Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (30)

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

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

[3209] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 2.

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

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

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

[3213] See p. 656, _infra_.

[3214] See p. 616, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3227] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3233] See p. 608, _supra_.

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

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

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

[3237] Cf. _B. G._, v, 13, § 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3244] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3253] See p. 329, _supra_.

[3254] See p. 614, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3261] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 6.

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

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

[3264] _Ib._, p. 313.

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

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

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

[3268] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3.

[3269] _Ib._, § 2.

[3270] See p. 629, _supra_.

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

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

[3273] iii, 2, § 23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3281] See p. 643, _supra_.

[3282] See p. 616, _supra_.

[3283] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

[3284] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 82, xcii. Lewin also remarks that ‘had he been making for Deal, he would in drifting up channel have been advancing in the right direction’. This remark is only worth noticing as an instance of Lewin’s ignorance. Any one who has the most rudimentary knowledge of the tidal streams will see that once Caesar had drifted past the Foreland, the stream would have carried him further and further away from Deal.

[3285] _Archaeologia_, xxxiii, 1851, p. 242.

[3286] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xcii.

[3287] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xcii.

[3288] _Tidal Streams, English and Irish Channels._

[3289] Not more than about three-quarters of the whole drift, according to the harbour-master of Dover.

[3290] See p. 576, n. 1, _supra_.

[3291] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xcii.

[3292] See pp. 728-30, _infra_.

[3293] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119; _Tidal Streams_, &c. Lewin tells us, in another passage (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 82-3) that, according to the captain of one of the steamers running between Folkestone and Boulogne, ‘the maximum drift for a single tide, _i.e._ for the six hours that the stream runs in the same direction, is eighteen miles, and the minimum nine miles.’ ‘The fleet,’ he adds, ‘was heavily freighted, and therefore, sinking deep into the water, would receive the full shock of the tide ... the expedition was on the very day of the full moon [which he wrongly assigns to the 18th instead of the 21st of July], when, of course, it was a spring tide. The drift, therefore, would be the maximum or near it. Now, if we draw a straight line from Boulogne to Limne, and then a line of sixteen miles, or thereabouts, at right angles to it up the channel, it will take us to a point off the South Foreland.’

It will be observed that Lewin here assumes that Caesar was steering not for Hythe but for Lympne, and accordingly he is forced to make the length of the drift sixteen instead of twelve miles! Facts, from his point of view, were rather elastic than stubborn things. The expedition did not take place ‘on the very day of the full moon’, but about the time of new moon (see p. 729, _infra_). This mistake, indeed, is immaterial; but the estimate of eighteen miles is, as we have seen, greatly exaggerated; and, moreover, Lewin forgets that Caesar’s ships did not drift for the whole of one tide, but only from ‘about midnight’ till ‘daybreak’.

In a footnote to p. 82 he says that, according to ‘an experienced pilot’, a loaded vessel ‘would drift about 12 or 14 miles in the six hours, when the tide is at its greatest velocity’. Yes,--‘in the six hours’; but not in four hours. And even 12 miles is an excessive estimate. ‘As a rough general rule,’ says Admiral Sir Frederick Bedford (_The Sailor’s Pocket-Book_, 8th ed., 1898, pp. 232-3), ‘in the fair way of both the Irish and English Channels a vessel will be carried nine miles by the stream in a whole tide at Springs.’

[3294] _Comm. de C. I. Caesaris bellis_, vol. ii, p. 41; _C. I. Caesaris b. G., libri VII_, ed. A. Doberenz and B. Dinter, vol. ii, p. 40.

[3295] The direction of the ebb stream between the Goodwins and the shore varies between SW. and SW. ½ W. magnetic, or, approximately, between SW. by S. ½ S. and SSW. true; and its rate at springs varies from 1½ to 3 knots. _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 113.

[3296] The late George Dowker (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 67-8, 70) maintained that Caesar drifted ‘at the back of the Goodwin beyond the North Foreland’, and that he ‘returned on the other side of the Goodwin’, and anchored off Stonar. On this theory it is impossible to account for the efforts which the rowers were obliged to make; and, as I have shown (pp. 575-6, _supra_), it is impossible that Caesar should have drifted beyond the North Foreland.

[3297] See pp. 525-8, _supra_.

[3298] See pp. 574-7, _supra_.

[3299] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

[3300] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 124; _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10.

[3301] See p. 576, n. 1, _supra_.

[3302] _Ib._

[3303] I have not thought it necessary to have a calculation made of the hour of high tide at Dover on the 7th of July. Whether the stream turned a little earlier or later than 4.30 a.m. is unimportant. Every one admits that it turned not very long after daybreak.

[3304] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

[3305] See p. 657, _supra_.

[3306] General von Göler apparently thought that Caesar had gone through the channel, between the North and the South Goodwins, which is known as ‘the Swash’ (see his map,--_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, Taf. 1). It is extremely doubtful whether this channel existed in 54 B.C.

[3307] See S. T. S. Lecky, _Wrinkles in Practical Navigation_, 1884, p. 414.

[3308] See the caution in the Atlas entitled _Tidal Streams_.

[3309] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 243-4, 246.

[3310] _B. G._, v, 18, § 1.

[3311] _The Reader_, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 255.

[3312] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 241.

[3313] In 1905 in the parish of Walmer alone three fields were planted with wheat, one of which, as I was informed by Mr. J. W. Minter of the Railway Hotel, covered eighteen acres. Moreover, as Mr. H. E. Malden observes (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, pp. 170-1), ‘marks of ancient cultivation on the sides of downs, where no farmer would think of ploughing now, are common enough everywhere.’ See also A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 235, and p. 90, _supra_.

[3314] _Ordnance Survey of England_, 6 inches to 1 mile, Sheet LVIII.

[3315] _B. G._, iv, 32, §§ 3-4.

[3316] See pp. 697-8, _infra_.

[3317] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-2.

[3318] _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 303.

[3319] _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10.

[3320] _B. G._, vi, 34, 43.

[3321] _Athenæum_, Feb. 27, 1869, p. 317.

[3322] _B. G._, v, 12, § 5.

[3323] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 370-2.

[3324] _Britain and the British Seas_, 1902, p. 315.

[3325] J. Prestwich, _Geology_, ii, 1888, p. 502; Clement Reid, _The Origin of the Brit. Flora_, 1899, pp. 69, 146. Cf. J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 339, and _Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 92.

[3326] The late Professor Rolleston (_Sc. Papers_, ii, 1884, p. 780) argued that by _praeter_ Caesar meant ‘besides’. It is true that he used the word several times in this sense (H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, ii, 1186-7): but when he did so the meaning was always unmistakable; and, as Mr. Colbeck remarks, in his school edition (p. 49), ‘to say “there is timber of all sorts _besides_ the beech and the fir” is hardly a natural expression, unless these two trees were the commonest form of timber [or were non-existent in Gaul], which they were not.’

[3327] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 186, n. 2. Napoleon’s map (pl. 16) contradicts his text.

[3328] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 65-6, 71.

[3329] _B. G._, iv, 25, § 1.

[3330] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3; 26, § 2.

[3331] Mr. H. E. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, p. 167) says that ‘the distance is given at seven or eight Roman miles in different MSS. of the _Commentaries_’. Why did he not specify the _MSS._ which have _VIII_ or _octo_? No such _MS._ is mentioned in any critical edition.

[3332] _Antiquitates Rutupinae_, 1711, pp. 23-4, 44-6, 49-50.

[3333] Similarly, John Harris (_Hist. of Kent_, 1719, p. 274) says that ‘Caesar himself saith of his Men that they could not _firmiter insistere_, which implies the Ground was not Hard, Solid, and Good’. But Caesar only says that his men could not _firmiter insistere_ while they were struggling in the water with the enemy; and in these circumstances a man could not _firmiter insistere_ in a swimming bath, the floor of which is ‘hard, solid, and good’.

[3334] _B. G._, v, 13, § 1. If, as I believe, _quo_ means _ad quem_, referring to _angulus_ and not to _Cantium_, if, that is to say, Caesar intended to convey that almost all ships from Gaul steered for the ‘corner’, Battely is demanding from Caesar a nicety and precision of geographical statement which it would be idle to expect from an ancient writer. Dover is quite close to the _angulus_, even if we must rigidly limit the latter to the coast between the South and the North Foreland.

[3335] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, §2.--ἄκραν οὖν τινα προέχουσαν περιπλεύσας παρεκομίσθη· κἀνταῦθα τοῖς προσμίξαντάς οἱ ἐς τὰ τενάγη ἀποβαίνοντι νικήσας ἔφθη τῆς γῆς κρατήσας, &c. Τενάγη, as we have seen (p. 631, _supra_) is simply Dion’s translation of Caesar’s _vada_.

[3336] See pp. 628-31, _supra_.

[3337] Ed. Wesseling, p. 473.

[3338] V. J. Vaillant, _Classis Britannica_, pp. 41-2 and illustration facing p. 48.

[3339] See A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, ii, 1257-8.

[3340] See pp. 678-82, _infra_.

[3341] It may be argued that if Caesar had landed near Sandwich he would have landed in Richborough harbour. This objection, such as it is, would apply equally to Hythe and Pevensey; but it might have been dangerous to land in a harbour with a narrow entrance in the presence of an enemy; and Caesar may have had other reasons (see Lord Wolseley’s _Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, p. 240). Moreover, the shore of the harbour must have been very marshy.

[3342] _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

[3343] p. 630, _supra_.

[3344] ‘The anchorage in the Small Downs is much more secure than in the Downs, being more sheltered, with better holding ground, and shoaler water,’ &c. _The Channel Pilot_, 9th ed., 1900, part i, p. 344. I am informed by Mr. Jordan, one of the Deal boatmen, that ships driven ashore between Sandown Castle and Sandwich would suffer far less damage than off Walmer or Deal; and they would probably have suffered somewhat less even when the Deal shingle was much less steep.

[3345] Prof. B. Niese devotes the greater part of his valuable review (_Hist. Zeitschrift_, xciii, 97-101) to a criticism of this section of my book.

[3346] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 179-80.

[3347] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c. cliii, 1896, pp. 269-71. Cf. _Rev. celt._, xxii, 1901, p. 87.

[3348] iv, 16, § 7.

[3349] The MS. reading is _miratos_, which is obviously absurd. The emendation generally accepted is _munitos_. Professor Tyrrell in an admirable note (_The Correspondence of Cicero_, ii, 1896, p. 134) remarks that it is incredible ‘that any copyist found the obvious _munitos_, and wrote the inexplicable _miratos_. But if he found the ἅπαξ εἰρημένον _muratos_, he would be nearly certain to write _miratos_, a common word very near it in form, and that without at all troubling himself as to the sense of the passage; just as a compositor will set up “serious effusion” if one writes “serous effusion”’. And, anticipating the objection that _muratos_ is a post-classical word, he says, ‘We must remember that we have in these letters a unique department of literature. A man might easily write in a letter that the approach to Britain was “absolutely _ramparted_ with masses of cliff”, though he would not use that word in a formal composition.’ See also pp. vii-x of the preface to Professor Tyrrell’s second volume.

[3350] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 277. Dr. Vogel actually takes _molibus_ to mean not ‘masses of cliff’ but ‘defensive works’!

[3351] See § 5 of the letter in question--_Drusus reus est factus a Lucretio. Iudicibus reiciendis a. d. V. Non. Quinct._ See also _Hermes_, xl, 1905, pp. 17-9.

[3352] _Q. fr._, ii, 14, §§ 3-4.

[3353] _B. G._, v, 4, § 1.

[3354] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, pp. 278-80.

[3355] See _Jahresberichte d. philol. Vereins_, pp. 240-1 (in _Zeitschrift f. d. Gymnasialwesen_, 1897).

[3356] _The Correspondence of Cicero_, ii, 1886, p. 126.

[3357] _Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 1.--Sed me illa cura sollicitat angitque vehementer, quod dierum iam amplius L intervallo nihil a te, nihil a Caesare, nihil ex istis locis non modo litterarum, sed ne rumoris quidem adfluxit.

[3358] _Ib._, iii, 1, §§ 17, 25.

[3359] _Att._, iv, 18, § 5.

[3360] _B. G._, v, 22, § 1.

[3361] _Ib._

[3362] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 282.

[3363] See pp. 731-3, _infra_.

[3364] Cf. H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, i, 967.

[3365] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 3-5.

[3366] _Att._, iv, 18, § 5. Cicero does not mention that a large number of prisoners had also been taken; but Dr. Vogel admits this to have been the fact. Cf. _Q. fr._, iii, 9, § 4, and _B. G._, v, 23, § 2.

[3367] _Ib._, v, 22, §§ 3-5.

[3368] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 288.

[3369] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 66.

[3370] _B. G._, iv, 36, §§ 1-3.

[3371] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 52, §§ 2-3.

[3372] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. 66.

[3373] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 3.

[3374] _B. G._, iv, 38, § 4. A. J. Dunkin, an antiquary whom Sir Leslie Stephen thought worthy of a place in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, devoted a large portion of the second volume of his _History of the County of Kent_ to an impeachment of Caesar’s veracity; but his charges are based upon sheer inability to construe easy Latin, general lack of scholarship, or, in some cases, pure invention. Cf. _The Gentleman’s Magazine Library_, ed. G. L. Gomme,--Romano-British Remains, part ii, 1887, pp. 520-2.

[3375] See O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, 1893, pp. 377-92, and Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 243.

[3376] See pp. 731-3, _infra_.

[3377] p. 319.

[3378] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 2.

[3379] From a foot and a half to two feet, so Commander Boxer, R.N., the harbour-master of Folkestone, tells me.

[3380] See pp. 595-665, _supra_.

[3381] _Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, i, 219. Cf. E. Hasted, _Hist. of Kent_, iv, 1799, p. 163, note _d_.

[3382] _Ib._, p. 162 and note _c_.

[3383] _Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, pp. 8-16.

[3384] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 66, 68.

[3385] See pp. 736-7, _infra_.

[3386] _B. G._, iv, 33.

[3387] Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des ant. grecques et rom._, ii, 815-7.

[3388] See E. Babelon, _Descr. des monn. de la république rom._, i, 1885, pp. 243, 435-6, 462-4, 552.

[3389] _B. G._, v, 19, § 1.

[3390] In the one passage (_ib._, iv, 33, § 2) in which he calls the drivers _aurigae_ he is obliged to do so in order to distinguish them from the warriors.

[3391] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 192.

[3392] v, 29, § 1. Cf. 1 Kings, xxii, 34.

[3393] E. Babelon, _Descr ... des monnaies de la république rom._, i, 549, 552.

[3394] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, x, 1881, p. 128.

[3395] _Chorographia_, iii, 6, § 52--[Britanni] dimicant non equitatu modo aut pedite, verum et bigis et curribus Gallice armatis: covinnos vocant, quorum falcatis axibus utuntur.

[3396] _Pharsalia_, i, 426--et docilis rector _rostrati_ Belga covinni. _Rostrati_ is a conjecture, the MSS. having _monstrati_.

[3397] _Punica_, xvii, 416-7.--Caerulus haud aliter, cum dimicat incola Thyles | Agmina falcigero circumvenit arta covinno.

[3398] _Agricola_, 35-6.

[3399] See W. Smith, _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Ant._, 3rd ed., i, 560.

[3400] _Monumenta Germaniae Hist.--Iordanis Getica_, ed. Th. Mommsen, 1882, ii, 15--bellum inter se ... saepius gerunt, non tantum equitatu vel pedite, verum etiam bigis curribusque falcatis, &c.

[3401] M. Théodore Reinach (_Rev. celt._, x, 1899, pp. 123-30) points out that the testimony of Frontinus (_C. Caesar Gallorum falcatas quadrigas eadem ratione palis defixis excepit inhibuitque_ [_Strat._, ii, 3, § 18]), if it is genuine, is negatived by Caesar’s silence, and that it is probably an interpolation; that it may be inferred from a passage in Martial (_O iucunda, covinne, solitudo_, | _Carruca magis essedoque gratum_ | _Facundi mihi munus Aeliani_, &c. [xii, 24]) that a _covinnus_ was simply ‘un cabriolet attelant à deux’; that Arrian (_Ars tactica_, 19) expressly distinguished British war-chariots from scythed chariots; and that neither Polybius, nor Livy, nor Diodorus Siculus, nor Dion Cassius ever describe the war-chariots of the Celts as scythed, although they often mention them. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_La civilisation des Celtes_, pp. 339-41) quaintly argues that the silence of Caesar can be explained by the assumption that scythed chariots, being as dangerous to friends as to foes, were only used exceptionally.

[3402] A. Nicaise, _L’époque gaul. dans le dép^t de la Marne_, 1884, pp. 23-4. Cf. _Rev. celt._, x, 1889, pp. 233-6, and _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 66.

[3403] Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 109) is ‘almost tempted to suggest’ that a scythe blade, which he found at Woodyates, ‘may be one of the war scythes which were attached to the [British] chariots, as mentioned by Strabo.’ But Strabo (xvii, 3, § 7) does not say that the Britons had scythed chariots, but the Pharusii and Nigretes of Mauritania.

[3404] p. 342.

[3405] The diameters of the British chariot-wheels that have been found vary between 2 ft. 11 in., and 2 ft. 4 ½ in.

[3406] J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 2-3, 6; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 134-5.

[3407] This discovery proves that Arrian (_Ars tactica_, 19) and Dion Cassius (lxxvi, 12, § 3) were right in saying that British chariot-horses were small. Cf. p. 152, _supra_. For further details of the discoveries of British chariot-wheels, axles, &c. (by which various quaint conjectures in von Göler’s _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 156, n. 3, are stultified), see _Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, pp. 41-2; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 454-7; and a valuable article by Canon Greenwell, a proof of which he has kindly sent to me, and which, I presume, will be published in vol. lx of _Archaeologia_.

[3408] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 137, n. 1.

[3409] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 153, n. 7.

[3410] _B. G._, iv, 34, § 3.

[3411] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 138, n. 4.

[3412] See p. 680, _infra_.

[3413] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 1-5.

[3414] See pp. 595-665, _supra_.

[3415] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, pp. 35-6.

[3416] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. 87-8, 90.

[3417] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 186, note 4.

[3418] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. xciv.

[3419] _B. G._, vii, 69, § 2.

[3420] _Inventorium Sepulchrale_, ed. C. Roach Smith, 1856, p. 35. Faussett goes on to say (p. 36) that, ‘as a proof of this Aylesbourne [the Little Stour at Kingston] having been much deeper and broader than it ever now is, I myself saw the shells of muscles (_sic_) turned plentifully out of the ground in digging a hole for a post, at the distance of at least ten rods from the present channel, and at the perpendicular height of at least three feet above its usual level.’ But this argument is irrelevant. No geologist would deny that the Little Stour, when it was cutting out its channel, was ‘broader than it ever now is’. But when? Perhaps at the inconceivably remote epoch when the Thames was depositing gravel at a height of 100 feet above its present level.

[3421] _Villare Cantianum_, 1776, p. 62.

[3422] _B. G._, iv, 38, §2; v, 24, §1.

[3423] _Ib._, 9, §3.

[3424] See Addenda, p. 742.

[3425] _Caesar in Kent_, 2nd ed., 1887, pp. 165-8. I should not notice this work if it had not been quoted even by antiquaries of repute, and included by Mr. Gross in his generally valuable bibliography.

[3426] _Caesar in Kent_, p. 163.

[3427] Bryan Faussett, _Inventorium Sepulchrale_, p. 39, n. 2. See also pp. 36, n. 1, 37, 144-59. ‘That these tumuli,’ says Roach Smith (_ib._, p. 37), ‘were not cast up in consequence of any battle fought on the spot, is evident from ... their containing the remains not only of men ... but also of women and children.’

Hasted (_Hist. of Kent_, iii, 1790, p. 752, note _a_) says that ‘all the learned agree that _Barham down_ was his [Caesar’s] main camp, to which from his landing in _the Downs_ by _Mongeham_, _Sutton_, _Eythorne_, _Barston_, and _Snowdown_, there is a continual course of military works’, &c. (see also vol. iv, 1799, p. 163). But in the time of the ‘learned’ contemporaries and predecessors of Hasted, it was not yet understood that the question whether this or that mound was a ‘military work’, and the further question whether it had been constructed by Romans, should be settled not by imagination, but by pick and shovel.

Professor Flinders Petrie (_Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, p. 12) remarks that ‘the works on Barham Down, half a mile NE. of Kingston, appear to be ancient’; but, being a competent archaeologist, he does not suggest that they were made by Caesar.

[3428] _Caesar in Kent_, p. 186. When Mr. Vine (_ib._, p. 185) gravely appeals to ‘the direct statement recorded on the chart found in Dover Castle, that “Caesar, having landed at Deal, afterwards conquered the Britons on Barham Down”’, one can only wonder why he does not also cite a ‘direct statement’ more ancient even than Camden’s ‘chart’,--the statement of Nennius, that Caesar’s second invasion took place three years after the first.

[3429] Vol. ii, 1814, p. 9.

[3430] Mr. George Payne (_Collectanea Cantiana_, p. 172) speaks of ‘a great _oppidum_ in Pine Wood, Littlebourne’; but no trace of an entrenchment in this wood is to be found in the 6-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheet 47).

[3431] See pp. 664-5, _supra_.

[3432] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iii, 1864-7, p. 506.

[3433] _Archaeol. Cant._, vii, 1868, pp. li-lii.

[3434] See p. 674, _supra_.

[3435] _Ib._

[3436] ‘Night marches,’ says Lord Wolseley (_The Soldier’s Pocket Book_, 1886, p. 325), ‘require at least half as much time again as the same distance would require by daylight.’

[3437] No military earthworks exist at Chilham. See _Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, pp. 11-2.

[3438] It is hardly necessary, I suppose, to mention the argument which various writers, from Camden to Lewin, have based upon the name of the tumulus near Chilham, called ‘Julliberrie’s Grave’. ‘I am almost persuaded,’ wrote Camden, ‘that Laberius Durus ... was buried here’ (_Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, i, 215). Laberius Durus, as the reader will remember, was the name of the tribune who was killed in the action fought on the day on which Caesar, after he had constructed his naval camp, returned to the neighbourhood of the place where he had defeated the Britons on the day after his second landing (_B. G._, v, 15, § 5). ‘Julliberrie’s Grave’ is a neolithic long barrow (_Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 176, note b), and was erected more than a millennium before Laberius Durus was born.

[3439] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, p. 69. Canon Isaac Taylor (_Words and Places_, 3rd ed., 1873, p. 237) says that ‘the name of FORDWICK, the “bay on the arm of the sea”, proves that in the time of the Danes the estuary must have extended nearly as far as Canterbury’. Canon Taylor’s etymologies are not to be taken upon trust; but, granting his conclusion, it does not follow that the estuary was not fordable at Fordwich, just as the estuary of the Somme was forded near its mouth by the English army before the battle of Crecy.

[3440] _Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, p. 505.

[3441] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 148.

[3442] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 240. Mr. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1890, p. 168) speaks of Caesar’s narrative as ‘excluding the mile broad estuary of the greater Stour at Grove Ferry where Dr. Guest placed the battle’. Dr. Guest did no such thing. George Long (_C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1880, p. 226), in a note on Caesar’s account of the battle, says of Grove Ferry that ‘the locality fits the description’; and Dr. Guest, commenting on Long’s note, says (_Origines Celticae_, ii, 1883, pp. 366-7), ‘I know of no reason for his fixing it at this place, which appears to me to have hardly one of the necessary requisites.’

[3443] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 129-30.

[3444] _Retrospections_, ii, 15.

[3445] No _oppidum_ is marked anywhere near Sturry, either on the One-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheets 273 and 289) or on the map which illustrates Mr. George Payne’s ‘Archaeological Survey of Kent’ (_Archaeologia_, li, 1888, facing p. 446).

[3446] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 186, n. 4.

[3447] _Ib._, n. 2.

[3448] See pp. 664-5, _supra_.

[3449] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 243-4. See p. 660, _supra_.

[3450] Read Clausewitz, _On War_ (translated by Col. J. J. Graham, iii, 1873, p. 9); Sir E. B. Hamley, _Operations of War_, 1878, pp. 233-76; Lord Wolseley, _The Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, pp. 393-7; and Gen. Clery, _Minor Tactics_, 12th ed., 1893, pp. 230-5.

[3451] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xliv, 1888, pp. 290-1. See also _Archaeol. Cant._, ix, 1874, pp. 13-5, and _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp. 213-7.

[3452] See p. 337, _supra_.

[3453] _B. G._, v, 9, § 8; 10; 11, §§ 1, 5-7.

[3454] _Ib._, 9, § 1.

[3455] _Ib._, 9, §§ 2-7.

[3456] _Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, pp. 48-9.

[3457] _C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1880, p. 228.

[3458] _Ib._, p. 227.

[3459] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 150, n. 2.

[3460] _Philologus_, xxxi, 1872, pp. 536-7.

[3461] Or ‘exposed the Romans to the same danger, whether they retreated or pursued’. See pp. 690-1, _infra_.

[3462] _B. G._, v, 16, §§ 1-3.

[3463] _C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1880, pp. 234-5.

[3464] _B. G._, iv, 32, § 5.

[3465] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 234, 239, 271-2; _ib._, Suppl., pp. 520, 535-6.

[3466] Dion Cassius, lxii, 12, § 3.

[3467] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 36.

[3468] See p. 677, _supra_.

[3469] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 154, note.

[3470] _Ib._, p. 153.

[3471] _C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1890, p. 205.

[3472] _C. I. Caesaris b. G. libri VII_, II. Heft, 1890, p. 48.

[3473] _Gai Iuli Caesaris de b. G. comm._, iv, v, 1887, p. 90.

[3474] _B. G._, i, 48, §§ 4-7.

[3475] Quoted by von Göler (_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 154). He does not give the reference, and I have failed to discover it.

[3476] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 188.

[3477] _B. G._, v, 17, § 2.

[3478] _C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G._, 1890, p. 205.

[3479] _B. G._, v, 11, § 8.

[3480] _Ib._, v, 18.

[3481] _Philologus_, xxii, 1865, p. 310. ‘Es wird öfter behauptet, dass er selbst durch seinen marsch vom landungsplatz bis zur Themse die breite des landes gemessen habe; zu einer solchen voraussetzung geben seine worte keine veranlassung [naturally! he would not have taken the trouble to indicate the grounds upon which he based his estimate]: er berichtet hier, wie an andern orten, nur was er von andern erfahren hat.’ Heller seems to forget that this conclusion also is not authorized by Caesar’s words. If Caesar had formed his estimate from hearsay, he, or his interpreter, would have had to reduce the terms in which the estimate of his native informant was expressed to Roman miles.

[3482] O. Manning and W. Bray, _Hist. and Ant. of ... Surrey_, ii, 1809, p. 759.

[3483] _Britannia_, ed. R. Gough, 1789, i, 168.

[3484] _Hist. eccl._, lib. i, cap. ii (ed. C. Plummer, 1896).--In huius ulteriore ripa Cassobellauno duce inmensa hostium multitudo consederat, ripamque fluminis ac pene totum sub aqua uadum acutissimis sudibus praestruxerat; quarum uestigia sudium ibidem usque hodie uisuntur, et uidetur inspectantibus, quod singulae earum ad modum humani femoris grossae, et circumfusae plumbo in-mobiliter erant in profundum fluminis infixae, &c.

[3485] _Archaeologia_, i, 1770, p. 188.

[3486] _One Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 269.

[3487] _Archaeologia_, ii, 1773, pp. 143-53.

[3488] E. W. Brayley, _Topographical Hist. of Surrey_, ii, 1841, p. 344, n. 29.

[3489] _The Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, p. 312.

[3490] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 384-5, 388, 391-2.

[3491] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 384.

[3492] _Ib._, pp. 384-5.

[3493] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 391-2.

[3494] Hurleyford is about 2½ miles west of Great Marlow.

[3495] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 388.

[3496] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 191, n. 2.

[3497] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 386-7.

[3498] _Ib._, p. 387.

[3499] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 269-302; xlvi, 1889, pp. 75-6; xlvii, 1890, pp. 43-7, 170; _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xi, 1891, p. 224.

[3500] _Caesars gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 155, n. 2.

[3501] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 51-2.

[3502] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, xxvi, 1846, pp. 256-7.

[3503] W. Maitland, _Hist. of London_, i, 1756, p. 8; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., iii, 1897, p. 102.

[3504] _Ib._, xvi, 1860, p. 135; Camden’s _Britannia_, ed. Edmund Gibson, i, 1772, p. 329.

[3505] Manning’s _Surrey_, ii, 760.

[3506] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 388.

[3507] _Ib._, pp. 404-5.

[3508] _Bregant-forda and the Hanweal_, 1904, pp. 1, 22-7. Mr. Sharpe reasonably suggests that Bede referred not to the Coway but to the Brentford stakes.

[3509] _B. G._, v, 18.

[3510] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 155.

[3511] _Ib._, n. 2.

[3512] _Comm. de César_, i, 1785, p. 334.

[3513] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 191-2.

[3514] _Gai Iuli Caesaris de b. G. comm._, iv, v, 1887, p. 92.

[3515] _Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, 1849, p. 80.

[3516] Tum nostri cohortati inter se, ne tantum dedecus admitteretur, universi ex navi desiluerunt. Hos item ex proximis navibus cum conspexissent, subsecuti hostibus adpropinquaverunt.

[3517] See _B. G._, v, 17, § 5.

[3518] _B. G._, v, 19-21.

[3519] See _Archaeol. Journal_, xxii, 1865, pp. 299-301.

[3520] _Archeaologia_, i, 1770, p. 189.

[3521] _B. G._, v, 21, § 1. The habitat of the Cassi is unknown; and it is very doubtful whether Cassiobury preserves their name. Sir John Evans (_Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, p. 247) remarks that ‘at the time of the invasion of Julius Caesar this [Hertfordshire] ... appears to have been occupied by the Cassi, who not improbably were the same tribe as ... the Catyeuchlani’, or Catuvellauni. With all due deference to so high an authority. I take leave to say, first, that is no evidence that the Cassi occupied Hertfordshire; secondly, that there is no evidence for identifying them with the Catuvellauni; and lastly, that the Cassi, who surrendered before the capture of Cassivellaunus’s stronghold, cannot have been identical with the people who were under the immediate control of Cassivellaunus.

[3522] _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 157, n. 2.

[3523] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866. pp. 65-6.

[3524] There is no evidence that Cassivellaunus had _conquered_ the Trinovantes, though he had killed their king, the father of Mandubracius.

[3525] See pp. 703-5, _infra_.

[3526] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 51-2.

[3527] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xvi, 1860, pp. 136-7, 142.

[3528] At Redbourn in Hertfordshire is ‘an oval encampment probably pre-Roman’ (_Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, p. 259); and near Therfield in the same county there is a British camp ‘on right of road from Baldock’ (_ib._, p. 261; J. E. Cussans, _Hist. of Herts_ [Hundred of Osney], i, 116). It is perhaps just possible that if these camps were excavated, some light might be thrown upon the question.

[3529] xiv, 33, § 1.--Suetonius ... Londinium perrexit, cognomento quidem coloniae non insigne, sed copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre.

[3530] _E.g._ by W. H. Black in _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 50-2.

[3531] _Ib._, pp. 59-66.

[3532] Tacitus, _Ann._, xiv, 33. ‘The chief commercial town,’ says Professor Haverfield (_Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton_, i, 164), ‘was from the earliest times, Londinium.’

[3533] _Hist. Rom._, lx, 21, §§ 3-4. Lewin would have found more conclusive proof of the pre-eminence of Camulodunum in Sir John Evans’s _Coins of the Ancient Britons_.

[3534] See W. J. Loftie’s _Hist. of London_, i, 1883, map facing p. 1; and _Historic Towns,--London_, 1887, map facing p. 16. See also _Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, pp. 137-204, and particularly 155-6.

[3535] _Historic Towns,--London_, p. 2.

[3536] Vol. i, p. 16.

[3537] _Words and Places_, p. 185.

[3538] _Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, p. 174.

[3539] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 405-6.

[3540] _London_ is commonly derived from two Celtic words--_llyn_, _din_--meaning ‘the lake fort’ (see _Geogr. Journal_, xiii, 1899, p. 299). One objection to this etymology is that Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell (_Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 300-2) has proved that the lake, which was described so picturesquely by J. R. Green (_The Making of England_, i, 1897, p. 113) did not exist. Moreover, Dr. Henry Bradley (_Morning Post_, Jan. 8, 1907, p. 4, col. 3) tells us that ‘the only explanation which is philologically possible is that it [Londinium] denoted a plot of ground belonging to a person named Londinos, which means “fierce”’.

[3541] I say ‘a _purely_ Celtic name’ in contradistinction to such hybrid names as Augusto-_dunum_ (Autun), &c.

[3542] See pp. 664-5, _supra_.

[3543] _The Making of England_, i, 1897, p. 117, n. 1.

[3544] _Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden_, ed. Churchill Babington, vol. ii, 1869, pp. 44-6.--Secunda via principalis dicitur Watlingstrete.... Incipit enim a Dovoria, transiens per medium Cantiae ultra Thamisiam juxta Londoniam ad occidentem Westmonasterii, &c.

[3545] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiv, 1877, p. 166.

[3546] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 586; Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 190, 214.

[3547] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 95, 158, 174-5, 245, 248-9, 272, 278-81, 303, 312, 321, 327-8, 330, 339, 351, 356, 400-1, 411, 424, 450, 467; _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 70, 83, 122, 125, 232; _ib._, Suppl., p. 559; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 98. Mr. F. W. Reader (_Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, p. 213) argues that ‘it is difficult to conceive that if any considerable British town preceded [the Roman] _Londinium_, all traces of it in the shape of pottery fragments, &c., should ... have been so entirely obliterated’, &c. But the same argument would apply to Calleva, Camulodunum, and other towns which were certainly British.

[3548] See p. 359, _supra_.

[3549] Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii, 8, § 7,--Lundinum, vetus oppidum quod Augustam posteritas appellavit; _ib._, xxviii, 3, § 7,--Augusta, quam veteres appellavere Lundinum.

[3550] See pp. 600-3, _supra_.

[3551] _B. G._, iv, 29-36.

[3552] Le Verrier _apud_ Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 522. See the next footnote.

[3553] T. Bergk (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 618, n. 2) remarks that Caesar himself regarded the 24th, not the 26th, of September as the date of the equinox. His authority is, I suppose, Vegetius, iv, 39, who says that the autumnal equinox occurred _VIII Kal. Oct._: but, according to Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xviii, 25 [59], §§ 220-1), it fell on the 28th of September, and according to Varro (_Rerum rust._, i, 28, §§ 1-2), on the 27th. Columella (_De re rust._, ix, 14) places it _about_ the 24th of September (_circa VIII calend. Octobris_); and the 24th was, according to Mommsen (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, p. 301), the date adopted in the Julian calendar. But that date was fixed by the calculations of Sosigenes: what right, then, has Bergk to assume that Caesar regarded it as the date of the equinox in 54 B.C., nine years before his reform of the calendar took effect?

[3554] Napoleon’s reasoning is based upon assumptions, one of which is certainly incorrect, while all are doubtful. We know that Caesar started on his return voyage soon after midnight _(B. G._, iv, 36, § 3). ‘If,’ says Napoleon (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 180, note), ‘we assume that he had a favourable wind, as he had on his return from the second expedition, and that his voyage lasted nine hours, Caesar would have reached Boulogne about nine o’clock in the morning. As the fleet could only enter the harbour on a rising tide, all that we need do in order to ascertain approximately the date of his return, is to find out on what day of September, 699, there was high tide at that hour at Boulogne. Now in that harbour there is always a high tide about nine o’clock in the morning two or three days before full moon and before new moon. Therefore, as the full moon of September, 699, took place on the 14th of the month, Caesar must have returned to Gaul about the 11th or 12th of September.’

There is no fault to be found with the conclusion (except that it is uncertain), but much with the argument. To begin with, as there had been a full moon on the 31st of August, it is obvious that not the full moon but the new moon of September took place on the 14th of the month. This error, indeed, is immaterial; but Napoleon has no right to assume that Caesar reached Boulogne about nine o’clock in the morning, for the circumstances of his return voyage in the second expedition were totally different from those of the preceding year. In 54 B.C. there was a dead calm (_summa tranquillitate_, _B. G._, v, 23, § 6), and the ships were rowed: in 55 they sailed. Moreover, it is untrue that the fleet could only enter the harbour of Boulogne at high tide (see p. 586, _supra_).

[3555] Vol. i (3rd ed.), p. 343. See also J. P. Postgate, _M. Annaei Lucani de bello civili liber VII_, 1900, p. xiv, n. 3; A. G. Peskett, _C. I. Caesaris comm. de bello civili liber tertius_, 1900, p. 68; and H. Meusel, _C. I. Caesaris comm. de b.c._, pp. xiv, 367 ff.

[3556] _Sat._, i, 13, §§ 12-3.--sed octavo quoque anno intercalares octo affluebant dies ex singulis, quibus vertentis anni numerum apud Romanos super Graecum abundasse iam diximus. Hoc quoque errore iam cognito haec species emendationis inducta est. Tertio quoque octennio ita intercalandos dispensabant dies, ut non nonaginta sed sexaginta sex intercalarent, compensatis viginti et quattuor diebus pro illis qui per totidem annos supra Graecorum numerum creverant.

[3557] See Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 45-6, and _Rev. hist._, xlii, 1890, p. 401.

[3558] Censorinus, _De die natali_, xx, 4, § 6.--Quod delictum ut corrigeretur, pontificibus datum negotium eorumque arbitrio intercalandi ratio permissa.

[3559] _Ib._, § 7.--Sed horum [pontificum] plerique ob odium vel gratiam, quo quis magistratu citius abiret diutiusve fungeretur aut publici redemtor ex anni magnitudine in lucro damnove esset, plus minusve ex libidine intercalando rem sibi ad corrigendum mandatam ultro quod depravarunt &c. See also Plutarch, _Caesar_, 59; Ammianus Marcellinus. xxvi, 1, § 12; and Macrobius, _Sat._, i, 14, § 1.

[3560] Asconius, _in Milonianam_, p. 35 (_M. Tullii Ciceronis opera_, ed. J. C. Orelli and J. G. Baiter, vol. v, pars ii, 1833).