Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (23)

The ‘vitrified’ stone forts of the British Isles demand a brief notice. There are none in England, but many in the northern and western counties of Scotland and some in France. It is very doubtful whether any exist in Wales or Ireland (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 227, 234; D. Christison, _Early Fortifications in Scotland_, pp. 187, 190). The question is whether the vitrifaction, which was due to fire, was accidental or designed; and in some cases the only way of settling this is to ascertain by excavation the extent of the vitrifaction (_ib._, p. 192). The best authorities have concluded that when the vitrified part of the fort is small the phenomenon may be safely ascribed to accident,--perhaps to a beacon fire; but that when it may be traced almost all round the rampart it was intentional (_ib._, pp. 186-7; _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 240-1; R. Munro, _Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 382-3). Probably the builders intended to give cohesion to the walls and make it impossible for assailants to demolish them (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 330-1); or when the vitrifaction was confined to the upper surface the defenders would have secured firm foothold while the assailants would have stumbled over loose stones (D. Christison, _op. cit._, pp, 186-7). [See Addenda]

[1080] _Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6, pp. 53-61; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 382-4; _Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton_, i, 147-9, 151-2. At Beansale and Claverdon in Warwickshire there are camps which in many respects resemble that of Hunsbury, but have not been excavated (_Vict. Hist. of ... Warwick_, i, 350).

Professor T. McKenny Hughes (_Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, p. 484) suggests that Offa’s Dyke may have ‘belonged to the defensive system of the Britons’. All we know is that those dykes which have been excavated--Bokerly Dyke and Wansdyke--were Roman or post-Roman (A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, p. xiii); and it is in the last degree improbable that earthworks which extend over territory that belonged to several tribes should have been constructed at a time when tribes only combined for brief periods and in the presence of urgent and common peril. Cf. F. J. Haverfield, _Archaeol. Survey of Herefordshire_, 1896, p. 7, and _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xvii, 1902, pp. 628-9.

[1081] See p. 93, _supra_.

[1082] _Journ. Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xiii, 1891, pp. 194-9; xiv, 1892, pp. 247-8; xvii, 1895, p. 76; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 231-42. Cf. _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 32^e sess., 1903, 2^e partie, p. 890.

[1083] _Vict. Hist. of ... Bedford_, i, 172. See also p. 84, n. 1, _supra_.

[1084] _Geogr._, iv, 4, § 3. Cf. Caesar, _B. G._, v, 12, § 3, 43, § 1, and Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 5. Woodcuts, one of the Romano-British villages explored by Pitt-Rivers, was constructed and chiefly occupied by Britons (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 65, iii, 3); but, as Prof. Haverfield has pointed out (_The Romanization of Roman Britain_, pp. 18-9), ‘the material life was Roman’.

[1085] _B. G._, v, 12, § 3.

[1086] Athenaeus, iv, 36. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, v, 28, §§ 4-5 and Strabo, iv, 4, § 3.

[1087] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iv, 1867-70, pp. 164-70; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxvi, 1880, pp. 254-61; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, p. 207; R. Munro, _Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 348-9; B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, p. 266; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 541-7. It must be admitted that conclusive evidence is wanting to prove that any of the Cornish subterranean dwellings were inhabited before the Roman occupation (see _Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 367-9). The ‘hut-clusters’ of Cornwall, of which Chrysoister is a good example (W. C. Lukis, _Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, p. 19) were probably later than the hut-circles of the same county. Some may have been built before the Christian era, but they were certainly inhabited in Roman times (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 370).

[1088] _Archaeol. Journal_, x, 1853, pp. 212, 215-9, 221-2; xviii, 1861, pp. 39-46; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, iii, 1863, pp. 128, 134-8, 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 102-22, 173-89, 548-58; Sir A. Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, p. 58; _Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1902, pp. 189-90.

[1089] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 116-7, 119, 147; xxxviii, 1904, p. 558.

[1090] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 146-8; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 35-6; A. Lang, _The Clyde Mystery_, p. 41.

[1091] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xv, 1886, pp. 463-5; xxviii, 1899, pp. 150-4; R. Munro, _The Lake-Dwellings of Europe_, pp. 454, 459, 461, 475, 493. Dr. Munro (_ib._, pp. 490-2) observes that ‘in the early centuries of the Christian era the distribution of crannogs in Scotland and Ireland closely coincides with a well-defined area in which the Celtic language was spoken’, though he admits that ‘they have not been found in the south-eastern provinces of Scotland’. ‘In this wider area’ [including Southern Britain], he continues, ‘on the supposition that the Celts were the introducers or founders of the system, we ought to find some vestiges of these dwellings.... This is precisely what the general researches into British lake-dwellings have shown in the stray remnants of them that have been found in Llangorse, Holderness, the _meres_ of Norfolk and Suffolk, Cold Ash Common, etc. All these, with perhaps the exception of the pile-structures at London Wall, appear to be older than the majority of the crannogs of Scotland and Ireland.... Taking all these facts into account ... I am inclined to believe that we have here evidence of a widely distributed custom which underlies the subsequent [to Caesar] great development which the lake-dwellings assumed in Scotland and Ireland. Moreover, I believe it probable that the early Celts had got this knowledge from contact with the inhabitants of the pile-dwellings of Central Europe.’

Llangorse is the only Welsh site at which a lake-dwelling has been found (_ib._, p. 464). I venture to ask the doctor why lake-dwellings are so rare in England and Wales, where, on his theory, they ought to abound; why the Scottish and Irish Celts did not apply their ‘knowledge’ for some centuries after they reached the British Isles; and why lake-dwellings are non-existent (_ib._, p. 493) in Spain and Portugal, where Celts were numerous (G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, pp. 324, 329-31, 349)? And, seeing that there are pile-dwellings in New Guinea and Central Africa, is it not conceivable that those of the British Isles had no connexion with Central Europe?

[1092] Cf. Tacitus, _Germania_, 24, and _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 439-40.

[1093] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 198.

[1094] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1893 (1894), p. 903; 1894, pp. 431-4; 1898, pp. 694-5; 1904 (1905), pp. 324-30; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xlix, 1903, pp. 103, 107-8, 114-5, 120-1; 1, 1904, pp. 68-93; li, 1905, pp. 77-104; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 395; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 126-7.

[1095] _Ib._, p. 127; _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 4.

[1096] Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 1; Strabo, iv, 4, § 3; C. Elton, _Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 110; Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, p. 10; _Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., i, 1903, pp. 337-42; H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, pp. 337-42.

[1097] J. O. Westwood, _Lapidarium Walliae_, 1876-9, p. 37, and pl. xxv, fig. 3; J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 567.

[1098] _B. G._, v, 14, § 3.

[1099] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 345-6; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 50, 135.

[1100] _B. G._, vi, 14, § 3.

[1101] _Bibl. Hist._, v, 28, § 6.

[1102] _B. G._, i, 29, § 1.

[1103] _Ib._, v, 48, §§ 3-4. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 715.

[1104] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 171. Cf. p. 368, _infra_, and F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, 1906, p. 9.

[1105] Diodorus Siculus, v, 31, § 2; Strabo, iv, 4, § 4; Athenaeus, iv, 37, vi, 49; Ammianus Marcellinus, xv, 9, § 8.

[1106] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 144. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1901, p. 373.

[1107] _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 246. Only one has come to light in Durham (_Vict. Hist. of ... Durham_, i. 209).

[1108] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 11, 59-61. A bronze socketed celt has been found at Cann, near Shaftesbury, in association with British silver coins (J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 102).

[1109] _Archaeologia_, xvi, 1812, pp. 348-9; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 83, 103-4. If it is true that coins formed part of the Hagbourne Hill deposit, bronze implements must have continued in use in Berkshire to a very late date.

[1110] May the rarity of British iron weapons be partly accounted for by supposing that during the greater part of the Late Celtic Period swords and spear-heads were still in many cases made of bronze? In the Homeric Age implements were of iron, but the weapons which the poet mentions were all of bronze, doubtless because the armourers had not yet learned to temper iron (_Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., vii, 1906, pp. 284, 290-1, 294).

[1111] _B. G._, v, 14, § 2.

[1112] See pp. 161, 189, _supra_.

[1113] F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, pp. 7-9. Cf. _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 191-2, and see also Solinus, 22, 12 (ed. Th. Mommsen, p. 234).

I hardly know whether it is worth while to notice the statements of Diodorus (v, 32, § 3) and Strabo (iv, 5, § 4) in regard to the prevalence of cannibalism in certain parts of the British Isles. If there is any truth in them, the cannibals had doubtless inherited the custom from neolithic times (p. 113, _supra_). Strabo’s remark, which, as he himself warns us, does not rest upon good authority, refers only to Ireland. Diodorus says that some of the Britons were cannibals; but this observation may also refer to the Irish. A mound-dwelling near Kirkwall (_Archaeol. Journal_, x, 1853, p. 217) is said to have contained broken human bones mingled with those of sheep, which may or may not be evidence of cannibalism; and every scholar knows the speech that Caesar puts into the mouth of Critognatus, one of the Arvernian chiefs who was blockaded in Alesia (_B. G_., vii, 77, § 12). As for the unnatural vices with which Diodorus (v, 32, § 7), Strabo (iv, 4, § 6), and others charge the Celts, they are rife among the civilized nations of modern Europe.

[1114] See H. J. Mackinder, _Britain and the British Seas_, pp. 177-9.

[1115] See p. 288, _infra_.

[1116] _B. G._, v, 9, § 4; 11, § 9.

[1117] _Agricola_, 12.

[1118] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxviii, 1872, p. 42; _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 467; lii, 1890, pp. 761-2; _Trans. Epping forest ... Field Club_, ii, 1882, p. 65; C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, _Worlebury_, 1886, p. 78; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 419-20; _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6.

[1119] See _Rev. arch._, 3^e sér., xli, 1902, p. 428, and my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, p. 12, n. 1.

[1120] See _B. G._, i, 18, §§ 6-7.

[1121] Tacitus, _Ann._, xii, 36.

[1122] See p. 296, _infra_.

[1123] _B. G._, vi, 19, §§ 1-2. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 521-2.

[1124] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 3. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Études sur le droit celt._, i, 1895, p. 241) holds that if _uxores_ means ‘wives’, Caesar’s statement is inconsistent with the custom which regulated the administration of dowries, and accordingly gives the word the sense of ‘concubines’. It seems to me equally rash to assume that Caesar was mistaken, and that _uxores_ means ‘wives’ in § 1 and ‘concubines’ in § 3. May we not suppose that the husband’s power was checked by public opinion?

[1125] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 3.

[1126] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, pp. 12-5.

[1127] _Ib._, 1899, pp. 525-7.

[1128] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp. 31-2, 38-9.

[1129] Ausonius, _Clarae urbes_, xiv, 31-2; Gildas, _Hist._, 2. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, 1888, p. 106; Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, pp. 12, 20-2; and E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 212-4.

[1130] See J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, p. 154.

[1131] _Corpus Inscr. Lat._, vii, 507; J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 104.

[1132] See _Rev. celt._, ii, 1873-5, p. 1; iv, 1879-80, pp. 57-8; xviii, 1897, p. 259; E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 221, 228.

[1133] Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 106, with G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, 1904, p. 60.

[1134] M. Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 101) points out that the texts fall into two groups, one of which, all posterior to 100 B.C., deals with the Transalpine Celts, and the other, mostly earlier, with all the others, except the Britons.

[1135] _Rev. celt._, xii, 1891, p. 316; _Rev. num._, 3^e sér., ii, 1884, pp. 179-202; _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 279, n. 2.

[1136] ‘On se tromperait beaucoup,’ says M. Dottin (_La rel. des Celtes_, pp. 7-8), ‘si l’on croyait que tous les anciens _Mercuriacus_ de France, devenus aujourd’hui Mercuray, Mercurey, Mercoirey, Mercury, sont dérivés du nom de dieu Mercurius. Ils proviennent plus vraisemblablement du gentilice romain Mercurius, assez fréquent dans les inscriptions, et dénomment simplement le _fundus_, la propriété d’un Gallo-Romain du nom de Mercurius.’

[1137] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 235. See also _Rev. celt._, iv, 1879-80, p. 45; x, 1889, pp. 485, 487, 489; H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse de la rel. des Gaulois_, 1879, p. 11, _Études de mythologie gaul.,--Le dieu gaul. du soleil_, 1886, pp. 90-1, 93; _Rev. num._, 3^e sér., ii, 1884, p. 201, n. 1; _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 124; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, 1, 1894, pp. 105-9; and G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, pp. 5-16, 56-7, 60.

[1138] Caesar does not say that Mercury was actually the supreme deity of the Gauls, but only the most fervently worshipped: he expressly says that they regarded their Jupiter as the lord of the celestials. ‘It must not be supposed,’ says Sir Alfred Lyall (_Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, p. 121), ‘that even the uppermost gods of Hinduism have retired behind mere ceremonial altars, like constitutional monarchs.... But there seem to be many grades of accessibility among them, from Brahma--who, since he created the world, has taken no further trouble about it, and is naturally rewarded by possessing only one or two of the million temples to Hindu gods,’ &c.

[1139] _B. G._, vi, 17.

[1140] _De divin._, i, 41, § 90. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 532, n. 13.

[1141] H. Gaidoz, _Études de mythol. gaul.,--Le dieu gaul. du soleil_, p. 91. Cf. E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 252, 254.

[1142] De his eandem fere quam reliquae gentes habent opinionem. _B. G._, vi, 17, § 2.

[1143] See _Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 329. Cf. Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, pp. 2-3, 6.

[1144] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp. 16-8, 29, 253-6, 263.

[1145] See pp. 273 n. 7, 284, _infra_, and G. Boissier, _La rel. des Romains_, i, 1892, pp. 335, 340-1.

[1146] _Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, pp. 32, 324. See Mr. A. B. Cook’s series of articles in the same volume and in the first number of vol. xviii.

[1147] W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, 1899, p. 333.

[1148] _Ib._, p. 347. Cf. W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p. 64.

[1149] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 49; G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, p. 12. Mercury was also reverenced more than any other god by the Germans of whom Tacitus wrote (_Germ._, 9).

[1150] _B. G._, v, 22, § 3.

[1151] H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, pp. 39-40, 44. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 220.

[1152] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp. 39, 41-2.

[1153] M. Camille Jullian _(Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 109, n. 1) points out that in vol. vii [p. 331] of the _Corpus inscr. Lat._ there are sixty-one inscriptions in honour of Mars [of which, however, eight are uncertain], and only eight in honour of Mercury; and the greater popularity of Mars is also apparent in the supplements published in _Ephemeris epigraphica_ (iii, 1877, pp. 125, 128; iv, 1881, p. 196; vii, 1892, pp. 289, 299, 313, 324, 332, 334, 352). But no account should be taken of those inscriptions in which the name of Mars is not coupled with that of a Celtic deity, though even with this reservation the ascendancy of Mars remains unaffected.

[1154] See _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 109, n. 1. Even in Gaul the cult of Mars appears to have preponderated among the Aquitani (_ib._, pp. 106-7, and _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, 87, 108-17, 209-13).

[1155] _B. G._, vi, 17, §§ 3-5. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp. 49-50.

[1156] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 84.

[1157] _Pharsalia_, i, 445-6.

[1158] There is no trace of the worship of Esus in the British Isles, unless M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Les Celtes_, p. 63) is right in thinking that Esus was a god whose surname was Smertullos, and that Smertullos, the Celtic Pollux, is to be identified with the Irish Cuchulainn (see also _Fragm. hist. Graec._, ed. Didot, i, 1841, p. 194, fr. 6; Diodorus Siculus, iv, 56, § 4; _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, 3026 _c_; and H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, p. 88). Esus is depicted as a woodman in the act of felling a tree on No. 2 of four altars which were discovered at Paris in 1710; while Smertullos appears on the right of No. 3, threatening a serpent with a club. M. d’Arbois is a little rash in concluding (_La civilisation des Celtes_, 1899, p. 173) that because there was a Briton called Esunectus, who may have been an immigrant from Gaul, Esus was worshipped in Britain. The name AESV occurs on a coin of the Iceni; but its meaning is uncertain (J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 386). The scholiasts of Lucan identified Esus with Mercury; but their authority on such a matter is worthless (see _Rev. celt._, xviii, 1897, p. 117). Prof. Rhys, however, has recently examined an inscription (_Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy_, 1907, p. 56), which leads him to give a qualified support to the identification.

[1159] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 747, 1114_d_; H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse de la rel. des Gaulois_, p. 12; W. H. Roscher, _Lex. der griech. und röm. Mythol._, i, 1884-6, col. 1286-93; _Rev. arch._, 3^e sér., xxvi, 1895, pp. 309, 317; 4^e sér., ii, 1903, pp. 348-50; _Rev. des études anc._, vii, 1905, pp. 234-8.

[1160] _Rev. celt._, xviii, 1897, pp. 140-1.

[1161] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 168.

[1162] My criticism of M. S. Reinach’s theory is supported, I am glad to see, by M. Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, pp. 217-9).

[1163] H. Gaidoz, _Études de mythologie gaul.,--Le dieu gaul. du soleil_, &c., pp. 96-7.

[1164] H. Gaidoz, _Études de mythologie gaul.,--Le dieu gaul. du soleil_, &c., pp. 7, 61-3, 66, 92, 96; _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 879, 882; J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp. 55-6; _Class. Rev._, xvii, 1903, p. 420; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 60, 136, 152; _Rev. des études anc._, vii, 1905, pp. 156-7; _Folk-Lore_, xvi, 1905, p. 272, n. 9. The supposition that the wheels were money is no longer admitted by competent antiquaries (A. Blanchet, _Traité des monn. gaul._, pp. 27-8).

[1165] J. G. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii, 1900, p. 326.

[1166] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp. 74-5.

[1167] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 200, 203, 875, 1062. Cf. W. H. Roscher, _Lex. der griech. und röm. Myth._, i, 1884-6, col. 819, and H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, p. 35.

[1168] _Ib._, p. 33. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy_, p. 11.

[1169] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 1345; _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, xv, 1899, p. 463.

[1170] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 1082. ‘On se tromperait grandement,’ says M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Les Druides_, 1906, p. 68), ‘si l’on croyait qu’il y eut entre le dieu gaulois _Belenus_ ... et les dieux gaulois _Grannos_ et _Borvo_ [all of whom were assimilated to Apollo] ... une analogie quelconque ... Le dieu _Maponus_, “jeune fils”, n’avait probablement de commun avec Apollon que la jeunesse éternelle.’

[1171] Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Heathendom_, p. 126) says that ‘most of the remains of antiquity connected with his temple make him a sort of Jupiter’, but adds (_ib._, p. 130) that he ‘was not simply a Neptune ... he was also a Mars, as the inscriptions at Lydney testify’. But the testimony of the inscriptions (_Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 138-40) consists simply in the letter M; and Hübner, to whom the professor appeals, queries his own suggestion that M stands for _Marti_. [I learn from one of Mr. A. B. Cook’s articles in _Folk-Lore_ (xvii, 1906, p. 39, n. 1) that Hübner (_Jahrbuch des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande_, Heft lxvi, 1879, pp. 29-46) corrected and supplemented the account of Nodons which he had given in the _Corpus_, and interpreted _D. M. NODONTI_ as d(eo) m(_agno_)--‘the great god’--a reading which would authorize us to regard him, with Mr. Cook, as ‘a Jupiter and a Neptune rolled into one’.]

[1172] _Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, pp. 30, 39.

[1173] H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, pp. 33-5.

[1174] _Ib._, pp. 54-6.

[1175] J. Rhys, _Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy_, p. 14.

[1176] _B. G._, vi, 18, § 1. Cf. Tacitus, _Germ._, 2.

[1177] C. Jullian in Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des ant. grecques et rom._, ii, 1892, p. 280. Cf. _Bull. de l’Acad. des inscr._, 1887, p. 443, and _Rev. arch._, xx, 1892, pp. 208, 213.

[1178] _Rev. celt._, xvii, 1896, pp. 45-59. Cf. G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, pp. 21-2. The Celtic name of the god on the altar at Sarrebourg was Sucellos.

[1179] C. de Clarac, _Musée de sculpture ant. et mod._,--Planches, t. iii, 1832-4, pl. 398 [670]; _Comptes rendus ... de l’Acad. des inscr._, 4^e sér., xv, 1887, p. 444.

[1180] S. Reinach, _Antiquités nat.,--Descr. raisonnée du musée de St. Germain-en-Laye_, pp. 137, 156-68; H. Gaidoz, _Le grand dieu gaul. chez les Allobroges_, 1902, p. vi. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 81, and _Folk-Lore_, xvi, 1905, p. 273. Dis Pater is identified by Professor Rhys and M. G. Bloch (E. Lavisse, _Hist. de France_, i, 51-2) with Cernunnos (see p. 284, _infra_). Cf. W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, p. 286.

M. H. Gaidoz (_Rev. arch._, 3^e sér., xx, 1892, p. 213) says that the worship of Dis Pater in Britain is attested--it hardly needs attestation--by two inscriptions (_Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 154, 250). The former is not worth quoting. The latter--one of many inscriptions addressed to the _Di Manes_ which are contained in the _Corpus_ and in _Ephemeris epigraphica_, (vols. iii and vii) contains the words _Secreti Manes qui regna Acherusia Ditis incolitis_.

[1181] _B. G._, vi, 21, § 2.

[1182] _Germ._, 9.

[1183] _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 228; v, 1903, p. 106.

[1184] See G. Boissier, _La rel. rom._, i, 6.

[1185] _Class. Rev._, xviii, 1904, pp. 361, 367-72, 375; _Folk-Lore_, xv, 1904, p. 264; xvi, 1905, p. 321; xvii, 1906, p. 30.

[1186] _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 221.

[1187] _Ib._, v, 1903, p. 110.

[1188] _Ib._, vi, 1904, pp. 111 n. 1, 134 n. 4; A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, ii, 1805-6.

[1189] _Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, pp. 59, 71.

[1190] _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 110-4.

[1191] G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, pp. 234-5.

[1192] See _Rev. celt._, xxv, 1904, pp. 130-1.

[1193] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 168a, 221, 348, 559; _Ephemeris epigr._, iii, 1877, p. 120; iv, 1881, p. 198a; _Rev. des études anc._, viii, 1906, pp. 53-8.

[1194] _Rev. celt._, i, 1870-2, pp. 306-19.

[1195] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, pars i, fasc. i, p. 249.

[1196] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 99.

[1197] _Rev. celt._, i, 1870-2, pp. 306-19.

[1198] Diodorus Siculus, v, 29, § 4; _Rev. celt._, viii, 1887, pp. 47, 59, n. 13; H. d’A. de Jubainville, _La civilisation des Celtes_, pp. 374-5; _Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 252.

[1199] See E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 229-34.

[1200] J. Evans, _Coins of the Ancient Britons_, p. 121, Suppl., p. 477; Cf. _Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, pp. 297-9.

[1201] _B. G._, vii, 88, § 4; E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, iii, 1890, pl. xii; S. Reinach, _Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et rom._, ii, 746-7; H. d’A. de Jubainville, _La civilisation des Celtes_, 1899, pp. 390-1; _Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 48.

[1202] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, 3026 _b_, _c_. Cf. G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, pp. 20-1, 28, and _Rev. celt._, xxvi, 1905, p. 199. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_ib._, p. 195) thinks that the original Epona was the mare deified, and that the woman in the statues was a Greek addition. Cf. A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, pp. 118-20, and Sir A. Lyall’s _Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, p. 18.

[1203] xxii, 57, § 10; xxiii, 24, § 11.

[1204] ii, 32, § 6.

[1205] _B. G._, vi, 13, § 10, 17, § 5; Tac., _Ann._, xiv, 30; Dion Cassius, lxii, 7, § 3. Cf. G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, p. 30. Strabo (iv, 4, § 6), Diodorus Siculus (v, 27, § 4), Plutarch (_Caesar_, 26), and Suetonius (_Divus Iulius_, 54) speak of temples in Transalpine Gaul; but all archaeologists would admit that the words which they used--τέμενος, ἱερόν, fanum, and templum--did not denote roofed edifices. I think, however, that Livy (xxii, 57, § 10, xxiii, 24, § 11) had such buildings in mind. Whether he was well informed is another question. Cf. _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 279-80.

[1206] Tacitus, _Germ._, 9.

[1207] Livy, i, 31, § 3. Cf. W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, pp. 338-9, and J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp. 210-1.

[1208] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 190-3. Cf. vol. xi, 1890, p. 225. M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., viii, 1906, p. 146) says that ‘la vie de Saint Samson désigne par le mot _simulacrum_ une pierre levée, _lapis stans_, qui était l’objet d’un culte en Grande-Bretagne au milieu du vi^{e} siècle’, &c.

[1209] Pausanias, vii, 22, § 4.

[1210] M. Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 284 n. 6, 285 n. 1), referring to the passage in which Lucan (iii, 412-3) describes the Druids’ grove near Massilia,--

_simulacraque maesta deorum
Arte carent caesisque exstant informia truncis_,

and interpreting it differently from M. Reinach, argues that Caesar’s _simulacra_ ‘ne peut signifier que des objets ayant déjà vaguement l’aspect de forme humaine’. In regard to the ‘statues--menhirs’, which the abbé Hermet (_Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 [1903], pp. 335-8) regards as figures of divinities, see p. 200, _supra_, and cf. E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 168.

[1211] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 199.

[1212] M. d’A. de Jubainville (_ib._, xxvii, 1906, p. 122) argues that the absence of pre-Roman Gallic statues is due not to Druidical influence but to the fact that the Gauls built their houses not of stone but of wood, and were therefore ignorant of the art of sculpture! But houses built of stone have been found at Bibracte. See _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), pp. 418-9.

[1213] Augustine, _De civ. Dei_, iv, 31.

[1214] _Germ._, 9.

[1215] G. Boissier, _La rel. rom._, 1892, pp. 8, 35. Cf. Ovid, _Fasti_, vi, 295.

[1216] See _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 115.

M. Camille Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 251, n. 1) maintains that Caesar (_B. G._, vi, 19, § 4) does not say that the rich were cremated, but only their slaves. M. Jullian’s interpretation of this well-known passage is, I believe, unique; anyhow, the statement in the text rests upon certain archaeological evidence. See _Rev. celt._, xx, 1899, pp. 119-20; _Rev. de synthèse hist._, 1901, p. 50; and _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 84.

[1217] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 320, 322, 325.

[1218] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. 357.

[1219] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 229.

[1220] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 1-3; _Archaeol. Journal_, xliv, 1887, p. 271; _Archaeol. Cant._, xxvi, 1904, pp. 11-2; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 109.

[1221] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 106-7, 110-1. Cf. _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 6. Mr. Reginald Smith (_Guide_, &c., p. 112) remarks, in regard to the ‘Danes’ Graves’ near Driffield, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, that ‘the bodies lay indifferently on the right or left side, though the majority had the head at the north end of the grave: there was thus’, he adds, ‘no tendency to face the sun, as in the Bronze period’. Since the bodies, on whichever side they lay, would have faced either the morning or the afternoon sun, Mr. Smith’s observation apparently assumes that in the Bronze period corpses were laid so as to face the morning sun, which was far from being an invariable rule. See pp. 188-9, _supra_, and the authorities there cited; also _Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, x, 1866, p. 101. Unhappily Sir R. C. Hoare, from whom we learn that in Wiltshire corpses were generally laid with their heads pointing northward, omits to say whether they were laid on the right or the left side. [See Addenda.]

[1222] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 63-71; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 104-20.

[1223] _Ib._, p. 112.

[1224] _Ib._, p. 122; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 208-12.

[1225] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 4.

[1226] Or, as Dr. Evans, who mentions both alternatives, suggests (_Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 326), for the introduction of food. See pp. 115-6, _supra_.

[1227] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 324-7. Cf. _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 82-3, and see also W. C. Borlase, _Nenia Cornubiae_, pp. 247-51.

[1228] _Vitae phil._, ed. Didot, p. 2, ll. 22-3.

[1229] _B. G._, vi, 13, § 11.

[1230] Diogenes Laertius, ed. Didot, p. 1, l. 11.

[1231] _B. G._, vi, 21, § 1.

[1232] _Ib._, 16, § 1.

[1233] See _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 102.

[1234] _B. G._, vi, 21, § 1.

[1235] Arrian, _De venatione_, 34, §§ 1-3.

[1236] See _Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, pp. 47-8, 53, 55, 59-60.

[1237] See p. 291, n. 2, _infra_.

[1238] ‘The political condition of the people of Brythonic Britain,’ says Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., 1904, pp. 57, 61), ‘towards the end of the Early Iron Age and the close of their independence, is best studied in connection with that of Gaul as described by Caesar.... The state of things, politically speaking, which existed in Gaul, existed also most likely among the Belgic tribes in Britain.’ That is to say, the professor accepts the political part of Caesar’s description as applying to the Belgic and the other Brythonic tribes of both Gaul and Britain. Yet he insists that that part of the same description which deals with Druidism, and which is indissolubly connected with the political part, has nothing to do either with the Belgae or the other Brythons.

[1239] Professor Rhys virtually admits this when he says that the Brythonic dialect was largely influenced by the language of the aborigines. See p. 452, n. 8, _infra_.

[1240] The problem of the origin of Druidism is interesting as an example of the divergence which exists among Celtic scholars upon almost every important question of Celtic religion, and also because it once more illustrates the working of that powerful but erratic engine,--the mind of Professor Rhys. The first known mention of Druidism, the substance of which is reproduced in Diogenes Laertius’s _Lives of the Philosophers_, occurred in a work by Sotion of Alexandria, who lived about 200 B.C. From this, M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, 1902, pp. 187-8) infers that the Belgic invaders of Britain found Druidism flourishing there about that date, and transplanted it into the country which they had left, but with which they kept up a constant intercourse. M. d’Arbois has consistently maintained this view for many years; and under his influence Professor Rhys affirmed in 1879 (_Lectures on Welsh Philology_, 2nd ed., pp. 83-4) that Druidism reached Gaul ‘undoubtedly through the Belgae who had settled in Britain’. Now, however, the professor rightly holds that the Belgae were preceded in Britain by other Brythons (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 4); and it would seem therefore that the date of the first mention of Druidism gives no clue as to the place where it originated. Moreover, Professor Rhys has long been of opinion that there is ‘no proof that any Belgic or Brythonic people ever had Druids’ (_ib._, 2nd ed., 1884, p. 69; 3rd ed., 1904, p. 69; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, p. 894). In 1901, accordingly, he argued (_Celtic Folk-lore_, ii, 623, 685) that the Goidelic invaders of Britain (whose existence, I must remind the reader, is denied by some Celtic scholars) ‘got their magic and druidism’ from ‘the [imaginary] dwarf race of the _sids_’ (see p. 391, _infra_). But in 1900 (_The Welsh People_, p. 83) and again in 1902 (_ib._, 3rd ed.) he affirmed that Druidism had been ‘evolved by the Continental Goidels, or rather accepted by them from the Aborigines’. Presumably, then, they already had Druids when they invaded Britain, and had no need to borrow them from the _sids_. By 1904, however, the professor appears to have concluded that Druidism originated independently among the aborigines both of Gaul and of Britain, and that with both it was an inheritance from common ancestors; for, after telling us (_Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., p. 69) that Druidism ‘may be surmised to have had its origin’ among ‘the non-Celtic natives’ of Britain, he goes on to say that it ‘possessed certain characteristics which enabled it to make terms with the Celtic conqueror, both in Gaul and in the British islands’; while on page 73 he remarks that ‘it is hard to accept the belief ... that druidism originated here’, and concludes that ‘the Celts found it both here and there [in Gaul] the common religion of some of the aboriginal inhabitants’. But the weary student who hopes to be allowed to acquiesce in this conclusion is distracted by finding that on page 4 of this very book, in which the professor insists that ‘there is no proof that any ... Brythonic people ever had Druids’, he affirms that ‘traces of [the Goidels] are difficult to discover on the Continent’ (_Celtic Britain_, p. 4). This time the conclusion would seem to be that the Gauls, whose Druids Caesar described, were neither Goidels nor Brythons! It is hardly necessary to add that the professor has since satisfied himself (see p. 410, _infra_) that traces of Continental Goidels are abundant.

As we have already seen (p. 114, _supra_), M. S. Reinach (_Acad. des inscr. et belles-lettres_,--comptes-rendus de l’année 1892, 4^e sér., xx, 6-7) attributes the megalithic monuments of Gaul to Druidical influence, arguing that their construction is inexplicable except on the hypothesis of ‘une aristocratie religieuse exerçant un empire presque absolu sur une nombreuse population’ (_Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 194). Certainly: but if it is a fair conclusion that this hierarchy was composed of Druids, might it not be argued that Druidism was a world-wide institution, or at least co-extensive with rude stone monuments? On the other hand, Professor J. von Pflugk-Harttung (_Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._, N. S., vii, 1893, p. 57) can see no reason for supposing that Druidism was originally non-Aryan.

M. Camille Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 260) seems inclined to believe that the priests (_sacerdotes_) of the Cisalpine Boii (Livy, xxiii, 24, § 12) were Druids; and I admit that it is impossible to prove that they were not.

[M. d’A. de Jubainville, in his latest volume (_Les Druides_, p. 13), infers from Caesar’s statement, that Druidism originated in Britain, that it was of Goidelic [why not pre-Goidelic?] origin, and holds (pp. 22-3) that it was imposed by the Goidels upon their Gallo-Brythonic conquerors.]

[1241] _Ann._, xiv, 30. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, xxx, 1 (4), § 13.

[1242] _B. G._, vi, 13-4, 16.

[1243] Hoc maxime ad virtutem excitari putant metu mortis neglecto (_ib._, 14, § 5). See p. 295, _infra_.

[1244] This statement is, I admit, open to dispute. Caesar (_B. G._, vii, 33, § 4) does not expressly say that Druids exercised the right in question, but priests (_sacerdotes_); and it has been argued that those priests may not have been Druids (see my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 534, n. 3, and G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, p. 41). But, so far as we know, the only other name that designated a priest in Gaul was _gutuater_, which occurs in two Gallo-Roman inscriptions (_ib._, and _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 818); and I doubt whether it is possible to prove that in pre-Roman times the _gutuater_ was not a Druid. Anyhow, considering the terms in which Caesar describes the Druids, considering what he says of their power, political and legal as well as spiritual (_fere de omnibus controversiis publicis privatisque constituunt_), I find it difficult to believe that they would have permitted any priest who was not one of themselves to exercise the very important function which he describes in _B. G._, vii, 33. [For confirmation of the statement in the text see H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Druides_, p. 159, who, however (pp. 2-6), insists that _gutuatri_ were distinct from Druids.]

[1245] Tacitus, _Ann._, xiv, 30; Diodorus Siculus, v, 31, § 3.

[1246] _Chronica minora_, ed. Th. Mommsen, iii, 1898, p. 182, 11, 14-7. Cf. E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, i, 1903, pp. 104-8; _Rev. celt._, xxvi, 1905, p. 289; and Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, ii, 1899, pp. 312-3. In regard to the Druidical practice of human sacrifice see N. Fréret, _Œuvres complètes_, xviii, 1796, pp. 264-72; _Nouvelle rev. hist. du droit français et étranger_, 1898, pp. 289-300; Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 533; and J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, iii, 1900, pp. 319-23, 326.

[1247] M. G. Bloch (_Rev. internat. de l’enseignement_, Août, 1895, p. 151), referring to Caesar (_B. G._, vi, 13, § 5), argues that the suitors who appealed to Druids probably all belonged to the upper class (_equites_), who, having unlimited rights over their dependents (_ib._, § 3), doubtless decided their disputes.

The meaning of the ‘awards and penalties’ (_praemia poenasque_) which the Druidical judges fixed is uncertain. See H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Études sur le droit celt._, i, 80-1; G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, p. 190; and Sir H. Maine, _Early Hist. of Inst._, 1875, p. 136.

[1248] _Rev. internat. de l’enseignement_, Août, 1895, pp. 149-50.

[1249] _B. G._, v, 55, § 3. Cf. viii, 30, § 1.

[1250] _Ib._, vi, 13, § 10.

[1251] _Bibl. hist._, v, 28, § 6.

[1252] Ammianus Marcellinus, xv, 9, § 8.

[1253] _E.g._ by Fustel de Coulanges (_Rev. celt._, iv, 1879-80, p. 53).

[1254] H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse de la rel. des Gaulois_, p. 18.

[1255] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 98. The pentagram, which, says Professor Tylor (_Ency. Brit._, xv, 1883, p. 203), is ‘an interesting proof of tradition from the Pythagoreans’, has also been found on a more recently discovered British coin (J. Evans, _Coins_, &c.,--Suppl., p. 573); on a bucket in Carnarvonshire (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., v, 1905, p. 256); on a pebble in a broch at Burrian, Orkney (_ib._); and on Gallic coins of the Carnutes, Senones, Suessiones, and Remi (A. Blanchet, _Traité des monn. gaul._, pp. 331, 360, 378, 385-6).

M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Études sur le droit celt._, i, 1895, p. 5), referring to Mela, iii, 2, § 19 (_unum ex his quae praecipiunt in vulgus effluxit, videlicet ut forent ad bella meliores, aeternas esse animas vitamque alteram ad manes. Itaque cum mortuis cremant ac defodiunt apta viventibus_), asserts that the teaching of the Druids differed from that of Pythagoras: they did not inculcate metempsychosis, but merely the immortality of the soul. He also insists, quoting Valerius Maximus, ii, 6, § 10, that, in the belief of the Gauls, the life to come was analogous to life upon earth (cf. N. Fréret, _Œuvres complètes_, xviii, 1796, pp. 182-8). But it is not proved that Caesar, whose authority is higher than that of Mela, and whose testimony is not really contradicted by him, was misinformed when he said that the Druids taught _non interire animas, sed ab aliis post mortem transire ad alios_; and Valerius Maximus himself remarks that the belief of the Gauls was identical with that of Pythagoras. Many Christians, who believe in the immortality of the soul, also believe, or fancy that they believe, in the transmigration of souls. Still, as I have suggested in the text, it is quite possible that even the Druids did not preach the Pythagorean doctrine of metempsychosis, and that Caesar did not intend to convey that they did.

[1256] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 75-83.

[1257] _Ib._, pp. 63-5, 77; _Rev. de l’hist. des rel._, xiv, 1886, p. 61; G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, pp. 35-7.

[1258] _B. G._, vi, 14, § 6.

[1259] See _Rev. celt._, iv, 1879-80, pp. 51-2.

[1260] _B. G._, vi, 18, § 2; Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, xvi, 43 (95), § 250. The Germans had the same notion as the Gauls about night and day (Tacitus, _Germ._, 11). Cf. N. Fréret, _Œuvres complètes_, xviii, 1796, p. 222, and _Rev. internat. de l’enseignement_, Août, 1895, p. 159.

[1261] See _Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 127; _Rev. celt._, xxv, 1904, pp. 115, 118, 121, 131-2, 160; and J. Rhys, _Celtae and Galli_, 1905, pp. 1-4, 8, 21, 35, 46. Of course we have no right to assume that the calendar of Coligny, which was not earlier than the first century of our era, was identical with that of the Britons; but this caution does not invalidate the statements in the text.

The language of the calendar is a subject of dispute. Prof. Rhys and M. Camille Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 127) unhesitatingly treat it as Celtic: M. d’Arbois de Jubainville regards the association of _qu_ with _p_ (see pp. 227-8, _supra_) as proof of its being Ligurian. [Prof. Rhys’s latest view (_Celtic Inscr. of France and Italy_, p. 99) is that ‘it becomes more and more a question of names, whether it is to be called Celtic or Ligurian’. But the fact remains that history and physical anthropology tend to show that the Ligurians were utterly different from the people among whom the Celtic language came into being. See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 275-81.]

[1262] Cf. W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, p. 3.

[1263] Lampridius, _Alexander Severus_, 60; Vopiscus, _Aurelianus_, 44, _Numerianus, Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 258, n. 6; and J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, p. 224, note.

M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Rev. celt._, xxvi, 1905, p. 359) holds that Lampridius and Vopiscus were mistaken in designating as _dryades_ women who were mere fortune-tellers, and who should be classed among the μάντεις or soothsayers, mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (v, 31, § 3) or the οὐάτεις who, according to Strabo (iv, 4, § 4), were specially concerned with sacrifices. Μάντεις and οὐάτεις, however, who were doubtless identical, would seem to have been merely Druids of inferior rank (G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, pp. 263-4, 267). M. Toutain (_Mélanges Boissier_, 1903, pp. 439-42), who also regards the _dryades_ as fortune-tellers, denies that there is any authority for translating the word by ‘Druidesses’, and insists that if Druidesses had existed, they would not have been mentioned for the first time by writers of the 3rd century. A. Holder (_Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, i, 1326, 1329), who prints the quotations from Lampridius and Vopiscus under the heading _Druida_, remarks that in Lucan, i, 451, instead of _druidae_ there is a various reading _dryadae_.

[1264] Dion Cassius, lxii, 6, § 1; 7, §§ 2-3. Cf. _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 224-5.

[1265] _Ib._, vi, 1904, pp. 261-2. Cf. J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, p. 31.

[1266] _De div._, i, 15, § 26; ii, 36, § 76. Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xvi, 43 [95], § 249) says that the Gallic Druids of his time were _magi_, which is commonly translated by ‘magicians’ (cf. H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse_, &c., pp. 15-6). But might not the word have been applied to any one who practised augury and divination (Cicero, _de div._, i, 41, § 90)?

[1267] Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, pp. 2, 26, 135, 161.

[1268] See J. G. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii, 1900, pp. 328 note, 343-4.

[1269] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, xvi, 44 (95), § 250.

[1270] J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp. 212-3.

[1271] M. G. Dottin (_La rel. des Celtes_, p. 41), remarking that Druids were also politicians, and that the Druid, Diviciacus, led a life which differed little from that of his brother Dumnorix, who was not a Druid, concludes that ‘il ne s’agit donc pas d’une classe sacerdotale, à plus forte raison, comme on l’a dit, d’un clergé gaulois’. Were there then no clergy in England in the days of Becket, or of Wolsey, or in France when Richelieu and Mazarin were supreme?

[1272] See H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Druides_, pp. 60, 64, which has come into my hands since I wrote this chapter.

[1273] The question may be asked, If there were Druids in South-Eastern Britain, why does Caesar not tell us what part they took, or whether they took any part, in the campaign of Cassivellaunus? As all readers of his memoirs have remarked, he is equally silent in regard to the political activity or the political apathy of the Druids of Gaul. ‘A singularly powerful priesthood,’ says Prof. Haverfield (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xviii, 1903, p. 336), ‘numbering political leaders, like Divitiacus, among its ranks, might be expected in a national crisis to take some definite line, requiring notice in the _Commentaries_. Yet omit two chapters, and so far as the _Commentaries_ go, the Druids might never have existed.’ M. Camille Jullian (_Vercingétorix_, 1902, pp. 107-11) argues that they did take an active part in the rebellion of Vercingetorix, but that Caesar chose to ignore the fact: Caesar ‘_a laïcisé à outrance l’esprit et l’histoire de la Gaule.... Nul ne croira que la Gaule n’ait pas appelé prêtres et dieux à son secours_’. Prof. Haverfield, who naturally asks ‘What motive had Caesar for this?’ suggests that an analogy ‘to these powerful non-political priests ... is provided by various priestly _collegia_ at Rome, which include political leaders, but which in their augural or other capacity take no political action’, and maintains that the Druids, ‘as Druids, uttered no word against Caesar or for him’. But if so, why, at a time when their power had certainly diminished, did they aid and abet the insurrection of Civilis (Tacitus, _Hist._, iv, 54)? I would suggest that Caesar may have bought over the Arch-Druid (_B. G._, vi, 13, § 8)--and his use of secret-service money is one of the matters which he did not mention--and that if individual Druids did take part in a crusade, he may not have thought their action sufficiently important (if he was aware of it) to be worth recording.

[1274] _B. G._, v, 14, § 1.

[1275] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), p. 159.

[1276] The word _Britanniae_ (_B. G._, ii, 4, § 7) is of course used loosely.

[1277] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 83; Suppl., p. 483. See also pp. 51, 63, 65, 90, and 94 of the earlier volume.

[1278] Professor Rhys (_The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 88-90) remarks that ‘since no hint as to a revolution is vouchsafed [in Caesar’s narrative (_B. G._, ii, 4, § 7)], the probability is that the empire of Diviciacos in this country subsisted under his successors in Caesar’s time. But,’ he continues, ‘Diviciacos’s people were the Suessiones and the Remi; so we should expect to find both of them represented in Britain, though their names have not been detected. Now we know from a couple of inscriptions that a god of the Remi was Camulos.’ The professor goes on to observe that Camulodunum ‘was near Colchester, in the country of the Trinovantes, in whom we are accordingly prepared to find the Remi we are seeking’; and, he says, ‘The next neighbours of the Trinovantes were the Catuvellauni, in whom we probably have our insular Suessiones. At any rate the name of the Catuvellauni was also that which, shortened into _Catelauni_ ... eventually became ... Chalons, the name of a town ... in a district usually assigned to the Remi ... the Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes between them may be regarded as the upholders of the empire of Diviciacos,’ &c. But in Caesar’s time the Catuvellauni were the bitter enemies of the Trinovantes: Camulos was worshipped by many other tribes besides the Remi; and although it is probable that the Gallic Catuvellauni were clients of the Remi in the time of Caesar (Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 476-7), it is not unlikely that they were one of the tribes which placed themselves under the protection of the Remi in consequence of the favour shown to the latter by Caesar (_B. G._, vi, 12, § 7). The passage in which Caesar mentions Diviciacus leaves upon my mind the impression that his empire, like that of Celtillus, the father of Vercingetorix, was short-lived. At all events there is no evidence for asserting its continuance.

[1279] Exigua parte aestatis reliqua Caesar, etsi in his locis, quod omnis Gallia ad septentriones vergit, maturae sunt hiemes, tamen in Britanniam proficisci contendit, quod omnibus fere Gallicis bellis hostibus nostris inde subministrata auxilia intellegebat, &c. _B. G._, iv, 20, § 1.

[1280] ... Οὐενετοὶ μὲν εἰσιν οἱ ναυμαχήσαντες πρὸς Καίσαρα· ἕτοιμοι γὰρ ἦσαν κωλύειν τὸν εἰς τὴν Βρεττανικὴν πλοῦν, χρώμενοι τῷ ἐμπορίῳ (_Geogr._, iv, 4, § 1)

[1281] The estuary of the Loire was the nearest considerable harbour to the scene of the naval battle. It is not likely that Caesar would have sent his fleet to any of the smaller ports in the country of the Veneti (see my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 665); but supposing that he did so, my argument would hardly be affected.

[1282] See pp. 494-7, _infra_.

[1283] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 663-74.

[1284] Except perhaps sweeps, which they may have used occasionally to help them in tacking.

[1285] Reliquum erat certamen positum in virtute, qua nostri milites facile superabant. _B. G._, iii, 14, § 8.

[1286] ius legatorum. _Ib._, 16, § 4.

[1287] quod inde erat brevissimus in Britanniam traiectus. _B. G._, iv, 21, § 3.

[1288] See pp. 552-95, _infra_.

[1289] See A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 1876, pl. xv (p. 352), pl. xvii (p. 384), and cf. _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 1899, p. 30.

[1290] tamen magno sibi usui fore arbitrabatur si modo insulam adisset, genus hominum perspexisset, loca, portus, aditus cognovisset. _B. G._, iv, 20, § 2.

[1291] See p. 329, _infra_.

[1292] Dion Cassius, xxxix, 50, §§ 3-4. See p. 509, _infra_.

[1293] neque his ipsis quicquam praeter oram maritimam atque eas regiones quae sunt contra Gallias notum est. _B. G._, iv, 20, § 3.

[1294] See _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., v, 1895, p. 26.

[1295] C. Volusenus, tribunus militum, vir et consilii magni et virtutis. _B. G._, iii, 5, § 2.

[1296] See p. 300, _supra_.

[1297] See _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxvii, 1881, p. 272.

[1298] See pp. 532-52, _infra_.

[1299] See pp. 629, 635-6, _infra_.

[1300] See pp. 547-8, 632-3, _infra_.

[1301] See pp. 530-1, _infra_.

[1302] See pp. 595-6, 651, 664-5, _infra_.

[1303] See pp. 525-8, 657-9, _infra_.

[1304] See pp. 600-3, _infra_.

[1305] _B. G._, iii, 14, § 4. Cf. C. Torr, _Ancient Ships_, 1894, p. 59.

[1306] M. le Contre-Amiral Serre, _Les marines de guerre de l’ant._, 1885, p. 36. _Naves longae_ were not necessarily even decked (_B. C._, i, 56, § 1; iii, 7, § 2).

[1307] See pp. 587-8, _infra_.

[1308] See pp. 600-3, _infra_.