Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (28)

[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.