536, n. 1, _supra_.

[3279] See pp. 600-1, _supra_.

[3280] _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, pp. 302-3.

[3281] See p. 643, _supra_.

[3282] See p. 616, _supra_.

[3283] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

[3284] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 82, xcii. Lewin also remarks that ‘had he been making for Deal, he would in drifting up channel have been advancing in the right direction’. This remark is only worth noticing as an instance of Lewin’s ignorance. Any one who has the most rudimentary knowledge of the tidal streams will see that once Caesar had drifted past the Foreland, the stream would have carried him further and further away from Deal.

[3285] _Archaeologia_, xxxiii, 1851, p. 242.

[3286] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xcii.

[3287] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xcii.

[3288] _Tidal Streams, English and Irish Channels._

[3289] Not more than about three-quarters of the whole drift, according to the harbour-master of Dover.

[3290] See p. 576, n. 1, _supra_.

[3291] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xcii.

[3292] See pp. 728-30, _infra_.

[3293] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119; _Tidal Streams_, &c. Lewin tells us, in another passage (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 82-3) that, according to the captain of one of the steamers running between Folkestone and Boulogne, ‘the maximum drift for a single tide, _i.e._ for the six hours that the stream runs in the same direction, is eighteen miles, and the minimum nine miles.’ ‘The fleet,’ he adds, ‘was heavily freighted, and therefore, sinking deep into the water, would receive the full shock of the tide ... the expedition was on the very day of the full moon [which he wrongly assigns to the 18th instead of the 21st of July], when, of course, it was a spring tide. The drift, therefore, would be the maximum or near it. Now, if we draw a straight line from Boulogne to Limne, and then a line of sixteen miles, or thereabouts, at right angles to it up the channel, it will take us to a point off the South Foreland.’

It will be observed that Lewin here assumes that Caesar was steering not for Hythe but for Lympne, and accordingly he is forced to make the length of the drift sixteen instead of twelve miles! Facts, from his point of view, were rather elastic than stubborn things. The expedition did not take place ‘on the very day of the full moon’, but about the time of new moon (see p. 729, _infra_). This mistake, indeed, is immaterial; but the estimate of eighteen miles is, as we have seen, greatly exaggerated; and, moreover, Lewin forgets that Caesar’s ships did not drift for the whole of one tide, but only from ‘about midnight’ till ‘daybreak’.

In a footnote to p. 82 he says that, according to ‘an experienced pilot’, a loaded vessel ‘would drift about 12 or 14 miles in the six hours, when the tide is at its greatest velocity’. Yes,--‘in the six hours’; but not in four hours. And even 12 miles is an excessive estimate. ‘As a rough general rule,’ says Admiral Sir Frederick Bedford (_The Sailor’s Pocket-Book_, 8th ed., 1898, pp. 232-3), ‘in the fair way of both the Irish and English Channels a vessel will be carried nine miles by the stream in a whole tide at Springs.’

[3294] _Comm. de C. I. Caesaris bellis_, vol. ii, p. 41; _C. I. Caesaris b. G., libri VII_, ed. A. Doberenz and B. Dinter, vol. ii, p. 40.

[3295] The direction of the ebb stream between the Goodwins and the shore varies between SW. and SW. ½ W. magnetic, or, approximately, between SW. by S. ½ S. and SSW. true; and its rate at springs varies from 1½ to 3 knots. _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 113.

[3296] The late George Dowker (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 67-8, 70) maintained that Caesar drifted ‘at the back of the Goodwin beyond the North Foreland’, and that he ‘returned on the other side of the Goodwin’, and anchored off Stonar. On this theory it is impossible to account for the efforts which the rowers were obliged to make; and, as I have shown (pp. 575-6, _supra_), it is impossible that Caesar should have drifted beyond the North Foreland.

[3297] See pp. 525-8, _supra_.

[3298] See pp. 574-7, _supra_.

[3299] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

[3300] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 124; _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10.

[3301] See p. 576, n. 1, _supra_.

[3302] _Ib._

[3303] I have not thought it necessary to have a calculation made of the hour of high tide at Dover on the 7th of July. Whether the stream turned a little earlier or later than 4.30 a.m. is unimportant. Every one admits that it turned not very long after daybreak.

[3304] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

[3305] See p. 657, _supra_.

[3306] General von Göler apparently thought that Caesar had gone through the channel, between the North and the South Goodwins, which is known as ‘the Swash’ (see his map,--_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, Taf. 1). It is extremely doubtful whether this channel existed in 54 B.C.

[3307] See S. T. S. Lecky, _Wrinkles in Practical Navigation_, 1884, p. 414.

[3308] See the caution in the Atlas entitled _Tidal Streams_.

[3309] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 243-4, 246.

[3310] _B. G._, v, 18, § 1.

[3311] _The Reader_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 255.

[3312] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 241.

[3313] In 1905 in the parish of Walmer alone three fields were planted with wheat, one of which, as I was informed by Mr. J. W. Minter of the Railway Hotel, covered eighteen acres. Moreover, as Mr. H. E. Malden observes (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, pp. 170-1), ‘marks of ancient cultivation on the sides of downs, where no farmer would think of ploughing now, are common enough everywhere.’ See also A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 235, and p. 90, _supra_.

[3314] _Ordnance Survey of England_, 6 inches to 1 mile, Sheet LVIII.

[3315] _B. G._, iv, 32, §§ 3-4.

[3316] See pp. 697-8, _infra_.

[3317] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-2.

[3318] _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 303.

[3319] _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10.

[3320] _B. G._, vi, 34, 43.

[3321] _Athenæum_, Feb. 27, 1869, p. 317.

[3322] _B. G._, v, 12, § 5.

[3323] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 370-2.

[3324] _Britain and the British Seas_, 1902, p. 315.

[3325] J. Prestwich, _Geology_, ii, 1888, p. 502; Clement Reid, _The Origin of the Brit. Flora_, 1899, pp. 69, 146. Cf. J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 339, and _Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 92.

[3326] The late Professor Rolleston (_Sc. Papers_, ii, 1884, p. 780) argued that by _praeter_ Caesar meant ‘besides’. It is true that he used the word several times in this sense (H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, ii, 1186-7): but when he did so the meaning was always unmistakable; and, as Mr. Colbeck remarks, in his school edition (p. 49), ‘to say “there is timber of all sorts _besides_ the beech and the fir” is hardly a natural expression, unless these two trees were the commonest form of timber [or were non-existent in Gaul], which they were not.’

[3327] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 186, n. 2. Napoleon’s map (pl. 16) contradicts his text.

[3328] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 65-6, 71.

[3329] _B. G._, iv, 25, § 1.

[3330] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3; 26, § 2.

[3331] Mr. H. E. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, p. 167) says that ‘the distance is given at seven or eight Roman miles in different MSS. of the _Commentaries_’. Why did he not specify the _MSS._ which have _VIII_ or _octo_? No such _MS._ is mentioned in any critical edition.

[3332] _Antiquitates Rutupinae_, 1711, pp. 23-4, 44-6, 49-50.

[3333] Similarly, John Harris (_Hist. of Kent_, 1719, p. 274) says that ‘Caesar himself saith of his Men that they could not _firmiter insistere_, which implies the Ground was not Hard, Solid, and Good’. But Caesar only says that his men could not _firmiter insistere_ while they were struggling in the water with the enemy; and in these circumstances a man could not _firmiter insistere_ in a swimming bath, the floor of which is ‘hard, solid, and good’.

[3334] _B. G._, v, 13, § 1. If, as I believe, _quo_ means _ad quem_, referring to _angulus_ and not to _Cantium_, if, that is to say, Caesar intended to convey that almost all ships from Gaul steered for the ‘corner’, Battely is demanding from Caesar a nicety and precision of geographical statement which it would be idle to expect from an ancient writer. Dover is quite close to the _angulus_, even if we must rigidly limit the latter to the coast between the South and the North Foreland.

[3335] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, §2.--ἄκραν οὖν τινα προέχουσαν περιπλεύσας παρεκομίσθη· κἀνταῦθα τοῖς προσμίξαντάς οἱ ἐς τὰ τενάγη ἀποβαίνοντι νικήσας ἔφθη τῆς γῆς κρατήσας, &c. Τενάγη, as we have seen (p. 631, _supra_) is simply Dion’s translation of Caesar’s _vada_.

[3336] See pp. 628-31, _supra_.

[3337] Ed. Wesseling, p. 473.

[3338] V. J. Vaillant, _Classis Britannica_, pp. 41-2 and illustration facing p. 48.

[3339] See A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, ii, 1257-8.

[3340] See pp. 678-82, _infra_.

[3341] It may be argued that if Caesar had landed near Sandwich he would have landed in Richborough harbour. This objection, such as it is, would apply equally to Hythe and Pevensey; but it might have been dangerous to land in a harbour with a narrow entrance in the presence of an enemy; and Caesar may have had other reasons (see Lord Wolseley’s _Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, p. 240). Moreover, the shore of the harbour must have been very marshy.

[3342] _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

[3343] p. 630, _supra_.

[3344] ‘The anchorage in the Small Downs is much more secure than in the Downs, being more sheltered, with better holding ground, and shoaler water,’ &c. _The Channel Pilot_, 9th ed., 1900, part i, p. 344. I am informed by Mr. Jordan, one of the Deal boatmen, that ships driven ashore between Sandown Castle and Sandwich would suffer far less damage than off Walmer or Deal; and they would probably have suffered somewhat less even when the Deal shingle was much less steep.

[3345] Prof. B. Niese devotes the greater part of his valuable review (_Hist. Zeitschrift_, xciii, 97-101) to a criticism of this section of my book.

[3346] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 179-80.

[3347] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c. cliii, 1896, pp. 269-71. Cf. _Rev. celt._, xxii, 1901, p. 87.

[3348] iv, 16, § 7.

[3349] The MS. reading is _miratos_, which is obviously absurd. The emendation generally accepted is _munitos_. Professor Tyrrell in an admirable note (_The Correspondence of Cicero_, ii, 1896, p. 134) remarks that it is incredible ‘that any copyist found the obvious _munitos_, and wrote the inexplicable _miratos_. But if he found the ἅπαξ εἰρημένον _muratos_, he would be nearly certain to write _miratos_, a common word very near it in form, and that without at all troubling himself as to the sense of the passage; just as a compositor will set up “serious effusion” if one writes “serous effusion”’. And, anticipating the objection that _muratos_ is a post-classical word, he says, ‘We must remember that we have in these letters a unique department of literature. A man might easily write in a letter that the approach to Britain was “absolutely _ramparted_ with masses of cliff”, though he would not use that word in a formal composition.’ See also pp. vii-x of the preface to Professor Tyrrell’s second volume.

[3350] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 277. Dr. Vogel actually takes _molibus_ to mean not ‘masses of cliff’ but ‘defensive works’!

[3351] See § 5 of the letter in question--_Drusus reus est factus a Lucretio. Iudicibus reiciendis a. d. V. Non. Quinct._ See also _Hermes_, xl, 1905, pp. 17-9.

[3352] _Q. fr._, ii, 14, §§ 3-4.

[3353] _B. G._, v, 4, § 1.

[3354] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, pp. 278-80.

[3355] See _Jahresberichte d. philol. Vereins_, pp. 240-1 (in _Zeitschrift f. d. Gymnasialwesen_, 1897).

[3356] _The Correspondence of Cicero_, ii, 1886, p. 126.

[3357] _Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 1.--Sed me illa cura sollicitat angitque vehementer, quod dierum iam amplius L intervallo nihil a te, nihil a Caesare, nihil ex istis locis non modo litterarum, sed ne rumoris quidem adfluxit.

[3358] _Ib._, iii, 1, §§ 17, 25.

[3359] _Att._, iv, 18, § 5.

[3360] _B. G._, v, 22, § 1.

[3361] _Ib._

[3362] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 282.

[3363] See pp. 731-3, _infra_.

[3364] Cf. H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, i, 967.

[3365] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 3-5.

[3366] _Att._, iv, 18, § 5. Cicero does not mention that a large number of prisoners had also been taken; but Dr. Vogel admits this to have been the fact. Cf. _Q. fr._, iii, 9, § 4, and _B. G._, v, 23, § 2.

[3367] _Ib._, v, 22, §§ 3-5.

[3368] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 288.

[3369] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 66.

[3370] _B. G._, iv, 36, §§ 1-3.

[3371] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 52, §§ 2-3.

[3372] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 66.

[3373] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 3.

[3374] _B. G._, iv, 38, § 4. A. J. Dunkin, an antiquary whom Sir Leslie Stephen thought worthy of a place in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, devoted a large portion of the second volume of his _History of the County of Kent_ to an impeachment of Caesar’s veracity; but his charges are based upon sheer inability to construe easy Latin, general lack of scholarship, or, in some cases, pure invention. Cf. _The Gentleman’s Magazine Library_, ed. G. L. Gomme,--Romano-British Remains, part ii, 1887, pp. 520-2.

[3375] See O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, 1893, pp. 377-92, and Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 243.

[3376] See pp. 731-3, _infra_.

[3377] p. 319.

[3378] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 2.

[3379] From a foot and a half to two feet, so Commander Boxer, R.N., the harbour-master of Folkestone, tells me.

[3380] See pp. 595-665, _supra_.

[3381] _Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, i, 219. Cf. E. Hasted, _Hist. of Kent_, iv, 1799, p. 163, note _d_.

[3382] _Ib._, p. 162 and note _c_.

[3383] _Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, pp. 8-16.

[3384] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 66, 68.

[3385] See pp. 736-7, _infra_.

[3386] _B. G._, iv, 33.

[3387] Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des ant. grecques et rom._, ii, 815-7.

[3388] See E. Babelon, _Descr. des monn. de la république rom._, i, 1885, pp. 243, 435-6, 462-4, 552.

[3389] _B. G._, v, 19, § 1.

[3390] In the one passage (_ib._, iv, 33, § 2) in which he calls the drivers _aurigae_ he is obliged to do so in order to distinguish them from the warriors.

[3391] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 192.

[3392] v, 29, § 1. Cf. 1 Kings, xxii, 34.

[3393] E. Babelon, _Descr ... des monnaies de la république rom._, i, 549, 552.

[3394] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, x, 1881, p. 128.

[3395] _Chorographia_, iii, 6, § 52--[Britanni] dimicant non equitatu modo aut pedite, verum et bigis et curribus Gallice armatis: covinnos vocant, quorum falcatis axibus utuntur.

[3396] _Pharsalia_, i, 426--et docilis rector _rostrati_ Belga covinni. _Rostrati_ is a conjecture, the MSS. having _monstrati_.

[3397] _Punica_, xvii, 416-7.--Caerulus haud aliter, cum dimicat incola Thyles | Agmina falcigero circumvenit arta covinno.

[3398] _Agricola_, 35-6.

[3399] See W. Smith, _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Ant._, 3rd ed., i, 560.

[3400] _Monumenta Germaniae Hist.--Iordanis Getica_, ed. Th. Mommsen, 1882, ii, 15--bellum inter se ... saepius gerunt, non tantum equitatu vel pedite, verum etiam bigis curribusque falcatis, &c.

[3401] M. Théodore Reinach (_Rev. celt._, x, 1899, pp. 123-30) points out that the testimony of Frontinus (_C. Caesar Gallorum falcatas quadrigas eadem ratione palis defixis excepit inhibuitque_ [_Strat._, ii, 3, § 18]), if it is genuine, is negatived by Caesar’s silence, and that it is probably an interpolation; that it may be inferred from a passage in Martial (_O iucunda, covinne, solitudo_, | _Carruca magis essedoque gratum_ | _Facundi mihi munus Aeliani_, &c. [xii, 24]) that a _covinnus_ was simply ‘un cabriolet attelant à deux’; that Arrian (_Ars tactica_, 19) expressly distinguished British war-chariots from scythed chariots; and that neither Polybius, nor Livy, nor Diodorus Siculus, nor Dion Cassius ever describe the war-chariots of the Celts as scythed, although they often mention them. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_La civilisation des Celtes_, pp. 339-41) quaintly argues that the silence of Caesar can be explained by the assumption that scythed chariots, being as dangerous to friends as to foes, were only used exceptionally.

[3402] A. Nicaise, _L’époque gaul. dans le dép^t de la Marne_, 1884, pp. 23-4. Cf. _Rev. celt._, x, 1889, pp. 233-6, and _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 66.

[3403] Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 109) is ‘almost tempted to suggest’ that a scythe blade, which he found at Woodyates, ‘may be one of the war scythes which were attached to the [British] chariots, as mentioned by Strabo.’ But Strabo (xvii, 3, § 7) does not say that the Britons had scythed chariots, but the Pharusii and Nigretes of Mauritania.

[3404] p. 342.

[3405] The diameters of the British chariot-wheels that have been found vary between 2 ft. 11 in., and 2 ft. 4 ½ in.

[3406] J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 2-3, 6; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 134-5.

[3407] This discovery proves that Arrian (_Ars tactica_, 19) and Dion Cassius (lxxvi, 12, § 3) were right in saying that British chariot-horses were small. Cf. p. 152, _supra_. For further details of the discoveries of British chariot-wheels, axles, &c. (by which various quaint conjectures in von Göler’s _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 156, n. 3, are stultified), see _Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, pp. 41-2; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 454-7; and a valuable article by Canon Greenwell, a proof of which he has kindly sent to me, and which, I presume, will be published in vol. lx of _Archaeologia_.

[3408] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 137, n. 1.

[3409] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 153, n. 7.

[3410] _B. G._, iv, 34, § 3.

[3411] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 138, n. 4.

[3412] See p. 680, _infra_.

[3413] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 1-5.

[3414] See pp. 595-665, _supra_.

[3415] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, pp. 35-6.

[3416] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 87-8, 90.

[3417] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 186, note 4.

[3418] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xciv.

[3419] _B. G._, vii, 69, § 2.

[3420] _Inventorium Sepulchrale_, ed. C. Roach Smith, 1856, p. 35. Faussett goes on to say (p. 36) that, ‘as a proof of this Aylesbourne [the Little Stour at Kingston] having been much deeper and broader than it ever now is, I myself saw the shells of muscles (_sic_) turned plentifully out of the ground in digging a hole for a post, at the distance of at least ten rods from the present channel, and at the perpendicular height of at least three feet above its usual level.’ But this argument is irrelevant. No geologist would deny that the Little Stour, when it was cutting out its channel, was ‘broader than it ever now is’. But when? Perhaps at the inconceivably remote epoch when the Thames was depositing gravel at a height of 100 feet above its present level.

[3421] _Villare Cantianum_, 1776, p. 62.

[3422] _B. G._, iv, 38, §2; v, 24, §1.

[3423] _Ib._, 9, §3.

[3424] See Addenda, p. 742.

[3425] _Caesar in Kent_, 2nd ed., 1887, pp. 165-8. I should not notice this work if it had not been quoted even by antiquaries of repute, and included by Mr. Gross in his generally valuable bibliography.

[3426] _Caesar in Kent_, p. 163.

[3427] Bryan Faussett, _Inventorium Sepulchrale_, p. 39, n. 2. See also pp. 36, n. 1, 37, 144-59. ‘That these tumuli,’ says Roach Smith (_ib._, p. 37), ‘were not cast up in consequence of any battle fought on the spot, is evident from ... their containing the remains not only of men ... but also of women and children.’

Hasted (_Hist. of Kent_, iii, 1790, p. 752, note _a_) says that ‘all the learned agree that _Barham down_ was his [Caesar’s] main camp, to which from his landing in _the Downs_ by _Mongeham_, _Sutton_, _Eythorne_, _Barston_, and _Snowdown_, there is a continual course of military works’, &c. (see also vol. iv, 1799, p. 163). But in the time of the ‘learned’ contemporaries and predecessors of Hasted, it was not yet understood that the question whether this or that mound was a ‘military work’, and the further question whether it had been constructed by Romans, should be settled not by imagination, but by pick and shovel.

Professor Flinders Petrie (_Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, p. 12) remarks that ‘the works on Barham Down, half a mile NE. of Kingston, appear to be ancient’; but, being a competent archaeologist, he does not suggest that they were made by Caesar.

[3428] _Caesar in Kent_, p. 186. When Mr. Vine (_ib._, p. 185) gravely appeals to ‘the direct statement recorded on the chart found in Dover Castle, that “Caesar, having landed at Deal, afterwards conquered the Britons on Barham Down”’, one can only wonder why he does not also cite a ‘direct statement’ more ancient even than Camden’s ‘chart’,--the statement of Nennius, that Caesar’s second invasion took place three years after the first.

[3429] Vol. ii, 1814, p. 9.

[3430] Mr. George Payne (_Collectanea Cantiana_, p. 172) speaks of ‘a great _oppidum_ in Pine Wood, Littlebourne’; but no trace of an entrenchment in this wood is to be found in the 6-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheet 47).

[3431] See pp. 664-5, _supra_.

[3432] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iii, 1864-7, p. 506.

[3433] _Archaeol. Cant._, vii, 1868, pp. li-lii.

[3434] See p. 674, _supra_.

[3435] _Ib._

[3436] ‘Night marches,’ says Lord Wolseley (_The Soldier’s Pocket Book_, 1886, p. 325), ‘require at least half as much time again as the same distance would require by daylight.’

[3437] No military earthworks exist at Chilham. See _Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, pp. 11-2.

[3438] It is hardly necessary, I suppose, to mention the argument which various writers, from Camden to Lewin, have based upon the name of the tumulus near Chilham, called ‘Julliberrie’s Grave’. ‘I am almost persuaded,’ wrote Camden, ‘that Laberius Durus ... was buried here’ (_Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, i, 215). Laberius Durus, as the reader will remember, was the name of the tribune who was killed in the action fought on the day on which Caesar, after he had constructed his naval camp, returned to the neighbourhood of the place where he had defeated the Britons on the day after his second landing (_B. G._, v, 15, § 5). ‘Julliberrie’s Grave’ is a neolithic long barrow (_Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 176, note b), and was erected more than a millennium before Laberius Durus was born.

[3439] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, p. 69. Canon Isaac Taylor (_Words and Places_, 3rd ed., 1873, p. 237) says that ‘the name of FORDWICK, the “bay on the arm of the sea”, proves that in the time of the Danes the estuary must have extended nearly as far as Canterbury’. Canon Taylor’s etymologies are not to be taken upon trust; but, granting his conclusion, it does not follow that the estuary was not fordable at Fordwich, just as the estuary of the Somme was forded near its mouth by the English army before the battle of Crecy.

[3440] _Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, p. 505.

[3441] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 148.

[3442] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 240. Mr. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1890, p. 168) speaks of Caesar’s narrative as ‘excluding the mile broad estuary of the greater Stour at Grove Ferry where Dr. Guest placed the battle’. Dr. Guest did no such thing. George Long (_C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1880, p. 226), in a note on Caesar’s account of the battle, says of Grove Ferry that ‘the locality fits the description’; and Dr. Guest, commenting on Long’s note, says (_Origines Celticae_, ii, 1883, pp. 366-7), ‘I know of no reason for his fixing it at this place, which appears to me to have hardly one of the necessary requisites.’

[3443] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 129-30.

[3444] _Retrospections_, ii, 15.

[3445] No _oppidum_ is marked anywhere near Sturry, either on the One-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheets 273 and 289) or on the map which illustrates Mr. George Payne’s ‘Archaeological Survey of Kent’ (_Archaeologia_, li, 1888, facing p. 446).

[3446] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 186, n. 4.

[3447] _Ib._, n. 2.

[3448] See pp. 664-5, _supra_.

[3449] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 243-4. See p. 660, _supra_.

[3450] Read Clausewitz, _On War_ (translated by Col. J. J. Graham, iii, 1873, p. 9); Sir E. B. Hamley, _Operations of War_, 1878, pp. 233-76; Lord Wolseley, _The Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, pp. 393-7; and Gen. Clery, _Minor Tactics_, 12th ed., 1893, pp. 230-5.

[3451] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xliv, 1888, pp. 290-1. See also _Archaeol. Cant._, ix, 1874, pp. 13-5, and _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp. 213-7.

[3452] See p. 337, _supra_.

[3453] _B. G._, v, 9, § 8; 10; 11, §§ 1, 5-7.

[3454] _Ib._, 9, § 1.

[3455] _Ib._, 9, §§ 2-7.

[3456] _Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, pp. 48-9.

[3457] _C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1880, p. 228.

[3458] _Ib._, p. 227.

[3459] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 150, n. 2.

[3460] _Philologus_, xxxi, 1872, pp. 536-7.

[3461] Or ‘exposed the Romans to the same danger, whether they retreated or pursued’. See pp. 690-1, _infra_.

[3462] _B. G._, v, 16, §§ 1-3.

[3463] _C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1880, pp. 234-5.

[3464] _B. G._, iv, 32, § 5.

[3465] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 234, 239, 271-2; _ib._, Suppl., pp. 520, 535-6.

[3466] Dion Cassius, lxii, 12, § 3.

[3467] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 36.

[3468] See p. 677, _supra_.

[3469] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 154, note.

[3470] _Ib._, p. 153.

[3471] _C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1890, p. 205.

[3472] _C. I. Caesaris b. G. libri VII_, II. Heft, 1890, p. 48.

[3473] _Gai Iuli Caesaris de b. G. comm._, iv, v, 1887, p. 90.

[3474] _B. G._, i, 48, §§ 4-7.

[3475] Quoted by von Göler (_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 154). He does not give the reference, and I have failed to discover it.

[3476] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 188.

[3477] _B. G._, v, 17, § 2.

[3478] _C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1890, p. 205.

[3479] _B. G._, v, 11, § 8.

[3480] _Ib._, v, 18.

[3481] _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, p. 310. ‘Es wird öfter behauptet, dass er selbst durch seinen marsch vom landungsplatz bis zur Themse die breite des landes gemessen habe; zu einer solchen voraussetzung geben seine worte keine veranlassung [naturally! he would not have taken the trouble to indicate the grounds upon which he based his estimate]: er berichtet hier, wie an andern orten, nur was er von andern erfahren hat.’ Heller seems to forget that this conclusion also is not authorized by Caesar’s words. If Caesar had formed his estimate from hearsay, he, or his interpreter, would have had to reduce the terms in which the estimate of his native informant was expressed to Roman miles.

[3482] O. Manning and W. Bray, _Hist. and Ant. of ... Surrey_, ii, 1809, p. 759.

[3483] _Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, 1789, i, 168.

[3484] _Hist. eccl._, lib. i, cap. ii (ed. C. Plummer, 1896).--In huius ulteriore ripa Cassobellauno duce inmensa hostium multitudo consederat, ripamque fluminis ac pene totum sub aqua uadum acutissimis sudibus praestruxerat; quarum uestigia sudium ibidem usque hodie uisuntur, et uidetur inspectantibus, quod singulae earum ad modum humani femoris grossae, et circumfusae plumbo in-mobiliter erant in profundum fluminis infixae, &c.

[3485] _Archaeologia_, i, 1770, p. 188.

[3486] _One Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 269.

[3487] _Archaeologia_, ii, 1773, pp. 143-53.

[3488] E. W. Brayley, _Topographical Hist. of Surrey_, ii, 1841, p. 344, n. 29.

[3489] _The Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, p. 312.

[3490] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 384-5, 388, 391-2.

[3491] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 384.

[3492] _Ib._, pp. 384-5.

[3493] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 391-2.

[3494] Hurleyford is about 2½ miles west of Great Marlow.

[3495] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 388.

[3496] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 191, n. 2.

[3497] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 386-7.

[3498] _Ib._, p. 387.

[3499] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 269-302; xlvi, 1889, pp. 75-6; xlvii, 1890, pp. 43-7, 170; _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xi, 1891, p. 224.

[3500] _Caesars gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 155, n. 2.

[3501] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 51-2.

[3502] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, xxvi, 1846, pp. 256-7.

[3503] W. Maitland, _Hist. of London_, i, 1756, p. 8; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., iii, 1897, p. 102.

[3504] _Ib._, xvi, 1860, p. 135; Camden’s _Britannia_, ed. Edmund Gibson, i, 1772, p. 329.

[3505] Manning’s _Surrey_, ii, 760.

[3506] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 388.

[3507] _Ib._, pp. 404-5.

[3508] _Bregant-forda and the Hanweal_, 1904, pp. 1, 22-7. Mr. Sharpe reasonably suggests that Bede referred not to the Coway but to the Brentford stakes.

[3509] _B. G._, v, 18.

[3510] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 155.

[3511] _Ib._, n. 2.

[3512] _Comm. de César_, i, 1785, p. 334.

[3513] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 191-2.

[3514] _Gai Iuli Caesaris de b. G. comm._, iv, v, 1887, p. 92.

[3515] _Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, 1849, p. 80.

[3516] Tum nostri cohortati inter se, ne tantum dedecus admitteretur, universi ex navi desiluerunt. Hos item ex proximis navibus cum conspexissent, subsecuti hostibus adpropinquaverunt.

[3517] See _B. G._, v, 17, § 5.

[3518] _B. G._, v, 19-21.

[3519] See _Archaeol. Journal_, xxii, 1865, pp. 299-301.

[3520] _Archeaologia_, i, 1770, p. 189.

[3521] _B. G._, v, 21, § 1. The habitat of the Cassi is unknown; and it is very doubtful whether Cassiobury preserves their name. Sir John Evans (_Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, p. 247) remarks that ‘at the time of the invasion of Julius Caesar this [Hertfordshire] ... appears to have been occupied by the Cassi, who not improbably were the same tribe as ... the Catyeuchlani’, or Catuvellauni. With all due deference to so high an authority. I take leave to say, first, that is no evidence that the Cassi occupied Hertfordshire; secondly, that there is no evidence for identifying them with the Catuvellauni; and lastly, that the Cassi, who surrendered before the capture of Cassivellaunus’s stronghold, cannot have been identical with the people who were under the immediate control of Cassivellaunus.

[3522] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 157, n. 2.

[3523] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866. pp. 65-6.

[3524] There is no evidence that Cassivellaunus had _conquered_ the Trinovantes, though he had killed their king, the father of Mandubracius.

[3525] See pp. 703-5, _infra_.

[3526] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 51-2.

[3527] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xvi, 1860, pp. 136-7, 142.

[3528] At Redbourn in Hertfordshire is ‘an oval encampment probably pre-Roman’ (_Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, p. 259); and near Therfield in the same county there is a British camp ‘on right of road from Baldock’ (_ib._, p. 261; J. E. Cussans, _Hist. of Herts_ [Hundred of Osney], i, 116). It is perhaps just possible that if these camps were excavated, some light might be thrown upon the question.

[3529] xiv, 33, § 1.--Suetonius ... Londinium perrexit, cognomento quidem coloniae non insigne, sed copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre.

[3530] _E.g._ by W. H. Black in _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 50-2.

[3531] _Ib._, pp. 59-66.

[3532] Tacitus, _Ann._, xiv, 33. ‘The chief commercial town,’ says Professor Haverfield (_Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton_, i, 164), ‘was from the earliest times, Londinium.’

[3533] _Hist. Rom._, lx, 21, §§ 3-4. Lewin would have found more conclusive proof of the pre-eminence of Camulodunum in Sir John Evans’s _Coins of the Ancient Britons_.

[3534] See W. J. Loftie’s _Hist. of London_, i, 1883, map facing p. 1; and _Historic Towns,--London_, 1887, map facing p. 16. See also _Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, pp. 137-204, and particularly 155-6.

[3535] _Historic Towns,--London_, p. 2.

[3536] Vol. i, p. 16.

[3537] _Words and Places_, p. 185.

[3538] _Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, p. 174.

[3539] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 405-6.

[3540] _London_ is commonly derived from two Celtic words--_llyn_, _din_--meaning ‘the lake fort’ (see _Geogr. Journal_, xiii, 1899, p. 299). One objection to this etymology is that Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell (_Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 300-2) has proved that the lake, which was described so picturesquely by J. R. Green (_The Making of England_, i, 1897, p. 113) did not exist. Moreover, Dr. Henry Bradley (_Morning Post_, Jan. 8, 1907, p. 4, col. 3) tells us that ‘the only explanation which is philologically possible is that it [Londinium] denoted a plot of ground belonging to a person named Londinos, which means “fierce”’.

[3541] I say ‘a _purely_ Celtic name’ in contradistinction to such hybrid names as Augusto-_dunum_ (Autun), &c.

[3542] See pp. 664-5, _supra_.

[3543] _The Making of England_, i, 1897, p. 117, n. 1.

[3544] _Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden_, ed. Churchill Babington, vol. ii, 1869, pp. 44-6.--Secunda via principalis dicitur Watlingstrete.... Incipit enim a Dovoria, transiens per medium Cantiae ultra Thamisiam juxta Londoniam ad occidentem Westmonasterii, &c.

[3545] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiv, 1877, p. 166.

[3546] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 586; Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 190, 214.

[3547] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 95, 158, 174-5, 245, 248-9, 272, 278-81, 303, 312, 321, 327-8, 330, 339, 351, 356, 400-1, 411, 424, 450, 467; _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 70, 83, 122, 125, 232; _ib._, Suppl., p. 559; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 98. Mr. F. W. Reader (_Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, p. 213) argues that ‘it is difficult to conceive that if any considerable British town preceded [the Roman] _Londinium_, all traces of it in the shape of pottery fragments, &c., should ... have been so entirely obliterated’, &c. But the same argument would apply to Calleva, Camulodunum, and other towns which were certainly British.

[3548] See p. 359, _supra_.

[3549] Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii, 8, § 7,--Lundinum, vetus oppidum quod Augustam posteritas appellavit; _ib._, xxviii, 3, § 7,--Augusta, quam veteres appellavere Lundinum.

[3550] See pp. 600-3, _supra_.

[3551] _B. G._, iv, 29-36.

[3552] Le Verrier _apud_ Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 522. See the next footnote.

[3553] T. Bergk (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 618, n. 2) remarks that Caesar himself regarded the 24th, not the 26th, of September as the date of the equinox. His authority is, I suppose, Vegetius, iv, 39, who says that the autumnal equinox occurred _VIII Kal. Oct._: but, according to Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xviii, 25 [59], §§ 220-1), it fell on the 28th of September, and according to Varro (_Rerum rust._, i, 28, §§ 1-2), on the 27th. Columella (_De re rust._, ix, 14) places it _about_ the 24th of September (_circa VIII calend. Octobris_); and the 24th was, according to Mommsen (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, p. 301), the date adopted in the Julian calendar. But that date was fixed by the calculations of Sosigenes: what right, then, has Bergk to assume that Caesar regarded it as the date of the equinox in 54 B.C., nine years before his reform of the calendar took effect?

[3554] Napoleon’s reasoning is based upon assumptions, one of which is certainly incorrect, while all are doubtful. We know that Caesar started on his return voyage soon after midnight _(B. G._, iv, 36, § 3). ‘If,’ says Napoleon (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 180, note), ‘we assume that he had a favourable wind, as he had on his return from the second expedition, and that his voyage lasted nine hours, Caesar would have reached Boulogne about nine o’clock in the morning. As the fleet could only enter the harbour on a rising tide, all that we need do in order to ascertain approximately the date of his return, is to find out on what day of September, 699, there was high tide at that hour at Boulogne. Now in that harbour there is always a high tide about nine o’clock in the morning two or three days before full moon and before new moon. Therefore, as the full moon of September, 699, took place on the 14th of the month, Caesar must have returned to Gaul about the 11th or 12th of September.’

There is no fault to be found with the conclusion (except that it is uncertain), but much with the argument. To begin with, as there had been a full moon on the 31st of August, it is obvious that not the full moon but the new moon of September took place on the 14th of the month. This error, indeed, is immaterial; but Napoleon has no right to assume that Caesar reached Boulogne about nine o’clock in the morning, for the circumstances of his return voyage in the second expedition were totally different from those of the preceding year. In 54 B.C. there was a dead calm (_summa tranquillitate_, _B. G._, v, 23, § 6), and the ships were rowed: in 55 they sailed. Moreover, it is untrue that the fleet could only enter the harbour of Boulogne at high tide (see p. 586, _supra_).

[3555] Vol. i (3rd ed.), p. 343. See also J. P. Postgate, _M. Annaei Lucani de bello civili liber VII_, 1900, p. xiv, n. 3; A. G. Peskett, _C. I. Caesaris comm. de bello civili liber tertius_, 1900, p. 68; and H. Meusel, _C. I. Caesaris comm. de b.c._, pp. xiv, 367 ff.

[3556] _Sat._, i, 13, §§ 12-3.--sed octavo quoque anno intercalares octo affluebant dies ex singulis, quibus vertentis anni numerum apud Romanos super Graecum abundasse iam diximus. Hoc quoque errore iam cognito haec species emendationis inducta est. Tertio quoque octennio ita intercalandos dispensabant dies, ut non nonaginta sed sexaginta sex intercalarent, compensatis viginti et quattuor diebus pro illis qui per totidem annos supra Graecorum numerum creverant.

[3557] See Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 45-6, and _Rev. hist._, xlii, 1890, p. 401.

[3558] Censorinus, _De die natali_, xx, 4, § 6.--Quod delictum ut corrigeretur, pontificibus datum negotium eorumque arbitrio intercalandi ratio permissa.

[3559] _Ib._, § 7.--Sed horum [pontificum] plerique ob odium vel gratiam, quo quis magistratu citius abiret diutiusve fungeretur aut publici redemtor ex anni magnitudine in lucro damnove esset, plus minusve ex libidine intercalando rem sibi ad corrigendum mandatam ultro quod depravarunt &c. See also Plutarch, _Caesar_, 59; Ammianus Marcellinus. xxvi, 1, § 12; and Macrobius, _Sat._, i, 14, § 1.

[3560] Asconius, _in Milonianam_, p. 35 (_M. Tullii Ciceronis opera_, ed. J. C. Orelli and J. G. Baiter, vol. v, pars ii, 1833).

[3561] It may be well to give the proof. Cicero (_Att._, v, 13, § 1) tells us that the period from the 18th of January, 702, the day on which Clodius was murdered, to the 22nd of July, 703, reckoning inclusively, comprised 560 days; and the reader may satisfy himself that this statement is untrue if there was an intercalary month in 703, and true if there was not. From these data and from the further statement made by Cicero in his speech _Pro Milone_, 98, that the day on which he delivered the speech, namely the 8th of April, 702, was the 101st day since the murder of Clodius, it follows that the intercalary month in 702 amounted to 23 days. It is stated by Curio in a letter to Cicero (_Fam._, viii, 6, § 5) and by Dion Cassius (xl, 62, §§ 1-2) that there was no intercalary month in 704. It can be proved from the chronological statements which have come down to us regarding the movements of Caesar and Pompey in 705 that there was no intercalary month in that year. Plutarch (_Caesar_, 35, § 1) tells us that Caesar made himself master of Italy in 60 days. Shortly before the 17th of January, 705, the day on which Pompey fled from Rome, Caesar crossed the Rubicon (_Att._, ix, 10, § 4; Caesar, _B. C._, i, 14, § 3); and it has been proved (Stoffel, _Guerre civile_, i, 202-3; O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, 1893, p. 104, n. 2) that the exact date was either January 10 or January 11. On the 18th of March he took Brundisium (_Att._, ix, 15, § 6),--65 days, reckoning inclusively, after his passage of the Rubicon, if there was no intercalary month, but 87 or 88 if there was one. Again, he took Corfinium on the 21st of February, quitted it the same day (_ib._, viii, 14, § 1), and marched direct to Brundisium, where he arrived on the 9th of March (_ib._, ix, 13, § 13A). The distance between the two places, measured along the route which Colonel Stoffel believes Caesar to have followed, is 465 kilometres, or about 289 miles. O. E. Schmidt (_Der Briefwechsel des M. T. Cicero_, pp. 385-9) decides for another route; but the difference of opinion between him and Colonel Stoffel does not affect my argument. If there was an intercalary month in 705, Caesar occupied 39 or 40 days on the march, which, considering the notorious rapidity of his movements, is incredible: if there was not, he occupied 17 days (see Stoffel, _Guerre civile_, i, 196-7). That there was no intercalary month either in 706 or in 707 is evident from a statement in one of Cicero’s letters to Atticus (x, 17, § 3), written on the 16th of May, 705,--‘At present the equinox is delaying us, which has been very stormy’ (_Nunc quidem aequinoctium nos moratur, quod valde perturbatum erat_). The equinox actually occurred on the 24th of March. If there was no intercalary month either in 706 or in 707, the 16th of May, 705, fell on the 24th or the 25th of March, 49 B.C. of the Julian calendar. If there was an intercalary month in either of those years, it fell on the 2nd or the 3rd of March. [Le Verrier, who also holds that there was no intercalation in 706 or 707, says that May 16, 705, fell on April 16, 49 B.C.; but Le Verrier assumed, wrongly, as we shall see, that ‘the year of confusion’ contained only 422, not 445 days.]

[3562] _De die natali_, xx, 4, §§ 8-10.--[adeo aberratum est] ut C. Caesar ... duos menses intercalarios dierum LXVII in mensem Novembrem et Decembrem interponeret, cum iam mense Februario dies III et XX intercalasset, faceretque eum annum dierum CCCCXLV, &c.

[3563] Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 521-3; or Stoffel, _Hist. de Jules César,--Guerre civile_, ii, 387-9.

[3564] _B. G._, v, 23, § 5.

[3565] Cicero, _Att._, iv, 18, § 5.

[3566] On the theory of Ideler the sixth day before the Kalends of October, 700, corresponded with the 29th of August, 54 B.C. See his _Handbuch der ... Chron._, ii, 1826, pp. 115-7, &c.

[3567] _Divus Iulius_, 40.

[3568] _De die natali_, xx, 4, § 8. According to Macrobius (_Sat._, i, 14, § 3), the year 708 contained 443 days; according to Solinus (i, 45) 344. These figures are obviously incorrect.

[3569] xliii, 26, §§ 1-2.--Τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἐτῶν οὐ πάντῃ ὁμολογούσας σφίσι ... κατεστήσατο ἐς τὸν νῦν τρόπον ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑξήκοντα ἡμέρας ἐμβαλών, ὅσαιπερ ἐς τὴν ἀπαρτιλογίαν παρέφερον. ἤδη μὲν γάρ τινες καὶ πλείους ἔφασαν ἐμβληθῆναι, τὸ δ’ ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει.

[3570] Colonel Stoffel (_Guerre civile_, ii, 299-304), while agreeing with Le Verrier’s conclusion, argues that the statement of Suetonius is in perfect accord with that of Dion; for, he remarks, Suetonius tells us that three months were intercalated in 708, namely, the ordinary month which should have been intercalated in that year, and two others between November and December; and, says Colonel Stoffel, three intercalary, months of 22, 23, and 22 days respectively would have amounted to 67 days.

[3571] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 588.

[3572] _Cäsars gall. Krieg und Theile seines Bürgerkriegs_, ii, 1880, p. 199. See also A. W. Zumpt (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, vii. Supplementband, 1873-5, p. 556), who, in my opinion, proves his point. Mommsen (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, p. 277) maintains that the mere fact that the two extraordinary intercalary months were called _prior_ and _posterior_ respectively, not _secundus_ and _tertius_, proves that the intercalary month inserted before March, 708, was not regarded as belonging to the calendar year 708 at all, but only to the consular year; in other words, that the calendar year began on the 1st of January in 709 for the first time. This view is severely, and I think justly, criticized by Bergk (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 631-5).

[3573] _Att._, x, 17, § 3.

[3574] Le Verrier should of course have written ‘23 jours’.

[3575] Col. Stoffel, _Guerre civile_, ii, 389.

[3576] Le Verrier overlooks or ignores the fact that in his very next letter (x, 18, § 1), also written at Cumae, Cicero described the weather as ‘an absolutely dead calm’ (_mirificae tranquillitates_).

[3577] Mr. Shuckburgh (_The Letters of Cicero_, i, 1899, p. 327) says by mistake, ‘the 26th of September,’ forgetting that in the unreformed Roman calendar there were not 30, but only 29 days in September.

[3578] _Att._, iv, 18, § 5. The MS. reading is (a litoribus Britanniae) _proximo_, which is nonsense. Dr. Vogel, however, attempts to translate the untranslatable. ‘What other meaning,’ he asks (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 283), ‘can the somewhat extraordinary expression _datas a litoribus Britanniae proximo_ have than that the letter was written in the neighbourhood of the coast of Britain, and therefore not quite at the sea?’ The words will not bear this or any other meaning; and it is obvious that Caesar would have gained nothing by writing when he was ‘not quite at the sea’; unless, indeed, in order to save a few hours’ delay in the transmission of an unimportant private letter, he had sent on a messenger to the coast with orders to embark on a special galley! For _proximo_ Boot substituted _proximis_, a conjecture which is generally accepted. Whatever Cicero may have written, it is certain that the letters which he received from his brother and from Caesar were written in Britain; but T. Bergk, to whom the conclusions which commend themselves to plain men are generally distasteful, insists (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 616) that _litoribus Britanniae proximo_ means ‘the coasts nearest _to_ Britain, that is to say, Boulogne’; and he defends this interpretation by the argument that Caesar had a rooted dislike of mentioning unknown names. But, as Bergk himself maintains, Boulogne was the Portus Itius; and, as Caesar twice mentioned the Portus Itius in his _Commentaries_ (_B. G._, v, 2, § 3; 5, § 1), it is difficult to see why he should have shrunk from doing so in a letter.

Bergk’s theory leads him to the absurd conclusion that Caesar quitted Britain for Gaul on the day before he wrote this letter, that is to say, on the 29th (or 30th) of August of the Julian calendar. Absurd, because, as I show in the text (p. 713), Cicero would in that case have written, not (exercitum _e_ Britannia) _reportabant_, but _reportaverant_; and because Caesar, who had not quitted Britain in the preceding year until, at the earliest, September 11, would not have felt obliged to sail four weeks before the equinox ‘because the equinox was at hand’, and would certainly have thought it perfectly safe to wait several days longer for the return of the ships which carried the first detachment of his army back to Gaul, and which he could ill spare.

[3579] _B. G._, v, 23, § 5.

[3580] Cicero, _Att._, iv, 18, § 5; _B. G._, v, 23.

[3581] Cicero, _Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 1.

[3582] Cf. Unger (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 586), and Zumpt (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, vii Supplementband, 1873-5, p. 564).

Bergk (_ib._, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 618), remarking that Napoleon admits that Caesar quitted Britain in 55 B.C. as early as the 12th of September, says that the rise of Arcturus, which, according to Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xviii, 31 [74], § 310), took place on that day, marked the commencement of the stormy season, and that it is therefore inconceivable that Caesar would have postponed his departure until the middle of the month. I do not attach the least importance to this argument. Caesar went by the equinox, not by the rise of Arcturus, and he waited as long as he thought safe. Moreover, Bergk apparently forgets that the date fixed by Pliny for the rise of Arcturus was borrowed from the Julian calendar, the astronomical calculations for which were not made until 46 B.C. [It should be noted that, according to Columella (_De re rust._, xi, 2), whom Bergk also quotes, the rise of Arcturus took place on the 17th of September, but the 13th presaged the approach of stormy weather (_tempestatem significat_).]

[3583] Vol. ii (3rd ed.), pp. 251-2. See also Varro, _Rerum rust._, ii, 1, and W. Soltau, _Röm. Chron._, 1889, p. 38, n. 1.

[3584] _Hist. Rom._, xl, 47, § 1.

[3585] _Ib._, xlviii, 33, § 4.

[3586] _Nat. Hist._, xviii, 25 (57), § 211.--ea ipsa ratio postea comperto errore correcta est, ita ut duodecim annis continuis non intercalaretur.

[3587] _Collect. rerum memorabilium_, i, 45-6.--vitium admissum est per sacerdotes. Nam cum praeceptum esset, anno quarto ut intercalarent unum diem, et oporteret confecto quarto anno id observari, antequam quintus auspicaretur, illi incipiente quarto intercalarunt, non desinente. Sic per annos sex et triginta cum novem dies tantummodo sufficere debuissent, duodecim sunt intercalati.

[3588] _Divus Augustus_, 31.--Annum a Divo Iulio ordinatum, sed postea neglegentia conturbatum atque confusum, rursus ad pristinam rationem redegit.

[3589] _Ib._, 40.--annumque ad cursum solis accommodavit, ut trecentorum sexaginta quinque dierum esset, et intercalario mense sublato unus dies quarto quoquo anno intercalaretur.

[3590] _De die natali_, xx, 4, § 10.--Praeterea pro quadrante diei, qui annum verum suppleturus videbatur, instituit, ut peracto quadrienni circuitu dies unus, ubi mensis quondam solebat, post Terminalia intercalaretur.

[3591] _Sat._, i, 14, §§ 6, 13.--[Caesar] statuit ut quarto quoque anno sacerdotes ... unum intercalarent diem ... sic annum civilem Caesar habitis ad lunam dimensionibus constitutum edicto palam posito publicavit et [error] huc usque stare potuisset, ni sacerdotes sibi errorem novum ex ipsa emendatione fecissent. Nam cum oporteret diem qui ex quadrantibus confit quarto quoque anno confecto antequam quintus inciperet intercalare, illi quarto non peracto sed incipiente intercalabant. Hic error sex et triginta annos permansit ... sed hunc quoque errorem ... correxit Augustus, qui annos duodecim sine intercalari die transigi iussit, ut illi tres dies ... sequentibus annis duodecim nullo die intercalato devorarentur.

[3592] See W. Soltau, _Röm. Chron._, p. 171, and L. Holzapfel in _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 67.

[3593] See p. 713, _supra_.

[3594] xl, 47, § 1.--καὶ ἡ ἀγορὰ ἡ διὰ τῶν ἐννέα ἀεὶ ἡμερῶν ἀγομένη ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τοῦ Ἰανουαρίου νουμηνίᾳ ἤχθη.

[3595] xlviii, 33, § 4.--ἡμέρα ἐμβόλιμος παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα ἐνεβλήθη, ἵνα μὴ ἡ νουμηνία τοῦ ἐχομένου ἔτους τὴν ἀγορὰν τὴν διὰ τῶν ἐννέα ἡμερῶν ἀγομένην λάβῃ &c.

[3596] Mommsen, falling into an inexplicable confusion of thought, insists (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 283-6) that the extraordinary intercalation mentioned by Dion took place not in 713 but in 714. Dion’s words, he says (_ib._, p. 283, n. 5), belong to a passage which immediately follows his description of the events of 714; which deals with the events of 713 and 714; which begins with the words ἔν τε τῷ πρὸ τούτου ἔτει (713); and which ends with the words ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τοῖς δύο ἔτεσιν (713-4) ἐγένετο. He says that Dion’s words, taken by themselves, allow us to refer the extraordinary intercalation either to 713 or to 714; but he maintains that it must be referred to 714, because otherwise the sequence of the nundinal letters would be inexplicable. But the truth is, as the simple arithmetical calculation which I have given on pp. 713-4 shows, that the sequence is perfectly explicable if the extraordinary intercalation took place in 713, hopelessly inexplicable if it took place in 714. Except Unger, all recent chronologists (see, for instance, _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 51 and n. 1) have recognized Mommsen’s blunder. Dion says that the extraordinary intercalation took place ἐν τῷ πρὸ τούτου ἔτει: Mommsen himself affirms that τὸ πρὸ τούτου ἔτος was the year 713; yet he will have it that the extraordinary intercalation took place in 714!

[3597] The year 702, as we have already seen, contained 378 days; each of the five years 703, 704, 705, 706, and 707 contained 355 days; the year 708 contained 445 days; one of the four years 709, 710, 711, and 712 contained _ex hypothesi_ 366 days, and the other three 365; and if there had been no intercalation in 713, that year would have contained 365 days. Then the number of days from the Kalends of January, 702, to the last day of December, 713, would have been 378 + 355 × 5 + 445 + 366 + 365 × 4 = 4,424 days, which is a multiple of 8.

[3598] _Röm. Chron._, pp. 171-3.

[3599] Holzapfel, A. Mommsen, and Unger.

[3600] See _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 88.

[3601] See p. 715, _supra_.

[3602] καὶ δῆλον ὅτι [ἡμέρα ἐμβόλιμος] ἀνθυφῃρέθη αὖθις, ὅπως ὁ χρόνος κατὰ τὰ τῷ Καίσαρι τῷ προτέρῳ δόξαντα συμβῇ (_Hist. Rom._, xlviii, 33, § 4).

[3603] _Röm. Chron._, i, 1883, pp. 11-8.

[3604] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 56, note.

[3605] See p. 716, _supra_.

[3606] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 85.

[3607] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 72.

[3608] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 50.

[3609] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 48.

[3610] Assuming that the pontiffs misunderstood Caesar’s regulation, and did not simply set it aside, is it possible to explain their mistake? It is often taken for granted that the Romans only used the inclusive method of reckoning. This, however, is an error: Holzapfel shows that our method was generally adopted by Cicero, except of course in the case of dates. Generally, however, in ordinary speech, when the number in question was less than ten, the tendency was to employ the inclusive method; and, as the same tendency prevailed in official phraseology, Holzapfel argues (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 74) that it would not have been unnatural for the pontiffs to interpret Caesar’s regulations in this sense. See also Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 162-3, 317; L. Holzapfel, _Röm. Chron._, pp. 353-4; and p. 602, n. 5, _supra_. But, apart from the question of Roman methods of reckoning, is it likely that the pontiffs should have been ignorant of the astronomical reason which led Caesar to enact that one year in every four must contain an intercalary day? Holzapfel thinks that it is. ‘We shall hardly do the pontiffs an injustice,’ he says (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 74), ‘if we assume that they knew about as much of the actual duration of the [solar] year as Censorinus, who treats the matter as not yet thoroughly ascertained.’ The passage in Censorinus (_De die natali_, xix, 2), to which Holzapfel refers, runs as follows:--_Hoc tempus quot dierum esset, ad certum nondum astrologi reperire potuerunt_. He then quotes various astronomers, all of whom agreed of course that the number of days was 365, but differed in regard to the fraction of a day by which the duration of the year exceeded 365 days. Perhaps the pontiffs did not know that Sosigenes, upon whose calculations Caesar relied, estimated that fraction at one quarter (see p. 725, _infra_). If they set aside Caesar’s regulation not from ignorance but deliberately, their motive must have been to avoid the coincidence of the Kalends of January in every third year with a nundinal day.

[3611] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 72 and n. 1.

[3612] _Sat._, i, 13, § 17.--quotiens incipiente anno dies coepit qui addictus est nundinis, omnis ille annus infaustis casibus luctuosus fuit, maximeque Lepidiano tumultu opinio ista firmata est.

[3613] To spare the reader the trouble of doing a sum, I give the proof. The 1st of January, 702, fell, as we have already seen (p. 713), on a market-day; therefore, if the 1st of January, 711, did the same, the number of days that elapsed from the 1st of January, 702, to the last day of December, 710, inclusive, must have been divisible by 8. The year 702 contained 378 days; each of the years 703-7 contained 355 days; 708 contained 445; and _ex hypothesi_ 709 and 710 each contained 365. Now 378 + 355 × 5 + 445 + 365 × 2 = 3,328, which is exactly divisible by 8.

[3614] Cf. Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 25, 286. Unger remarks (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 760) that the outburst of 676 [or rather 677] was too insignificant to have been selected by Macrobius as an illustration. Moreover, says Holzapfel, the particular _tumultus_ owing to which the superstitious dread of the coincidence of _nundinae_ with the Kalends of January was intensified must have been preceded by other calamities associated with the same coincidence. In the earlier part of 702, when the Kalends of January fell on a market-day, there were no consuls, which might well awaken apprehensions. In 705, when the same coincidence occurred, the Civil War broke out. The _Lepidianus tumultus_ of 711 was accompanied by proscriptions; therefore the superstition would have been confirmed, as Macrobius says, by that _tumultus_.

Undoubtedly,--if, as Holzapfel maintains, it is true that in 711 the Kalends of January fell upon a market-day. But this is the very point at issue; and Holzapfel seems to ignore the possibility that the _Lepidianus tumultus_ of 677 may also ‘have been preceded by other calamities associated with the same coincidence’. Moreover, Matzat objects that of the events of 711 the outbreak of Lepidus was the least important, and that if Macrobius had intended to refer to that year, he would have said _tumultus Antonianus_. Holzapfel replies that when Lepidus joined Antony, the war which the latter had begun assumed a new phase, and Lepidus became commander-in-chief of the united armies (Velleius Paterculus, ii, 63, § 1; Appian, _B. C._, iii, 84), a fact which justifies the phrase, _Lepidianus tumultus_. Further, to show how flagitious the conduct of Lepidus appeared to contemporaries, he refers to Cicero, _Fam._, xii, 8, § 1 (_Scelus adfinis tui Lepidi ... cognosse te arbitror_), 9, § 2 (_Nos, confectum bellum quom putaremus, repente a Lepido tuo in summam sollicitudinem sumus adducti_), and 10, § 3 (_Praeclare viceramus, nisi spoliatum, inermem, fugientem Lepidus recepisset Antonium. Itaque numquam tanto odio civitati Antonius fuit quanto est Lepidus; ille enim ex turbulenta re p., hic ex pace et victoria bellum excitavit_).

[3615] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 760.

[3616] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 60-1.

[3617] _Pharsalia_, viii, 808.

[3618] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 69.

[3619] Matzat’s theory, Holzapfel insists (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 71-2), forces him to contradict himself. First, he argues (_Röm. Chron._, i, 1883, p. 17) that Caesar fixed the time of his first intercalation _simply_ with the object of preventing the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day; in other words, he holds that the intercalary day contemplated by Caesar was a movable one. But if so, we must disregard the testimony of Dion, who says that the intercalation of 713 was ‘contrary to the regulations’ (παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα). Accordingly in _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 51, Matzat silently abandons his earlier view, and assumes that Caesar intended to intercalate in 714, 718, 722, &c. But if this cycle had been observed, the 1st of January, 714, 717, 720, and so on, would have fallen on a market-day; and therefore Matzat’s revised theory is obviously irreconcilable with his original view, that Caesar intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day.

Matzat has not, so far as I can discover, made any rejoinder to Holzapfel’s article; but it is not impossible to answer this argument. Supposing that Caesar intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day, why should we disregard the testimony of Dion? Caesar’s regulation was that the intercalation should take place every four years. If, no matter for what reason, the first intercalation took place in 710, the second would fall due in 714. By transferring it to 713, Caesar’s regulation would be contravened. Nor is the theory that Caesar intended to intercalate in 714, 718, 722, &c., necessarily inconsistent with the view that he intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day; for, as I have remarked in the text, he may perhaps have failed to look ahead.

[3620] _Röm. Chron._, pp. 328-9; _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 77-8.

[3621] The writers of the article CALENDARIUM in Smith’s _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_ (i, 344), who assume that Caesar’s calendar came into operation on the 1st of January, 45 B.C., argue that his motive for making the year begin on that day ‘was probably the desire to gratify the superstition of the Romans by causing the first year (_sic_) of the reformed calendar to fall on the day of the new moon ... the mean new moon occurred at Rome on the 1st of January, 45 B.C., at 6^h 16′ p.m. In this way alone can be explained the phrase used by Macrobius (_Sat._, i, 14, 13): _annum civilem Caesar habitis ad lunam dimensionibus constitutum edicto palam posito publicavit_.’ Holzapfel, on the other hand, shows (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 87) that ‘Macrobius’s words, if one considers the context, only imply that Caesar made no alteration in the place of Kalends, Nones, and Ides, which originally had reference to the lunar phases’. See also Th. Mommsen (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, p. 277, n. 2) and Matzat (_Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 61-3). Matzat’s arguments were directed against A. Mommsen, who assumed (_Philologus_, xlv, 1886, pp. 411-38) that the new moon had occurred on the 2nd of January 45 B.C., and accordingly argued that Caesar’s calendar began on that day. Mr. J. K. Fotheringham (_Journal of Philology_, No. 57, 1903, pp. 98-9) affirms that ‘there was a new moon on the 2nd of January, 45 B.C., which Caesar may have calculated for the 1st, and there was another new moon on the 1st of March’. I have myself calculated the date of the new moon in question, first by reckoning back the number of lunations from the new moon of January 6, 1856, which occurred at 11.17 p.m., taking the length of a lunation to be 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2·84 seconds, and allowing 2 hours for the secular acceleration of the moon’s mean motion; and, secondly, by the method explained in Augustus De Morgan’s _Book of Almanacs_, 1851, pp. xiv-xv. Both methods have led me to the same result, namely, that there was a new moon on January 2, 45 B.C.

[3622] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 57-8.

[3623] _Sat._, i, 13, § 19.--dies ille quo abundare annum diximus eorum est permissus arbitrio qui fastis praeerant, uti, cum vellent, intercalaretur, dum modo eam in medio Terminaliorum vel mensis intercalaris ita locarent ut a suspecto die celebritatem averteret nundinarum. Atque hoc est quod quidam veterum retulerunt non solum mensem apud Romanos verum etiam diem intercalarem fuisse.

[3624] _Ueber die vierjährigen Sonnenkreise der Alten_, 1863, p. 1.

[3625] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 56.

[3626] _Röm. Chron._, p. 328; _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 66-7, 72, 77.

[3627] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 57.

[3628] _Hist. Rom._, xlviii, 33, § 4.

[3629] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 76.

[3630] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 57.

[3631] See p. 714, _supra_.

[3632] See pp. 719-21, _supra_.

[3633] _Sat._, i, 14, § 15.--post hoc unum diem secundum ordinationem Caesaris quinto quoque anno incipiente intercalari iussit, &c.

[3634] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 52-3.

[3635] See p. 719, _supra_.

[3636] A. Mommsen, a brother of the great historian, has devised a singular theory of the working of the Julian calendar (_Philologus_, xlv, 1886, pp. 411-38), which Holzapfel (_ib._, xlix, 1890, pp. 85-7) as well as Matzat (_Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 61 ff.) has conclusively refuted.

[3637] See p. 327, _supra_.

[3638] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 490-1.

[3639] _B. G._, v, 1-8.

[3640] _Q. fr._, ii, 13, § 1.

[3641] Napoleon (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 195, n. 4) arbitrarily identifies Blandeno with Lodi.

[3642] _Q. fr._, ii, 13, § 1.

[3643] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 199.

[3644] _Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 615, 620.

[3645] See O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, pp. 201-5, 378-9. The distance from Placentia to Rome _via_ Luca was 378 miles, _via_ Ariminum 403. See _Itin. Ant._, ed. Wesseling, pp. 124-7, 284, 287-8.

[3646] _Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 615-20; Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 199.

[3647] See O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, pp. 378-80. Caesar did occasionally, as Schmidt admits, travel at the rate of 100 Roman miles a day (Plutarch, _Caesar_, 17; Suetonius, _Divus Iulius_, 57. Cf. Caesar, _B. C._, i, 3, § 6). In 1852, Lord Dalhousie rode and drove from Benares to Barrackpore, a distance of 400 miles, in 80 hours, including stoppages; and in the same year General Godwin travelled from Meerut to Calcutta--over 950 miles--in 11 days (Sir W. Lee-Warner’s _Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie_, i, 1904, pp. 403, 422).

[3648] See p. 730, _infra_.

[3649] _Att._, iv, 15, § 10.

[3650] _Q. fr._, ii, 15, § 4.

[3651] _Att._, iv, 15, § 9.

[3652] _Q. fr._, ii, 15, § 3.

[3653] Asconius, _in Scaurianum_, p. 18 (_M. Tullii Ciceronis opera_, ed. Orelli and Baiter, vol. v, pars ii, 1833).--Summus iudicii dies fuit a. d. IIII Non. Septembr.

[3654] ‘Caesar,’ writes Cicero, ‘wrote me a letter from Britain on the 1st of September, which reached me on the 27th’ (_Ex Britannia Caesar ad me K. Septembr. dedit litteras, quas ego accepi a. d. IIII K. Octobr._ [_Q. fr._, iii, 1, § 25]). ‘Your fourth letter,’ he tells Quintus, ‘reached me on the 13th of September, dated on the 10th of August from Britain’ (_Quarta epistola mihi reddita est Idibus Sept., quam a.d. IIII Idus Sext. ex Britannia dederas_ [_ib._, 1, § 13]). And, as we have already seen, letters from Caesar and Quintus, written on the British coast on the 25th of September, reached Cicero on the 24th of October. The extraordinarily long time--33 days--which Quintus’s ‘fourth letter’ took to reach his brother may easily be accounted for: Cicero was not at Rome when he received it, but at Laterium, near Arpinum, about 70 Roman miles E. by S. of Rome (_ib._, in, 1, § 4).

Napoleon insists (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 196, n, 3) that, in favourable circumstances, letters only required 20 days for transmission from Britain to Rome. This view is based upon a passage in one of Cicero’s letters (_Q. fr._ iii, 1, § 17) which, in the MSS., runs as follows:--_tabellarii a vobis venerunt a. d. XI K. Septembr. vicesimo die_ (‘letter-carriers arrived from you and Caesar on the 22nd of August after a journey of 20 days’). It is obvious, and is universally admitted, that (unless Cicero made a slip) _Septembr._ is wrong, and that Cicero meant ‘the eleventh day before the Kalends of October’, that is to say, September 20. It is equally obvious that he did not write _vicesimo_, or that, if he did, he made a mistake. For, at the end of the letter, he says (as we have already seen), ‘Caesar wrote me a letter from Britain on the 1st of September’; and, as the letter from Quintus reached him on the 20th of September, it must have been dispatched, if it really arrived _vicesimo die_, on the 1st of September, that is to say, on the same day as the letter from Caesar. But this, as Dr. Vogel remarks (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, pp. 273-4), is disproved by the fact that Caesar, in this very letter, begged Cicero not to be alarmed at not having received a letter from Quintus by the same messenger, as Quintus was not with him when he reached the coast (_Ex Britannia Caesar ad me K. Septembr. dedit litteras ... quibus, ne admirer, quod a te nullas acceperim, scribit se sine te fuisse, cum ad mare accesserit_). As it is clear, therefore, that _vicesimo_ is wrong, various attempts have been made to amend the MS. reading. Bergk (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 622) arbitrarily changes _vicesimo_ to _tricesimo_. The most satisfactory conjecture, in my opinion, is that of C. Bardt (_Quaest. Tullianae_, 1866, p. 32). He believes that what Cicero wrote was _a. d. XI Kal., septimo vicesimo die_; that a copyist abbreviated this into _a. d. XI Kal., sept. vicesimo die_; and that this was corrupted into _a. d. XI Kal. Sept., vicesimo die_.

If Professor Tyrrell, who reads _a. d. XI Kal._ [_Sept._] _vicensimo die_ (_Correspondence_, ii, 1886, p. 150), reads this note, I am confident that he will allow his text to be emended in the next edition of his and Dr. Purser’s great work.

[3655] There can, I think, be little doubt that Quintus wrote and dispatched this letter on the very day of his arrival, or, at the latest, before the storm which totally wrecked 40 of Caesar’s ships on the next night but one after his arrival. If the storm had occurred when he wrote, he would surely have mentioned it; and there is not a word in Marcus Cicero’s reply which would lead us to suppose that he had done so. Moreover, Quintus knew that Marcus was waiting impatiently for news; and Caesar would naturally have desired to communicate at once with Labienus whom he had left in command in Gaul.

[3656] _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.--longius delatus aestu orta luce sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit. Tum rursus aestus commutationem secutus, &c.

[3657] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 198.

[3658] _Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 205.

[3659] See pp. 600-3, _supra_.

[3660] See pp. 706-7, _supra_.

[3661] _Norman Conquest_, iii, 399.

[3662] Dr. F. Vogel, who rightly concludes that Caesar could not have sailed on the 20th of July, has recourse to an unsatisfactory argument to prove his case. We know, he says (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 275), what misfortunes Caesar had met with in the preceding year owing to the high tide which was raised by the full moon: how then can we believe that he would have chosen the day of full moon for his second expedition? But Dr. Vogel himself argues that Caesar sailed about the 8th of July, the day after new moon. Did not the doctor forget that the tidal phenomena at full and new moon are nearly identical, and that the 8th of July was the very day on which a springtide occurred? If Caesar was himself unaware of these facts, his Gallic seamen could have enlightened him. Moreover, he must have known that at least one full moon would occur while he remained in Britain.

[3663] _B. G._, v, 9-10; 11, §§ 1-7.

[3664] _Q. fr._, iii, i, § 25.

[3665] See pp. 712-3, 726, _supra_.

[3666] _B. G._, v. 22, §§ 3-4.

[3667] _Ib._, 23, § 1.

[3668] _Ib._, 23, § 2.

[3669] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 280.

[3670] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 194, 199.

[3671] _Ib._, pp. 198-9.

[3672] Trebonius defeated Cassivellaunus about the 20th of July of the Julian calendar; and we may assume that Caesar did not begin to march towards the territories of Cassivellaunus until the following day. By the 5th of August he had returned to his naval camp. In those 17 days he marched to the Thames; crossed it at or near Brentford; marched on through the territory of Cassivellaunus into that of the Trinovantes (Essex); marched thence to the stronghold of Cassivellaunus, which was not far off; captured it in a single day; and marched back to the coast. Altogether the distance that he marched cannot have been less than about 200 miles. Evidently, therefore, he would not have had time enough to negotiate with Cassivellaunus and to receive the hostages whom he demanded before he returned to the coast.

Bergk insists (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 616-8) that the campaign must have been finished at the beginning of August of the Julian calendar, because Caesar (_B. G._, v, 22, § 4) tells us that when it was finished the summer was nearly at an end, and, according to Caesar himself, autumn began on the 11th of August. But when Bergk says that, according to Caesar, autumn began on the 11th of August he seems to forget that this date was fixed in the Julian calendar, eight years after the invasion of Britain. He also forgets that the word _aestas_, in the _Commentaries_, denotes, not a season which ended on a fixed date, but the period during which campaigning was practicable; and two passages prove that it extended at least as far as the middle of September. In the last chapter of his First Book Caesar remarks that in a single ‘summer’ he had finished two important campaigns (_una aestate duobus maximis bellis confectis_); and it has been proved that the decisive battle of the second campaign was fought about the 14th of September (Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, p. 642). In the 20th chapter of the Fourth Book he says that he determined to invade Britain (in 55 B.C.), although only a small part of the ‘summer’ remained, and in this part of the world ‘winter’ set in early (_Exigua parte aestatis reliqua Caesar, etsi in his locis ... maturae sunt hiemes, tamen in Britanniam proficisci contendit_); and we know that he did not land in Britain until the 26th of August (see pp. 600-3, _supra_). The second passage, moreover, is one of many which prove that Caesar generally took no account of spring and autumn, but (like Thucydides) divided the year into two seasons,--_aestas_, the season in which campaigning was practicable, and _hiems_. He only once uses the word _ver_ (spring), namely, in _B. G._, vi, 3, § 4; and only three times--once only in the _Gallic War_ (vii, 35, § 1), twice in the _Civil War_ (iii, 2, § 3; 87, § 3)--uses the word _autumnus_; and in none of these four passages is there any reference to campaigning. The Latin word for ‘winter’, properly so called, is not _hiems_ but _bruma_.

[3673] _B. G._, v, 17, § 5--18, § 1.--Ex hac fuga protinus quae undique convenerant auxilia discesserunt, neque post id tempus umquam summis nobiscum copiis hostes contenderunt. Caesar cognito consilio eorum ad flumen Tamesim in fines Cassivellauni exercitum duxit.

[3674] About the 20th of October Cicero wrote to his brother (_Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 1), ‘for more than fifty days I have heard nothing from you or from Caesar’ (_dierum iam amplius quinquaginta intervallo nihil a te, nihil a Caesare ... adfluxit_). The last letter which he had received was the one written by Caesar on the 1st of September.

[3675] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 194.

[3676] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-3.

[3677] See p. 726, _supra_.

[3678] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 284.

[3679] _Ib._, pp. 284-5.

[3680] _Q. fr._, iii, 8, § 1.--Superiori epistolae quod respondeam, nihil est; quae plena stomachi et querelarum est, quo in genere alteram quoque te scribis pridie Labieno dedisse, qui adhuc non venerat. Delevit enim mihi omnem molestiam recentior epistola.

[3681] _B. G._, v, 8, § 1; 23, § 4.

[3682] _Q. fr._, iii, 8, § 2.

[3683] _B. G._, v, 24, § 2.

[3684] _Ib._, 24, § 1; 46; 47, § 1.

[3685] _Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 4.

[3686] See p. 728, n. 6, _supra_.

[3687] Of course I do not mean that he would not have attempted to do so in any conceivable circumstances; but that Volusenus would never have advised him to undertake such an operation when there was the alternative of landing between Walmer and Sandwich. 5.10.06.

[3688] See pp. 613-4, _supra_.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Page 389, Extra footnote “See p. 61, _supra_.” combined with duplicate number (FN 1605).

Page 568, Footnote anchor 2773 added at the end of first paragraph.

Obvious printer errors corrected silently.

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]