Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (29)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2842] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 1.

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

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

[2845] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 363.

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

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

[2848] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

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

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

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

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

[2853] See Addenda, p. 740.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2861] _B. G._, v, 23, § 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2886] _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

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

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

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

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

[2890] _Divus Claudius_, 17.

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

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

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

[2894] _Portus Itius_, p. 12.

[2895] _Chorographia_, iii, 2, § 23.

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

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

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

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

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

[2901] _Portus Itius_, p. 19.

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

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

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

[2905] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 50, §2.

[2906] Ed. Wesseling, p. 463.

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

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

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

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

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

[2912] See p. 558, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2919] _B. G._, iv, 38, §§1-2.

[2920] See p. 561, _supra_.

[2921] _B. G._, ii, 31-3; v, 39, §3.

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

[2923] _Ib._, iv, 21, §5; 27; 30.

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

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

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

[2927] _B. G._, v, 8, §2.

[2928] _B. G._, v, 23, §6; 24, §1.

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

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

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

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

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

[2934] _Formae orbis antiqui_, 1894, xxvi.

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

[2936] See p. 554, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

[2941] See p. 331, _supra_.

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

[2943] See p. 680, _infra_.

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

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

[2946] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 2.

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

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

[2948] _B. G._, iv, 28; 29, § 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2959] xl, 1, § 3.

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

[2961] _B. G._, v, 8, § 3.

[2962] See p. 599, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2971] _Julius Caesar_, p. 196.

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

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

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

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

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

[2977] _The Cinque Ports_, p. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2984] _Ib._, p. lxxxvi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2996] See p. 666, _infra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3005] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3012] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

[3013] _Ib._

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

[3015] See Addenda, p. 740.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3025] See p. 571, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

[3030] _Ib._, p. 553.

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

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

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

[3034] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 2-4.

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

[3036] _Ib._, v, 8, § 2.

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

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

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

[3040] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-2.

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

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

[3043] _B. G._, v, 11, §§ 8-9.

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

[3045] _B. G._, v, 2, § 3.

[3046] _Ib._, 23, §§ 5-6.

[3047] _Att._, vi, 8, § 4.

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

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

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

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

[3052] _Att._, x, 18, § 1.

[3053] _B. G._, iii, 15, § 3.

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

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

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

[3057] See p. 558, _supra_.

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

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

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

[3061] See _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

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

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

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

[3065] _B. G._, v, 8, § 5.

[3066] _Ib._, iv, 23, § 2.

[3067] _Ib._, v, 8, § 3.

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

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

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

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

[3072] See p. 609, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

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

[3078] _B. G._, iv, 26, § 5.

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

[3080] _Ib._, p. xciii.

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

[3082] _B. G._, v, 11, § 5.

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

[3084] _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3091] See p. 613, _supra_.

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

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

[3094] See p. 611, _supra_.

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

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

[3097] _Ib._, p. 31

[3098] _Ib._, p. xlviii.

[3099] See p. 632, _infra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3107] _Ib._, p. xc.

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

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

[3110] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 5.

[3111] p. 629, _infra_.

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

[3113] _Pharsalia_, ii, 571-2.

[3114] _Caesar_, 16.

[3115] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 2.

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

[3117] iii, 2, § 23.

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

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

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

[3121] _Caesar_, 16.

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

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

[3124] _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3138] See p. 654, _infra_.

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

[3140] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3.

[3141] _Ib._, 33, § 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3150] _B. G_., vii, 69, § 1.

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

[3152] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 2-6.

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

[3154] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 1-2.

[3155] _Ib._, v, 8, § 2.

[3156] _Ib._, v, 1, § 2.

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

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

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

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

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

[3162] _Ib._, p. 52.

[3163] _Ib._, p. xlviii.

[3164] _B. G._, iv, 20, § 4; 21, § 1.

[3165] _Ib._, 26, § 5.

[3166] _Ib._, 35, § 1.

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

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

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

[3170] See p. 623, _supra_.

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

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

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

[3174] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3188] _Ib._, v, 9, § 1.

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

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

[3191] See p. 629, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

[3196] _Ib._, p. 49, §§ 4-5.

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

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

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

[3200] _B. G._, v, 13, § 1.

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

[3202] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 3.

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

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

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

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