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

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

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

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

[2508] See the fantastic map inserted between pages 330 and 331 of

Guest’s _Origines Celticae_, vol. ii, in which ‘Lomea’ is placed N.W.

of the Goodwins.

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

1844, p. 371.

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

[2511] According to Chambers’s _Ency._, v, 1901, p. 296, Lomea has been

identified with ‘_Infera insula_ of the Romans’. The writer does not

inform us by whom _infera insula_ was mentioned.

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

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

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

[2515] Richard Lilburne (_Topographie ... of ... Kent_, 1659, pp.

262-3), alluding to the well-known legend as to the origin of the

Goodwin Sands, says, ‘the most probable relation of the rise of the

same is thus. _Goodwin_ ... was ... owner of a great quantity of flat

Lands in the County (neer the _Isle_ of _Thanet_) defended from the sea

by a great wall, which lands afterwards (in the year 1099) was parcell

of the possessions of the Abbot of St. _Augustine_ (but reteyned the

name of _Goodwin_ ...), and that Abbot, being then also owner of the

Rectory of _Tenterden_, and having begun the building of this steeple

... the thoughts, and actions, of him, and his agents were so set upon

the finishing of that work, that they neglected the care of watching,

and preserving the aforesaid wall, and (3. of November in that year)

the sea broke over, and ... drowned the aforesaid lands (overwhelming

the same) with a light sand ... and the place thereby obteyned the

name of _Goodwin Sands_ ... and thus (accidentially) this _Tenterden_

steeple is said to be the cause of _Goodwin Sands_.’

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

[2517] See p. 524, _supra_.

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

[2519] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 284-5. According to Mr.

Clement Reid (_Archaeologia_, part ii, 1906, p. 285) ‘the relative

level of sea and land in the south of England appears to have remained

unchanged’ since ‘late Neolithic times’. See, however, Addenda, p. 740.

[2520] There is not much force in Professor Boyd Dawkins’s argument

(_Early Man in Britain_, p. 483), that an island on the site of the

Goodwin Sands would not have escaped the notice of Ptolemy. Ptolemy

does not mention Sheppey (or else Thanet) and other islands.

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

128, 133.

[2522] _The Cinque Ports_, p. 8.

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

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

[2525] According to M. Léon Lejeal, the author of an interesting

article on ‘Le littoral’ in _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_

(i, 365), ‘certains hydrographes affirment qu’au Grisnez, la falaise

s’entame de 0,25 centimètres par an.’ I presume that this was the

authority upon which M. de St.-Martin relied.

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

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

[2528] In Capt. McDakin’s _Coast Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, 1899, pp.

7-9, a list is given of the notable falls which have been recorded. In

1853 there was a heavy fall near Holy Trinity Church, Dover; in 1872 at

the East Cliff; in 1896 at the South Foreland; and (_Times_, Jan. 11,

1905, p. 7, col. 1, Jan. 13, p. 7, col. 2) in 1905 there were landslips

at St. Margaret’s Bay, near Hope Point, and at Fan Bay.

[2529] Dowker (_Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881,

p. 63) attributed this loss of shingle to the Admiralty Pier at

Dover. ‘The formation of the Dover Harbour,’ he says, ‘has favoured

the accumulation of beach west of that point; the current, moreover,

after passing the obstacle, is deflected inland, and thus, at St.

Margaret’s Bay, a former collection of beach is being removed towards

Deal.’ On the other hand, Sir John Coode, who is described in the

_Dictionary of National Biography_ (Suppl., ii, 52) as ‘probably the

most distinguished harbour engineer of the nineteenth century’, states

(_Parl. Papers_, lviii, 1873, p. 455[3]) that ‘so far from the pier

having acted as a check to the passage of the shingle, there has been a

considerable loss to the westward of it within the last 20 years’. ‘I

have no hesitation,’ he adds (_ib._, p. 456[4]), ‘in stating, in the

most distinct and positive terms, that this decrease [of shingle on

various parts of the coast south-west of St. Margaret’s Bay] has not

been caused by “the extension of the Admiralty Pier at Dover”, inasmuch

as the various facts that have been brought out in the course of my

recent investigation lead distinctly and unmistakably to the opposite

conclusion ... having regard to the facts previously stated, as to the

diminution of shingle to the westward of Folkestone, near Sandgate and

Hythe, &c. ... I have arrived at the conclusion that this [decrease of

shingle between Dover and St. Margaret’s Bay] is due to the remarkable

accumulation of shingle, and consequent projection towards the

south-east of Dungeness’ (_ib._, p. 457[5]).

About the year 1721 the supply of shingle was temporarily cut off by

the fall of part of the Castle Cliff. See Capt. John Perry, _Account of

the Stopping of Daggenham Breach_, &c., 1721, p. 119.

[2530] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1885 (1886), p. 439.

See also pp. 406-7. According to J. B. Redman (_Proc. Inst. Civ.

Engineers_, xi, 1851-2 [1853], p. 164) ‘it appears that at an early

period there was no shingle at all at Dover ... which there is

historical evidence to prove was the case; its gradual advance from the

westward eventually blocked up the entrance’, &c. Where the ‘historical

evidence’ is to be found Redman omits to say; and I cannot find it; but

it is certain that the movement of shingle along the coast began long

before the historic period (_Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, p. 489).

Capt. McDakin (_Coast Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, p. 5) remarks that ‘the

Roman Pharos on the Castle Cliffs and the foundations of a similar

building in the Redoubt on the Western Heights, give us no indication

that the edge of the cliff has receded since those earliest of Roman

buildings occupied their present site’.

[2531] Clement Reid in _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25, and _Geogr.

Journal_, xxviii, 1906, pp. 488-9.

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

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

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

Geol._, 1892, p. 171.

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

[2536] See p. 329, _supra_.

[2537] Experiments recently conducted by Captain McDakin (_Coast

Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, pp. 3-4, 12) showed that ‘the average erosion

of four years was unexpectedly small, only amounting to half an inch in

a year’. He admits, indeed, that the average rate, since erosion began,

‘has probably been much more rapid.’ His general conclusions are, ‘that

the heaviest falls ... take place after long continued rain.... That

the springs issuing from the base of the cliffs play an important part

in undermining and bringing down the cliffs; and that the sea charged

with a small amount of shingle [which it discharges like a gun] attacks

the undercliff and removes it, but where the shingle accumulates in

large quantities, it defends and supports the base of the cliffs,’ &c.

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

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

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

Extension, p. 2.

[2541] I need hardly say that Digges’s statement, which refers only to

the inlet where the port of Dover had been, does not support Redman’s

assertion (p. 529, n. 4, _supra_).

[2542] _Archaeologia_, xi, 1792, p. 212, note _a_. Archcliff Fort is

about 400 yards west of the first groyne on the western side of the

Lord Warden Hotel.

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

1744, fol. 128, p. 117.

[2544] About 1 mile 4,100 feet in a straight line from the present

high-water mark of ordinary tides (_Six-inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet

68).

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

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

[2547] _Archaeologia_, v, 1779, p. 325; John Lyon, _Hist. of ...

Dover_, i, 1813, p. 9; _Archaeol. Cant._, xx, 1893, p. 131.

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

[2549] See also T. Hyde Page, _Considerations upon the State of Dover

Harbour_, &c., 1784, p. 6.

[2550] See _Phil. Trans._, xxix, 1716, p. 469; lxxvi, 1786, p. 220;

W. Lambarde, _Perambulation of Kent_, ed. 1826, p. 154; _Mem. Geol.

Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, 1875, pp. 302, 315-6; _Proc.

Geologists’ Association_, xiii, 1895, pp. 40-7; Capt. McDakin, _Coast

Erosion,--Dover Cliffs_, pp. 7-9; _Pall Mall Gazette_, Jan. 18, 1906,

p. 12, col. 2.

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

[2552] The quotation is from T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain by

Julius Caesar_, 2nd ed., 1862, p. lvii.

[2553] Romney Marsh Proper extends eastward of the Rhee Wall, which

runs from Appledore to New Romney.

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

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

[2556] _The Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar_, 1862, p. lii. We

learn from the late F. Drew (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the

Weald_, p. 206) that ‘whatever the soil may be near the surface, it is

almost invariably the case that, at a depth of 10 or 20 feet, there is

loose sand, often containing recent marine shells’, &c. See note 8,

_infra_.

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

[2558] See _Geol. Mag._, 1869, p. 128. The writer, ‘W. T.,’ was

evidently the late geologist, William Topley.

[2559] See _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, pp. 212-3, 222.

As far as I can discover, the only absolutely trustworthy boring which

has been made (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xliii, 1887, p. 204) shows

that at Holmestone, near Lydd, which is outside the limits of Romney

Marsh Proper, the recent strata, overlying Hastings beds, were as

follows:--Shingle, 15 feet; Boulders, 4 feet; Brown Sand, 13 feet;

Clay, 4 feet; Black and Grey Sand, 20 feet; Pebbles, 1 foot.

‘Mr. Elliott,’ says Drew (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the

Country between Folkestone and Rye_, 1864, p. 16), ‘tells me that he

bored 70 feet in the Marsh, of which the last 50 were in sand.’ ‘I

contend, however,’ replies Dowker (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_,

xv, 212), ‘that this does not prove anything, since the sand probably

belonged to the Hastings Beds.’

[2560] _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, p. 304. Topley

goes on to point out that F. H. Appach, in _C. J. Caesar’s Brit.

Expeditions_, &c., p. 16, adopted a theory which had been originally

put forward by James Elliott, but had been discovered by Elliott

himself to be erroneous, attributing ‘the silting up of the area’ to

‘the presence of some supposed islands of Hastings Sand near Romney’.

[2561] _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country between

Folkestone and Rye_, pp. 19-20.

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

[2563] See p. 62, _supra_.

[2564] See p. 543, _infra_.

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

[2566] _Ib._, pp. 109, 111. Lord Avebury, who refers to this paper in

_The Scenery of England_, 3rd ed., 1904, p. 152, reports Sir Joseph

Prestwich’s views as to the movement of shingle incorrectly. Prestwich

considered it ‘well established’ that the general movement of the

shingle along our south coast was eastward, although in the west bay of

Portland it travels in the opposite direction.

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

41.

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

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

See also p. lvi.

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

[2571] Lewin observes (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp.

lvii-lviii) that as far eastward as West Hythe Oaks the shingle ‘fulls’

all curve westward, having been bent in that direction by the inrush

of the tides; while from West Hythe Oaks to Sandgate they all curve

towards the east. This, he says, proves that when they were formed, the

mouth of the estuary near Hythe had already been closed. Appach, on

the other hand (_C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 21, § 9), does

not believe that the shingle spit reached West Hythe Oaks. Referring

to the change of curvature in the shingle fulls, he says that it was

‘evidently due to the cessation of the indraught’, which was ‘obviously

caused by the erection of the ancient wall at West Hythe’. Hence, he

concludes, ‘the fulls to the north of the point [where the change of

curvature takes place] ... were not formed until after the wall at West

Hythe was built; and as this is part of the north-eastern boundary of

Romney Marsh, it follows that the fulls in question were formed after

the formation of Romney Marsh.’ Lewin also mentions ‘the ancient wall

at West Hythe’; but his final theory is that the erection of this dam

became necessary because the shingle spit, after it had reached West

Hythe Oaks, was burst by the waters, fed by the streams mentioned

above (p. 532), which accumulated in the space between West Hythe Oaks

and Hythe (see p. 547, _infra_). Appach holds that Romney Marsh was

not formed until after the Romans had abandoned Britain; and he is

therefore constrained to argue that Hythe Haven did not exist during

the Roman occupation, and that the Portus Lemanis was at Lympne. Both

of these theories will be refuted in this article (pp. 543-8, _infra_).

[2572] It is hardly necessary to point out that Dungeness is of recent

formation. Various theories have been advanced as to its origin (see

Mr. F. P. Gulliver’s paper in the _Geogr. Journal_, ix, 1897, pp.

536-46, and _Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, xi, 1852, pp. 212-21); and

attempts have been made to determine the time at which the oldest

of the shingle ‘fulls’ which constitute the ‘ness’ was formed, by

calculating the rate at which the point has advanced seaward since

observations began to be recorded. Elliott remarks (_ib._, vi, 1847,

p. 476) that ‘from the best existing data’ Dungeness would appear to

extend annually about two yards further out to sea; and that, as the

rate of increase was probably more rapid at first, we may conclude that

about nineteen hundred years have elapsed ‘since the sea first left

the original “full” at Lydd’. According to Redman (_ib._, xi, 1852, p.

174), the increase has not been regular, and ‘during certain periods

the Ness has even been stationary’: from the middle of the seventeenth

to the middle of the nineteenth century, he adds, the average annual

increase was nearly six yards. This is probably an exaggeration. Sir

John Coode (_Parl. Papers_, lviii, 1873, p. 457) ascertained, from

particulars recorded at the Trinity House, that ‘from the year 1792

to 1850 the point advanced seaward 530 feet, or say, at the rate of 9

feet per annum; whilst from 1850 to 1871, the advance was 280 feet,

or at the rate of from 13 to 14 feet per annum’. Topley (_Mem. Geol.

Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, p. 314) thinks that ‘the oldest

fulls are 1,000 years or more old’. Similarly Drew (_ib._, p. 308) says

that the shingle which forms Dungeness ‘must have been ... collected

since the Rother first came to Romney’. See also H. J. Mackinder,

_Britain and the British Seas_, 1902, pp. 42-3. ‘In early Roman times,’

he remarks, ‘Dungeness appears not to have existed’; and he suggests

that its formation was due to ‘the diversion of the Rother mouth for

the purpose of reclaiming Romney Marsh’.

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

[2574] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. lvii-lx, cxx; _Proc.

Inst. Civil Engineers_, xi, 1852, p. 169. Cf. _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The

Geology of the Weald_, p. 312. Dowker (_Twenty-third Report East Kent

Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 66) suggests that the Hythe beach may have

come from the east!

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

[2576] It would be a waste of time to catalogue these blunders, which

will be obvious to any one who knows the literature of the subject:

but I may remark that Dowker devotes several pages to a refutation of

Elliott’s earlier theory, which Elliott himself corrected in the notes

with which he furnished Lewin; and that he ignored or was ignorant of

Elliott’s matured conclusions. He says (p. 214) that Elliott’s ‘first

paper was written to assist Mr. Lewin ... and his theory was printed

with Mr. Roach Smith’s “History of Further Excavations and History of

the Roman Castrum at Lympne”’. Elliott’s first paper (_Proc. Inst.

Civil Engineers_, vi, 1847) was not written to assist Lewin; nor was

his second, which was printed, not in a book which neither Roach Smith

nor any one else ever published, but as an appendix to Roach Smith’s

_Report on Excavations made on the site of the Roman Castrum at Lymne_,

1852. The notes which Elliott wrote to assist Lewin were printed in the

second edition of Lewin’s _Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar_, which

appeared in 1862, and which Dowker never mentions. The unhappy man

cannot even refer correctly to his own works. In his bibliographical

note (p. 223) he quotes under his own name a paper ‘On the River

Limen’, in _Archaeol. Cant._, vol. xviii, in which no such paper is to

be found.

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

[2578] _Ib._

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

[2580] _Ib._, p. 214.

[2581] _Ib._

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

[2583] See A. H. Jukes-Browne, _Handbook of Phys. Geology_, 1892, pp.

138-9, 219. The lower course of the Great Stour is a good example.

[2584] See p. 543, _infra_.

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

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

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

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

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

[2590] _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country between

Folkestone and Rye_, pp. 19-20.

[2591] _Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia_, ed. M. Pinder and G. Parthey,

1860, v, 31 (p. 438, 19).

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

Mr. H. E. Malden, who believes that Caesar landed somewhere near Hurst,

which is in Romney Marsh, about two miles and a half west of Lympne,

affirms (_Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, pp. 176-7, n. 1) that, in

A.D. 893, ‘Hastings the pirate came here with his fleet ... and sailed

four miles up the Rother to the Weald.’ There is not the slightest

evidence that ‘Hastings’ came ‘here’ with his fleet. The record of his

expedition is in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (ed. B. Thorpe, ii, 1861,

p. 69). ‘In this year’ [893], says the chronicler, ‘the great army,

of which we long before spoke ... came up to the mouth of the Limen

with two hundred and fifty ships. The mouth is in the east of Kent,

at the east end of the great wood which we call Andred.... The river,

of which we before spoke, flows out from the weald. On the river they

towed up their ships as far as the weald, four miles from the outward

mouth, and there stormed a work.’ Mr. Malden (_op. cit._, p. 176, note)

avows his belief that ‘the Romans embanked the marsh’, and immediately

afterwards says that ‘the _Portus Lemanis_ after that became accessible

only from the east, inside the shingle spit opposite Hythe’. It would

appear, then, that, according to Mr. Malden, the mouth of the Limen,

up which the Danes sailed, was ‘opposite Hythe’. But, according to the

_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, to which he refers, it was at Appledore (see

p. 542, n. 4, _infra_); and doubtless the Danes reached it by sailing

up the channel, formed by the Rhee wall (see p. 538, _supra_), which

then connected the Limen with the sea.

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

[2594] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, viii, 1883, p. 93. Topley,

indeed, frankly admits that one argument may be adduced in support of

the theory that the Rother flowed out opposite Lympne. This argument

is identical with that of Drew, which I have quoted in the text; but,

as Topley’s exposition is the more lucid, I give it here. He observes

(_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Weald_, pp. 303-4) that on

Romney Marsh the shingle ‘has chiefly accumulated to the _windward_ of

tidal harbours, whilst the blown sand has accumulated to leeward of

those harbours’; and then, remarking that, on the south of West Hythe,

the ‘fulls’, or ridges of shingle, ‘curve well round to the north-west,

as though to a harbour here,’ and that ‘on the north of this there

is again a little blown-sand’, he admits that these facts lend some

support to the popular view: but, he adds, ‘no trace of the ancient

channel is to be found along the northern side of the marsh.’ But

Topley seems not to know his own mind; for he afterwards says (_ib._,

p. 304) that ‘it is by no means unlikely that the ancient Rother had

more than one mouth. There may have been one at Lympne, one at Romney,

and one near Rye.’ However, in his final utterance on the subject

(_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, viii, 1883, p. 93) he says, ‘there is

no evidence of any old river along the northern side of the Marsh.’

[2595] _Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 66.

See also _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, pp. 216-7.

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

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

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

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

[2600] _Rerum angl. script._, &c., ed. H. Savile, 1601, p. 846

(Chronicle of Ethelwerd, lib. iv, cap. iii, _s.a._ 893, line 57 ff.).

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

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

[2603] Mr. G. R. Wright (_Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xl,

1884, p. 247) suggests that ‘Shepway’ may have been derived from the

Saxon word, _sceap_, ‘a sheep’, and may have ‘meant a sheep-way’.

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

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

[2606] J. M. Kemble, _Codex dipl. aevi Saxonici_, i, 1839, pp. 92-3,

LXXVII; pp. 308-9, CCXXXIV.

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

[2608] termini vero terrae illius hec sunt. ab oriente terra regis. ab

austro fluvius qui dicitur limenaee. ab occidente et in septentrione

hudan fleot.

[2609] Lewin (_Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 373-4) admits that the

earlier of the two charters mentioned in the text ‘appeared at first

sight to negative the hypothesis that the marsh was under cultivation

in the time of the Romans’: but he adds that he consulted Elliott,

who removed his doubts in the following letter:--‘The grant refers to

_Romney_ and not to _Lymne_. The boundaries will do for Romney, but

not for Lymne. If at Lymne, the salt-pans must have been in the marsh,

and then on the east, south, and west would have been the sea, and on

the north Lymne Hill. At Romney ... the description agrees. Sandtun

would be the Sand hills, called the Warren, to the east of Romney,

and the boundaries of the land would be as stated, viz.:--the King’s

land on the east would be the territory to the east, about 100 acres,

which was vested in the Crown until the reign of Elizabeth, when it

was granted to Romney Corporation; the river on the south would be

the Limen.... Hudanfleot, referred to as on the north and west, would

be the fleet which may still be traced there, though it has lost its

name,’ &c. Lewin (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lvi) remarks

that in the neighbourhood of Romney ‘are still pools of stagnant water

... called Fleets’. As, however, the mouth of the Limen, in A.D. 893,

according to the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (see p. 541, _supra_) was at

Appledore, we must assume that the Limen mentioned in the charter was

simply the body of water conducted into the channel enclosed within the

embankments of the Rhee Wall.

That ‘the marsh was under cultivation [or, at all events, occupation]

in the time of the Romans’, is not a ‘hypothesis’ at all: it is a

fact attested by the discovery of numerous Roman remains. See p. 551,

_infra_.

Professor Montagu Burrows (_The Cinque Ports_, p. 12) speaks of

‘Hudanfleot, afterwards called West Hythe’, and says (_ib._, p. 50)

that ‘Hudanfleot’ means ‘the haven of the estuary’. Needless to say, he

gives no authority; and how ‘the haven of the estuary’ could have been

both ‘on the west and on the north’ of ‘the piece of land’ referred to

in the charters he does not explain.

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

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

[2612] _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., pp. 236, 239. See also J. M. Kemble,

_Codex diplo. aevi Saxonici_, i, 103, No. LXXXVI. The _Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle_ (ed. Thorpe, ii, 71, _s.a._ DCCC.XCIV) mentions ‘the great

army ... which had before sat at the mouth of the Limen, at Appledore’.

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

[2614] _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. lxiii; _Archaeologia_,

xl, 1866, p. 369. I have remarked elsewhere (pp. 609, and 622-3) on

Lewin’s inconsistencies. In his final utterance on the subject of

Romney Marsh (_Archaeologia_, xl) he outdoes himself. On page 369 he

says that the mouth of the Limen was at Appledore: on page 370 he says

that ‘the river Limen must have flowed along the foot of the hills, and

have discharged itself at Lymne’.

[2615] Drew (_Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country between

Folkestone and Rye_, pp. 19-20), on the other hand, says that ‘Forest

trees flourished on this surface, for the moor-logs in the peat have

all the appearance of having grown on the spot. If this be so, it

follows that since that time there has been a depression of the land,

because the peat that occurs at Appledore, and along the shore between

Rye and Dungeness ... is at too low a level for the plants to have

grown at these places while the sea had access there.... There is

no reason to believe that any of the depression of land took place

... from the time of the Romans downwards, for no human remains nor

works of art have been found deep in the Alluvium.’ Dowker (_Proc.

Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1898, p. 221) argues, in support of

Drew’s opinion, that if the trees had been carried down by the Rother,

‘we should expect them to have been covered with mud or silt, which

does not occur to any extent.’

[2616] See p. 535, _supra_.

[2617] See M. Burrows, _The Cinque Ports_, p. 11; _Archaeol. Journal_,

liii, 1896, pp. 364-5: F. Haverfield (_Hist. Atlas of Modern Europe_,

ed. R. L. Poole, 1896, pl. 15), &c. [Prof. Haverfield calls the

harbour Portus Lemanae, not Portus Lemanis. Stukeley, however (_Itin.

curiosum_, 1776, p. 133), believed that the Portus Lemanis was ‘about

West Hithe’; and Somner (_Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in

Kent_, p. 37) says that some of ‘our English Chorographers’ were of

the same opinion. So also was the famous geographer, Konrad Mannert

(_Geogr. der Griechen und Römer_, Zweyter Theil, Zweyter Heft, 1795,

p. 161). Somner (p. 38) argued that the port was at New Romney; but in

order to sustain this opinion he was forced to read _XXI_ instead of

_XVI_ (Roman miles),--the distance, according to the _Itinerary_ of

Antonine (ed. Wesseling, p. 473) from Durovernum (Canterbury) to Portus

Lemanis.]

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

[2619] 26,080, according to Appach; but he assumed that a Roman mile

was equal to 1,630 yards, whereas it was really 1,617. Cf. Smith’s

_Dict. of Greek and Rom. Ant._, 3rd ed., ii, 159-60.

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

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

[2622] _Perambulation of Kent_, p. 165.

[2623] _Ordnance Survey of England_, Sheet 289.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2630] This Theodosius was not Theodosius the Younger, as Elliott says,

but the father of Theodosius the Great.

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

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

[2633] _Proc. Roy. Inst. of Great Britain_, xvi, 1900, pp. 36-7. Cf. C.

Roach Smith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, vii, 1880, pp. 158-9, and _Corpus

inscr. Lat._, vii, 18.

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

[2635] See also T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p.

lxvii. In his article in _Archaeologia_ (xl, 1866, pp. 364-5) Lewin

argues that if the Portus Lemanis had been at the foot of Lympne Hill,

‘we should expect to find at least some vestiges, however faint, of the

port itself’; but, he adds, ‘I have never heard or read (though I have

often inquired) that any remnant of a pier or sunken vessel, or even

any anchor or other part of a ship’s tackle was ever discovered in this

part.’

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

[2637] See p. 536, _supra_.

[2638] Both these maps are reproduced, in part, in the map which faces

p. 531, of this book.

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

[2640] _Ib._, pp. 360-7. I omit those arguments by which Lewin

endeavours to prove that the Portus Lemanis was not at Lympne.

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

[2642] As far as I can see, if the western end of the port had been

at West Hythe, the ‘deluged’ area would have been that between West

Hythe Oaks and Hythe, which in the map prepared by Elliott for Lewin’s

book (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, p. liii) is depicted as

the western arm of the harbour, but which in the map that accompanies

Lewin’s article on the _Portus Lemanis_ (_Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p.

369) is represented as covered partly by the ‘Duck Marsh’ and partly by

shingle.

[2643] Ogilby (_Britannia_, 1675, p. 40) speaks of ‘_Hith alias Hide_

or _East-Hith_’.

[2644] Lewin refers, in support of his statement, to Harris’s _Hist.

of Kent_, p. 367; but what Harris says is simply this:--‘that the

present _Hythe_ was used as a Port, even before the Departure of the

Romans.... Dr. _Plott_ thinks reasonable to conclude; from the paved

Way made after the _Roman_ Fashion all along up the Hill, not only to

Saltwood Castle ... but a Mile farther onwards, and leading into the

_Stonestreetway_.’

[2645] Does _Portus Lemanis_ mean ‘the port at the lagoons’ (E. Guest,

_Origines Celticae_, ii, 117), the plural having been used because,

while on the east of Hythe Oaks extended the pool harbour, the marsh

was still flooded on the west before the erection of the Rhee Wall?

That _Lemanis_ or _Lemannis_ is not a nominative, but a locative

plural, seems to be shown by the _Notitia dignitatum_ (ed. O. Seeck,

1876, Oc. xxviii, 5), where _Lemannis castellum_ is mentioned side by

side with _Regulbi castellum_.

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

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

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

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

[2650] _Ib._, p. 12, § 6.

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

[2652] _Perambulation of Kent_, p. 208.

[2653] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 3.

[2654] See Mr. H. Bradley’s article in _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885,

pp. 379-82, 389.

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

[2656] _Agricola_, 31,--corpora ipsa ac manus silvis ac paludibus

emuniendis inter verbera ac contumelias conteruntur.

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

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

[2659] _Ib._, pp. 137-8, § 11.

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

[2661] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 60, 63. Cf. Roach

Smith, _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., p. 245; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol.

Association_, i, 1845, pp. 40-2; and A. J. Dunkin, _Report of the ...

Brit. Archaeol. Association_, Sept., 1844, pp. 116-9. Besides pottery,

many human skeletons, and also tusks of boars and horses’ teeth were

discovered. Roach Smith (_Retrospections_, i, 1883, p. 207) concludes

from these discoveries that the marsh ‘could not possibly have been

submerged in the time of the Romans’. Not, certainly, at the time when

the articles in question were deposited there: but why not before? ‘The

time of the Romans’ amounted to nearly four centuries.

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

[2663] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, p. 372. According to Elliott (_ib._,

p. 365), a coin of Carausius, who ruled in Britain from A.D. 287 to

293, was found near Dymchurch.

[2664] R. Furley, _Hist. of the Weald of Kent_, i, 29. Against these

facts Appach’s argument (_C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, p. 134, §

3) that if Romney Marsh had existed ‘in the earlier period of the Roman

settlement’ Stone Street, assuming that it existed, ‘would have been

carried onward to Romney, the seaport,’ is of no avail. There is no

evidence that Romney was ‘the seaport’ until long after the departure

of the Romans.

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

and footnotes.

[2666] _Veterum Galliae locorum ... descriptio_ (printed in _C. Iulii

Caesaris ... comm._, Lutetiae, 1544), s.v. _Itius portus_.

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

[2668] _Portus Iccius Iulii Caesaris demonstratus_, 1627.

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

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

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

[2672] _Dissertatio de Portu Iccio_, 1694.

[2673] _Mém. de litt. tirés des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et

Belles-Lettres_, xxviii. 1761, pp. 397-409.

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

1810.

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

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

i, lxxix.

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

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

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

[2680] _Journal of Philology_, xvii, 1888, pp. 163-78; xix, 1891, pp.

138-45, 193-9, 200-10; xx, 1892, pp. 63-4.

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

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

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

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

1894, p. 63, note).

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

[2686] It has been argued that _commodissimum_ in this passage means

not ‘most convenient’, but simply ‘very convenient’. I have not the

slightest doubt that the former is the right interpretation, just

as in _B. G._, iv, 21, § 3, _brevissimus_ (in Britanniam traiectus)

unquestionably means ‘the shortest’, and not ‘a very short’ (passage to

Britain): but if I were wrong my mistake would be unimportant. It will

hardly be denied that if Caesar had found a port from which the passage

was more convenient than from the Portus Itius, he would have chosen

it. See p. 574, _infra_.

[2687] Caignart de Saulcy (_Les campagnes de Jules César dans les

Gaules_, 1862, p. 181) infers from this that the Portus Itius must have

been so situated that vessels sailing thence for Dover _would have had

the north-west wind right in their teeth_; and he remarks that, if

Wissant was the Portus Itius, this condition was fulfilled. But it is

hardly necessary to say that the condition is imaginary. The Portus

Itius must have been so situated that while the north-west wind (or

rather the wind called _Corus_, which may have blown from any quarter

between N.W. and W. by N. ⅓ N.) was blowing, Caesar’s vessels could not

have sailed thence to that part of the Kentish coast which he wished to

reach; and it is certain that they could not sail closer than within

about seven points of the wind. See _The Voyage and Shipwreck of St.

Paul_, by James Smith, 4th ed., 1880, p. 215; and, on the winds as

described by various ancient writers, Vitruvius, _De Architectura_,

i, 6, §§ 5, 9-10, P. F. J. Gossellin, _Recherches sur la géogr._, iv,

1813, p. 410, and diagram facing p. 416, and J. Vars, _L’art nautique

dans l’ant._, 1887, pp. 31-4.

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

§§ 2-3; 5; 7, § 3; 8, §§ 1-2, 6; 23, § 4.

[2689] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.--τὸ Ἴτιον, ᾧ ἐχρήσατο ναυστάθμῳ Καῖσαρ ὁ

Θεός, διαίρων εἰς τὴν νῆσον· νύκτωρ δ’ ἀνήχθη, καὶ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ κατῆρε

περὶ τετάρτην ὥραν, τριακοσίους καὶ εἴκοσι σταδίους τοῦ διάπλου τελέσας.

[2690] _Geogr._, ii, 9, § 1.

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

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

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

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

[2695] _Portus Itius_, p. 5.

[2696] J. F. Henry argues (_Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal

de Boulogne-sur-mer_, 1810, pp. 54-5) that Caesar could only have

estimated the distance from the Portus Itius to Britain by making the

voyage; that, as he was carried out of his course on the second voyage,

the one by which he estimated the distance must have been the first;

and consequently that in 55 as in 54 B.C. he must have sailed from the

Portus Itius.

But Henry forgot that Volusenus, whom Caesar sent in 55 B.C. to

reconnoitre the British coast, may have made the estimate. Or Caesar

may have accepted the estimate of merchants, of seamen, or of Commius:

it is useless to guess.

[2697] _Portus Itius_, p. 9.

[2698] In support of the view that Caesar reckoned the distance to the

nearest port of Britain, Heller (_Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_,

xviii, 1865, pp. 172-3) argues (1) that if he had intended to indicate

the distance to his landing-place, he would probably have written,

not (quo ex portu commodissimum) _in Britanniam_ (traiectum esse

cognoverat, &c.) but _ad eum locum quo est descensum_ (‘to the spot

where the disembarkation took place’); (2) that when Strabo estimated

the length of Caesar’s voyage at 320 stades, or 40 Roman miles, he must

either have found (milium passuum) _XXXX_, which is not in any extant

MS., in his copy of the _Commentaries_, or have concluded, from other

information, that Caesar had underestimated the distance; and in either

case the fact that he expressly mentions the time which Caesar took

to reach his _anchorage_ shows that he did not take into account the

additional 7 miles which separated the anchorage from the landing-place.

It will be seen, however, that, although I agree with Heller’s

conclusion, the proofs by which I shall establish the identity of the

Portus Itius are wholly independent of it.

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

[2700] See p. 619, _infra_.

[2701] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, pp. 269-70, note (Eng.

trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note).

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

[2703] _B. G._, v, 13, § 2.

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

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

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

[2707] Speaking of Druidism, Caesar says (_B. G._, vi, 13, §§ 11-2)

_disciplina in Britannia reperta atque inde in Galliam translata

existimatur, et nunc qui diligentius eam rem cognoscere volunt

plerumque illo discendi causa proficiscuntur_. With this word the

chapter ends; but it is undeniable that those who wished to study the

tenets of Druidism did go to Britain.

[2708] _Ib._, iv, 21, §§ 3-4.--Ipse cum omnibus copiis in Morinos

proficiscitur, quod inde erat brevissimus in Britanniam traiectus. Huc

naves undique ex finitimis regionibus et quam superiore aestate ad

Veneticum bellum fecerat classem iubet convenire.

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

[2710] Lewin (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. v-vi), justly

ridicules Airy’s desperate contention (_Athenæum_, Sept. 10, 1859, p.

337) that _in his locis_ is ‘a studiously indefinite expression’.

[2711] _B. G._, iv, 22, § 1.

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

[2713] _B. G._, vi, 9, § 6.

[2714] _Ib._, iv, 22, §§ 1, 5.--Dum in his locis Caesar navium

parandarum causa moratur, ex magna parte Morinorum ad eum legati

venerunt ... reliquum exercitum Titurio Sabino et Aurunculeio Cottae

legatis in Menapios atque in eos pagos Morinorum a quibus ad eum legati

non venerant ducendum dedit.

[2715] _Ib._, v, 24, § 2.

[2716] The italics are mine.

[2717] _Essays on the Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar_ (privately

printed), 1865, p. 27.

[2718] _B. G._, v, 24, §§ 1-2.--Subductis navibus concilioque Gallorum

Samarobrivae peracto, quod eo anno frumentum in Gallia propter

siccitates angustius provenerat, coactus est aliter ac superioribus

annis exercitum in hibernis conlocare legionesque in plures civitates

distribuere. Ex quibus unam in Morinos ducendam C. Fabio legato dedit,

alteram in Nervios Q. Ciceroni, tertiam in Esuvios L. Roscio, quartam

in Remis cum T. Labieno in confinio Treverorum hiemare iussit, tres in

Belgio conlocavit, &c.

[2719] _Ib._, vi, 44, §§ 1, 3.

[2720] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.--τῶν ὁμορούντων τοῖς Μεναπίοις Μορινῶν,

παρ’ οἷς ἐστι καὶ τὸ Ἴτιον, &c.

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

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

[2723] _e.g._, iv, 2, § 2.--παρὰ μὲν οὖν τοῖς Πετροκορίοις σιδηρουργεῖά

ἐστιν ἀστεῖα καὶ τοῖς Κούβοις Βιτούριξι, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Καδούρκοις

λινουργίαι; and iv. 3, § 3,--τὴν δ’ ἐπὶ τῷ Ῥήνῳ πρῶτοι τὴν ἁπάντων

οἰκοῦσιν Ἐλουήττιοι, παρ’ οἷς εἰσιν αἱ πηγαὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἀδούλᾳ

ὄρει. See also viii, 3, § 11.

[2724] _B. G._, iv, 36, § 4.

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

agrees with Airy.

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

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

[2728] _Ib._, ii, 167.

[2729] ‘They crossed the Rhine ... 30 miles below the place where the

bridge had been built.’

[2730] ‘It was announced ... that a large column was moving up the

river, and that the sound of oars was audible in the same direction;

and that troops were being ferried across the river in barges below.’

[2731] ‘He led out the remaining legions in light marching order;

stationed a large number of baggage-cattle in the river on the upper

and the lower side [of the ford]; and made the army cross over.’ Cf.

_Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 163-4.

[2732] _B. G._, v, 2, § 3.

[2733] Sometimes Airy makes Caesar anchor off St. Leonards; sometimes

off Bexhill. We may give him his choice.

[2734] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 237-8. I find, to my amazement,

that Desjardins agrees with Airy. ‘The text,’ he argues (_Géogr. de la

Gaule rom._, i, 360-1), ‘does not say precisely that the _Portus Itius_

is 30 miles from Britain; it only says (1) that Caesar had ascertained

that it was a very convenient port; and (2) that Britain was about 30

miles from the continent. Here we have two distinct statements.’

It is worth mentioning that Airy, in quoting the passage, omits

_transmissum_, while Desjardins retains it. It was originally deleted

by Faërn, who has been followed by various editors, in defiance of the

_MSS._ See C. E. C. Schneider, _Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii,

1849, p. 11.

[2735] Airy seems to have felt the necessity of bolstering up his

argument; for he remarks (_Essays on the Invasion of Britain_, &c.,

p. 27) that ‘before the Triangulation of the year 1787, it was a fair

and an insoluble question, whether the distance from the Continent to

Britain was less than twenty or greater than forty miles’. Perhaps;

but long before the aforesaid Triangulation sailors used to make

wonderfully good guesses about this ‘insoluble question’. Cluver tells

us that while staying with Sir Thomas Waller, Warden of the Cinque

Ports, he questioned all who could give him trustworthy information,

and particularly seamen, as to the passages between England and France.

The unanimous reply was that the distance between Dover and Calais was

28 English miles, and that _the most convenient passage was between

Dover and Boulogne_, and was 32 English miles (_Germania antiqua_,

1631, lib. ii, cap. xxviii, p. 445). Similarly, the Arab geographer,

Edrisi, who died about 1180, affirmed that the distance between Wissant

and England was 25 Roman miles (_Geogr. Nubiensis ..._, 1619, pp.

253-4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63, note).

[2743] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.

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

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

[2746] ... the spirits of the dead ‘stretched out their hands in

longing for the further shore’ (_Aen._, vi, 314).

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

[2748] (They also wear the skins of wild beasts), ‘the riparian tribes

in a careless fashion, those of the interior with more elegance’ (c.

17).

[2749] As a matter of fact, if the _Portus Itius_ was the estuary of

the Liane, there _was_ an ‘objet disjonctif’ between it and Ambleteuse,

namely, the headland north of Boulogne harbour.

[2750] Creuly also observes (_Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p.

307) that, while Ambleteuse was 31 Roman miles from Fort Sutherland

on Romney Marsh, Boulogne was 36. But Caesar, as I shall prove (pp.

622-44), did not land on Romney Marsh; and the futility of arguments of

this kind has been already pointed out (pp. 557-8).

[2751] It is worth noting that while Creuly pins his faith to

Ambleteuse, he is not so foolish as to ask us to believe that Caesar’s

800 ships found room there. They anchored, he tells us (p. 310), in the

roadstead. But Caesar says expressly (_B. G._, v, 2, § 3; 5. § 2) that

they assembled in the Portus Itius.

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

[2753] See J. F. Henry, _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de

Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 123.

[2754] In order to counteract the effect of the flood, it would of

course have been necessary to keep the ships’ heads much closer to

the wind than within seven points and a half, which would have been

impossible.

[2755] See _Mém. de la Soc. des ant. de la Morinie_, i, 1833 (1834), p.

253; A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 349-50, n. 3;

J. J. Chifflet, _Portus Iccius_, pp. 25-6; and V. de St. Martin, _Nouv.

Dict. de Géogr. univ._, i, 1879, p. 568.

[2756] _Mém. couronnés par l’Acad. Roy. ... de Bruxelles_, vi, 1827,

pp. 149-50; Allent, _Appendice à l’essai sur les reconnaissances

militaires_, pp. 667-8 (in tome i [1830] of _Mémorial du Dépôt Gén. de

la Guerre_); V. de St. Martin, _Nouv. Dict. de Géogr. univ._, ii, 542.

[2757] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 223. This suggestion,

which was hailed by Freeman (see p. 553, _supra_) as a brilliant and

conclusive discovery, was by no means new. Guest had been anticipated

by Du Fresne (D. Haigneré, _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, ii, 1897,

p. 431, n. 1) and by the Abbé de Fontenu (_Mém. de litt. tirez des

registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, xiii, 1734-7

[1741], plan between pages 416 and 417).

[2758] According to de Saulcy (_Les campagnes de Jules César dans les

Gaules_, p. 172, n. 1), the inhabitants of the country believe that it

extended only from the mouth of the ‘ruisseau du Phare’ to that of the

‘ruisseau d’Herlan’,--a distance of less than a mile and a quarter.

[2759] _Lettre à M. Bouillet ... sur l’article Boulogne de son

Dictionnaire_, 1827, p. 20, n. 30. Cf. _Annales de géogr._, ii, 1893,

p. 313. I have not been able to discover any historical evidence which

would show that no dunes, small or great, existed at Wissant before the

time of Edward III; but it is certain that immense quantities of sand

were accumulated there in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth

centuries. See _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 372.

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

[2761] _Annales de géogr._, ii, 1893, p. 312; _Annales de la Soc. géol.

du Nord_, viii, 1882, p. 1; xxviii, 1899, pp. 86, 88; J. Gosselet,

_Esquisse géol._, &c., 4^e fasc., 1903, p. 406.

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

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

[2764] _Annales de géogr._, ii, 1893, p. 314; _Boulogne-sur-mer et la

région boulonnaise_, i, 372; R. Blanchard, _La Flamande_, p. 314.

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

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

[2767] It must have been very narrow when the coast extended further

seaward, if indeed it existed.

[2768] _Mém. de l’Acad. d’Arras_, xxxv, 1863, p. 273. Haigneré (_Étude

sur le Portus Itius_, pp. 87-8) very properly warns his readers not to

place any reliance upon a certain ‘Vue du port de Wissant’, a copy of

which exists in the Museum at Boulogne. ‘C’est une œuvre de fantaisie.’

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

cap. xxiii).

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

p. 55.

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

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

[2773] ‘The fact,’ says a writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ (Oct.,

1900, p. 442), ‘that it was in mediaeval times a “frequented port” is,

strictly speaking, not a fact at all ... the contemporary references

to it which have been collected by French scholars show that it was

neither a town nor a harbour, but an open beach, which travellers in a

hurry could use with a favourable wind.’ These remarks are inaccurate:

see p. 580, _infra_. The mediaeval port, or portlet, if local tradition

is to be trusted, was, however, simply the mouth of the rivulet,

variously called the Rieu de Sombre, Rieu d’Herlan, and Ruisseau du

Moulin, which flows through the modern town of Wissant, enlarged and

deepened (F. A. F. Mariette, _Lettre à M. Bouillet_, &c., p. 30, n. 20;

D. Haigneré, _Étude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 91); and the tradition

has been confirmed by the explorations of M. Rigaux (_Annales de la

Soc. géol. du Nord_, xxviii, 1899, p. 88). In the dunes which border

on the creek formed by the rivulet there have been found certain old

balks of oak, mentioned by Haigneré (_op. cit._) and C. de Saulcy (_Les

campagnes de Jules César dans les Gaules_, p. 172), which may have

belonged to the quays of the mediaeval harbour.

According to Le Quien, the inhabitants of Wissant in his time (early

in the eighteenth century) affirmed that the entrance of the harbour

had been at the mouth of the Rieu de Ghibelen,--the rivulet nearest to

Cape Grisnez (_Mém. de litt. tiréz des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des

Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, xiii, 1734-7 [1741], p. 417). I agree with

Haigneré that the harbour, such as it was, was at the mouth of the Rieu

d’Herlan. As he says (_Étude_, &c., p. 91),‘Pour s’assurer de l’endroit

où était le port, il n’y avait qu’à se demander où était le village.

Or, le village a toujours occupé l’emplacement sur lequel il est encore

bâti de nos jours, savoir: partie à l’est du _ruisseau_ d’Herlan ... où

les maisons se reconstruisent avec les débris des précédentes,’ &c. See

also _Bull. de la Soc. de géogr. de Lille_, xix, 1893, p. 199.

[2774] C. de Saulcy, in an article in which he endeavours to prove

that the Portus Itius was Wissant (_Les campagnes de Jules César dans

les Gaules_, p. 161), frankly admits that not one of the natives of

Wissant whom he interrogated had ever heard that there was such a name

as ‘Esseu’, or that the Flemings called Wissant ‘Itzen’ (or ‘Isten’).

A. Wauters, indeed, referring to B. E. C. Guérard’s _Cartulaire de

Folcuin_, p. 161, a work which I have failed to procure, affirms

(_Bull. de l’Acad. Roy ... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii, 1879, p.

114) that in a charter of the ninth century property in a place called

Istem was granted to the abbey of St. Bertin: but he fails to prove

the identity of Istem with Wissant; and even if that identity could be

established, no competent etymologist would admit that it supplied an

argument for identifying Wissant with the Portus Itius.

[2775] This derivation, which is now generally accepted, is mentioned

by Lambert of Ardres, a chronicler of the thirteenth century,

who speaks of _Britannicum secus portum, qui ab albedine arenae

vulgari nomine appellatur Witsant_ (J. P. von Ludewig, _Reliquiae

manuscriptorum_, &c., viii, 1728, p. 383. Cf. J. F. Pommeraye, _Hist.

de l’abbaye royale de S. Ouen de Rouen_, 1662, p. 457), but is disputed

by Le Quien (_Dissertation sur le Port Iccius_, pp. 342-3, printed in

_Mém. de litt. et d’hist._, viii, 1749, by P. Desmolets). Remarking

that Flodoard, a writer of the tenth century, calls Wissant _Guicsum_,

he maintains that _Guicsum_ is identical with _Vvicsum_, which would

mean ‘the port of Sum’, just as _Quantovic_ (Étaples) means ‘the port

of the river Canche’. I agree, however, with Desjardins (_Géogr. de la

Gaule rom._, i, 352, note) that it is not certain that by _Guicsum_

Flodoard meant Wissant.

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

p. 83.

[2777] J. Malbrancq, _De Morinis_, i, 1639, p. 27; _Mém. de la Soc. des

ant. de Picardie_, iii, 1856, pp. 469-70; A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr.

de la Gaule rom._, i. 356-7, note.

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

[2779] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 363. Guest apparently forgot that if

Wissant was the Portus Itius, Caesar’s ships, when they returned from

the second expedition, must have been hauled up on the beach (_B. G._,

v. 24, § 1).

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

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

[2782] Cf. Livy. xxxvi, 45, § 8,--ad Canas classis venit; et, cum iam

hiems appeteret, fossa valloque circumdatis naves subductae; _B. C._

iii, 23, § 3,--(Libo) adeo loci opportunitate profecit uti ad Pompeium

litteras mitteret, naves reliquas, si vellet, subduci et refici

iuberet; and Horace, _Carm._, i, 4, 1-2,--

Solvitur acris hiems grata vice veris et Favoni,

Trahuntque siccas machinae carinas.

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

[2784] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.

[2785] _Geogr._, iii, 3, § 5.

[2786] _Ib._, ii, 6, § 2.

[2787] iii. 6.

[2788] See p. 556, _supra_.

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

[2790] _Geogr._, ix, 1, § 15.--τὸ μὲν οὖν παλαιὸν ἐτετείχιστο καὶ

συνῴκιστο ἡ Μουνυχία παραπλησίως ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν Ῥοδίων πόλις, προσειληφυῖα

τῷ περιβόλῳ τόν τε Πειραιᾶ καὶ τοὺς λιμένας πλήρεις νεωρίων ... ἄξιόν

τε ἦν ναυστάθμον ταῖς τετρακοσίαις ναυσίν, &c.

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

[2792] _Geogr._, viii, 6, § 2.

[2793] Evidently ναύσταθμον had a wider range of meaning than _statio

navium_. Plutarch (_Aristides_, 23) implies that a ναύσταθμον could

be burned, from which Haigneré (_Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, iii,

1897, p. 455) infers that ‘un ναύσταθμος n’est pas une rade foraine, ni

une anse, mais un lieu fermé, où se trouvent des arsenaux maritimes’.

This was sometimes the meaning of the word, but only rarely. Pliny

(_Nat. Hist._, iii, 8 [14], § 89) mentions a harbour in Sicily, called

Portus Naustathmus. See also Stephanus, _Thesaurus Graecae linguae_, v,

1842-6, col. 1383-4. Professor Haverfield (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xviii,

1903, p. 335) insists that Strabo (iv, 5, § 2) meant by ναύσταθμον ‘the

whole region of the Itian highland in which Caesar had his _portus

Itius_ and his _ulterior portus_’.

[2794] _B. G._, v, 2, § 3; 5, § 2.

[2795] It is quite true, as General Creuly observes (_Rev. arch._,

nouv. sér., viii, 1863, p. 306) that the author of _Bellum Africum_ (c.

10, § 1) applies the name of _portus_ to a mere anchorage (cf. Col.

Stoffel, _Hist. de Jules César,--Guerre civile_, ii, 110-1, and pl.

20). But _Bellum Africum_ was not written by Caesar; and the question

is, what Caesar meant by the word _portus_. Now there are certainly two

instances in which he applies that word to a harbour very different

from the estuary of a river. The harbour of Nymphaeum (now the bay

of Medua) on the eastern coast of the Adriatic has a comparatively

wide entrance, and is exposed to the full force of the south wind;

but against all other winds it is perfectly safe, and it might fairly

be called a _portus_ and not a _statio_ (_B. C._, iii, 26, § 4. Cf.

Col. Stoffel, _Hist. de Jules César_, &c. pl. 14 _bis_). The harbour

of Alexandria was formed, as Caesar says (_B. C._, iii, 112, § 2. Cf.

Stoffel, pl. 19), by the island which extended opposite the city, and

was divided into two portions by the mole which connected the island

with the mainland: the western portion must have been exposed to south

westerly winds, but the other offered complete shelter. The conclusion

is that the word _portus_ had a somewhat elastic signification, but

would not have been applied by Caesar to Wissant unless the anchorage

there had been protected, as Dr. Guest imagined, by sand-dunes.

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

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

75C.

[2798] This is undeniable. See J. F. Henry, _Essai ... sur

l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_, pp. 66-71; D. Haigneré,

_Etude sur le Portus Itius_, p. 85, n. 1; and _Dict. arch. de la

Gaule_, ii, 45. Henry calculated from the loss known to have been

suffered by Cap d’Alprech and the promontory on which the Tour d’Odre

stood during the two centuries and a half that preceded the year

1810, that in Caesar’s time they must have extended from 700 to 800

metres further seaward than in 1810. This, however, I believe to be an

exaggeration.

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

[2800] _Le Roman de Brut_, ed. Le Roux de Lincy, 1836, vv. 3937-40.

Similarly Geoffrey of Monmouth (_Hist. Britonum_, iv, § 3) and Matthew

Paris (_Chronica majora_, ed. H. R. Luard, i, 1872, p. 73) supposed

that Caesar, after his second expediion, had returned to Boulogne.

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

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

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

[2804] _Journal of Philology_, xx, 1892, p. 192. Gosselin (_Recherches

sur la géogr._, iv, 87-90) attempts to prove that Ptolemy confused two

itineraries, and accordingly located the promontory between the Somme

and Gesoriacum instead of on the north of the latter.

Henry (_Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer_,

pp. 3-6, 33), referring to Pomponius Mela (iii, 7, §§ 59, 68),

maintains that by the word _promontorium_ the ancients sometimes

designated not merely a cape but also all its ‘collateral

dependencies’; and accordingly he argues that the Ἴτιον ἄκρον comprised

Capes Grisnez and Blancnez, and Cap d’Alprech!

Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 371-2) remarks that not

only was Cap d’Alprech a more prominent headland 2000 years ago than

to-day, but it is actually 9 metres, or about 30 feet, higher than Cape

Grisnez; and he insists that the ancients, being unable to form an

exact idea of the outline of a coast, took note of those geographical

features which appeared to them remarkable, and would therefore have

been more inclined to mention Cap d’Alprech than Cape Grisnez. I

cannot help thinking that Desjardins would not have resorted to this

argument if he had not persuaded himself that the identification of

the Portus Itius with Boulogne depended upon the identification of Cap

d’Alprech with the Itian promontory. The ancients did not know how to

make accurate maps; but they had sufficient powers of observation to

be able to see that Cape Grisnez marked the great bend in the coast of

North-Eastern Gaul.

It is amusing to find that, whereas Desjardins in his first volume

(p. 371) affirmed that the identification of the Itian promontory

with Cape Grisnez, if it were admitted, would necessarily involve the

identification of the Portus Itius with Wissant, in his third volume

(p. 355) he queries his own identification of the promontory with Cap

d’Alprech.

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

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

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

[2808] _Norman Conquest_, i, xv.

[2809] _Longius delatus aestu_ (_B. G._, v, 8, § 2). According to Long

(_Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 1872, p. 204), ‘the expression

“too far” (_longius_) means that he was carried too far north and past

the place where he had landed the year before.’ But as the direction of

the current was ENE. (magnetic), the smallest drift would have been too

far.

[2810] _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

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

[2812] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 122-3.

There is an obvious objection to this argument, to which Heller replies

by anticipation. One of the three sides of Britain, says Caesar, looks

southward towards Gaul; and one of the ‘angles’ (_alter angulus_) of

this side is by Kent (_B. G._, v, 13, § 1). If Caesar landed, as Heller

believes, between the South Foreland and the North Foreland, he had

himself seen this angle, which is formed by the South Foreland; and

if he believed that the coast, at the North Foreland, turned sharply

towards the west, and had no knowledge of that part of the coast which

trends northward beyond the mouth of the Thames, it is clear that he

must have regarded the North Foreland and not the South Foreland, as

marking the commencement of the northern side, in which case one might

think that he would have described the coast between the South Foreland

and the North Foreland as a separate side, and would have represented

Britain not as triangular but as irregularly quadrilateral. But Heller

argues that the word _angulus_, as used by Caesar, does not mean an

‘angle’ in the geometrical sense of the word, but only a strip of coast

between two angles; and he compares a passage in Livy’s description of

the siege of Saguntum (xxi, 7, § 5),--_Angulus muri erat in planiorem

patentioremque quam cetera circa vallem vergens_.

[2813] Caesar started ‘about sunset’ (_ad solis occasum_): the wind

dropped ‘about midnight’ (_media circiter nocte_); and the drift ceased

at daybreak (_orta luce_). The sun set at 8.16 p.m.; and day broke

about 3.20 a.m. It would be absurd to suppose that the voyage must

have begun at the moment when the sun dipped under the horizon: we may

fairly assume that it began at any time between 7 and 8. Similarly

the drift may be assumed to have begun at any time between 11 p.m.

and 1 a.m. Let us suppose that the wind lasted 5 hours, and the drift

3 hours. For some time before the wind dropped it must have been

gradually dying down; but, as the vessels kept steerage way, it may

be assumed, so Captain Iron, the harbour-master at Dover assures me,

that, even during the drift, there was not a dead calm. Major Rennell,

indeed, affirms (_Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, p. 503) that when the wind

dropped the ships were ‘left to the resources of their oars’: but

Caesar does not confirm this; and if the oars had been used, why should

the ships have drifted out of their course? Captain Iron says that with

a light south-westerly wind the ships could easily have sailed 6 knots

an hour. The voyage took place about the time of new moon (see pp.

728-30, _infra_), that is to say, a day or two before spring tide. For

the first two hours the ships had to encounter the ebb tide, the rate

of which, however, was not more than one knot an hour; and the flood,

the rate of which increased from about three-quarters of a knot to

nearly 3 knots, helped them from about 9 or 9.30 p.m. We may estimate,

then, that in the 5 hours they sailed not less than 25 knots; while in

3 hours, aided by a faint breeze, they would have drifted about 6 knots

(see p. 656, _infra_). I think, then, that the entire distance which

Caesar sailed up to the moment when he ‘saw Britain lying behind on the

port quarter’, may be estimated at not less than 31 knots, or about 57½

kilometres. After making this calculation, which must be taken for what

it is worth, I find that, according to Napoleon’s map (_Hist. de Jules

César_, Atlas, pl. 16), the distance was 57 kilometres. The reader may

check my estimate by referring to the Admiralty _Tide Tables_, pp.

112-9, and _Tidal Streams, English and Irish Channels_.

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

[2815] For this reason I attach no importance to Heller’s remark

(_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 692), that, if Caesar had only drifted as

far northward as the latitude of Deal, he would have written, not _sub

sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit_, but _longius se a Britannia

recessisse animum advertit_.

[2816] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 176;

_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 691-2.

[2817] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 362.

[2818] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 2.

[2819] _The Reader_, Sept. 19, 1863, p. 317. ‘What Strabo says,’ writes

Long (_ib._, p. 414), ‘is quite irrelevant to the matter in discussion,

which must be decided by Caesar’s text.’ After which Long proceeds to

devote a column and a half to arguing for his own view of what Strabo

said.

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

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

[2822] Long forgets that Strabo does not expressly say that ‘the Itius’

was a usual point of transit; he only says that Caesar used it as his

naval station. If ‘the Itius’ was identical with the port used by the

passengers who ‘cross from the country near the Rhine’, it was ‘a usual

point of transit’; but it is precisely this identity which is the

subject of dispute.

[2823] _Geogr._, v, 3, § 6.

[2824] _Ib._, iv, 6, § 9.

[2825] _Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, p. 176.

Heller puts the matter very clearly,--‘aber diese Ausdrucksweise ist

auf gewisse leicht erkennbare Wendungen beschränkt. Jedesmal jedoch, wo

καί weder die intendirende Kraft (in der Bedeutung “sogar”) besitzen

kann, noch eine Hinzufügung begleitender Umstände vermittelt (“zugleich

auch”, “denn auch”) noch auch verallgemeinernde Bedeutung hat (“auch

immer”), kann es, wie hier, nur das Hinzutreten einer neuen Person oder

Sache einleiten ... es darf deshalb gar kein Zweifel darüber aufkommen,

dass Strabo in der That den _portus Itius_ von dem gewöhnlichen Hafen

der Moriner hat unterscheiden wollen.’

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

interpretation of Strabo’s meaning.

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

pp. 46, 48.

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

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

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

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

69-70.

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

Boulonnais_, i, 96-8.

[2833] On the day of Caesar’s first landing in Britain high water

at Dover was about 6.21 a.m. (see pp. 610-1, _infra_); and when

he was approaching the British coast in 54 B.C., the tide turned

south-westward about ten miles east of Deal soon after daybreak, which

was about 3.15 a.m. See pp. 655-9, _infra_. Supposing that Caesar

landed in Britain in 55 B.C. on the 27th, not, as I believe (see p.

601, _infra_), on the 26th of August, it still remains true that the

latter part of the voyage was made on the flood.

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

pp. 134-61.

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

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

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

Kervyn de Lettenhove).

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

pp. 144-5.

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

[2840] _Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis_, ed. W. Stubbs,

i, 1867, p. 60.

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

377.

[2842] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 1.

[2843] ‘It has no port, nor is it easy to see how it ever could

have had one.... Possibly Cape Blanc-Nez may have projected further

seawards two thousand years ago than at present, and so have afforded

it something like a shelter from the south-west wind.’ _Archaeol.

Journal_, xxi, 1864, p. 221, note. But Cape Grisnez would equally

have afforded Wissant ‘something like a shelter from the south-west

wind’; yet Dr. Guest implies that at Wissant there could have been no

harbour unless it had been protected by sand-dunes. And what about the

north-west, the north, and the north-east wind?

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

[2845] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 363.

[2846] This assumption, with the condition that the ships could work to

windward, is approved by Captain Iron and by Commander Boxer, R.N., the

harbour-master of Folkestone.

[2847] I assume what I shall afterwards prove (see pp. 595-665,

_infra_), that Caesar landed in 55 B.C. between Walmer and Deal. If

he had landed near Hythe or Lympne, the force of my argument would of

course be increased.

[2848] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

[2849] See James Smith, _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_, 4th ed.,

1880, p. 113, and Adm. W. H. Smyth, _The Sailor’s Word-Book_, 1867, p.

598.

[2850] A wind blowing from the north-east off Walmer or Kingsdown would

be diverted a point or two southward off the south coast.

[2851] The statement in the text, which will commend itself to every

one who reflects that the heights between Folkestone and Hythe would

have afforded protection from the wind, is made with the approval of

a Deal boatman and an ex-warrant officer who knows every inch of the

Kentish coast.

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

[2853] See Addenda, p. 740.

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

[2855] _Itin. Ant._, ed. Wesseling, pp. 356-63, 376-7; _La Table de

Peutinger_, ed. Desjardins, p. 12, col. 3, p. 13, col. 1-3, p. 22, col.

1-3. The advocates of Wissant have pointed to two roads which connected

Wissant with Thérouanne. One of these, known as the _voie de Leulene_,

leads from Thérouanne to Sangatte, and, near Guines, throws out a

branch, which terminates at Wissant; the other, called the _chemin

vert_, leads to Wissant direct. Roman remains have been found on the

_voie de Leulene_, but none on the branch; while both on the _chemin

vert_ and on the branch road excavations have been made which proved

that neither was a Roman road. See D. Haigneré, _Étude sur le Portus

Itius_, pp. 100-1, 103; and _Mém. de l’Acad. d’Arras_, xxxv, 1863, pp.

272-3.

[2856] C. du Fresne, _Dissertatio de portu Iccio_, p. 95. See also A.

Wauters (_Bull. de. l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii,

1879, p. 130).

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

[2858] I say ‘at least’ advisedly. In order to understate my case, I

have assumed that the legions were of the exceptionally low average

strength of 3,500 men (_B. G._, v, 49, §7; Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s

Conquest of Gaul_, pp. 563-7), and have not counted auxiliaries,

although there were certainly both slingers and archers (_B. G._, iv,

25, §1). Probably we should be within the mark if we estimated the

force at 40,000 infantry and auxiliaries, besides the 4,000 cavalry.

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

37.

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

[2861] _B. G._, v, 23, § 4.

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

[2863] I am aware that, according to Froissart (_Chroniques_, ed.

Kervyn de Lettenhove, v, 1868, pp. 182-3), timber was conveyed after

the battle of Crecy from the forests of the Boulonnais to Wissant by

men and horses. But Wissant was then connected with the interior by

roads.

[2864] The very earliest mention of Wissant to which its advocates can

point refers to the year 566. But the anonymous life of St. Vulgan,

in which the reference is to be found, is a work of no authority. See

_Mém. de l’Acad. d’Arras_, xxxv, 1863, p. 253, and A. E. E. Desjardins,

_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 351-2, note.

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

415, 421.

[2866] Cf. E. Lavisse, _Hist. de France_ (tome i, by G. Bloch, 1901,

pp. 197-8).

[2867] _Lettre à M. Bouillet_, &c., pp. 26-7. Haigneré (_Étude sur

le Portus Itius_, p. 122) argues that if Caesar started on his first

voyage from Wissant, it is impossible to account for the fact that, on

the return voyage, two of his ships failed to make the same harbours

as the rest, that is to say, Sangatte and Wissant. Those two ships

could not, he insists, have drifted further down the coast, that is to

say, southward of Cape Grisnez, unless the wind had been unfavourable;

and if the wind was unfavourable, how was it that the remaining ships

succeeded in making the harbours? Captain Iron, however, attaches no

importance to this objection.

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

p. 130.

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

132-3.

[2870] I mean, of course, on any part of the coast which can be

regarded as lying within the limits required by Caesar’s narrative. The

estuary of the Authie is about 11 miles further south than that of the

Canche; and the estuary of the Somme is, as we have seen (pp. 558-63,

_supra_) inadmissible.

[2871] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 376-80, and pl. xv. See also

T. Lewin, _The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. c-ci, and

_Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 1899, p. 708. ‘Au xiv^e

siècle,’ says M. Lejeal (_ib._, p. 369), ‘la mer pénétrait encore

jusqu’à Isques.’

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

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

p. 63.

[2874] See a map in the British Museum, called _Plan général du port de

Boulogne, avec les dispositions proposées ... pour sortir du port dans

une marée 300 batimens portant une armée de 60,000 hommes_, 1822. This

from the small modern port.

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

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

[2877] For the second expedition the vessels were specially constructed

of light draught (_B. G._, v, 1, § 2); and those which Napoleon built

for the flotilla of 1804 did not draw more than 3 feet of water

(Nap. III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 172). Even in Caesar’s first

expedition the draught of the transports could not have been great, as

the men were able to jump off them into the sea and wade ashore.

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

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

the river.

[2880] _Bull. de la Soc. acad. ... de Boulogne-sur-mer_, i, 1873, p.

278, n. 1; D. Haigneré, _Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, i, 328-32, ii,

422. The latter passage is worth quoting:--‘On travaillait en 1861 au

creusement du sas-éclusé dont la munificence du gouvernement ... a

doté le port de Boulogne ... les ouvriers arrivèrent dans la couche

la plus basse des sables qu’ils déblayaient dans la fouille! Nous y

trouvions le radier de l’ancien port semé d’antiquités gauloises et

de débris romains, portant, sur sa surface, de tuf glaiseux, la trace

visible du roulis des vagues, avec une dépression marquée, formant une

sorte de chenal qui se dirigeait vers l’ouest,’ &c. Airy, who insists

(_Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236) that Boulogne harbour would have

been too small for Caesar’s purpose, neglected to inform himself that

there was much more space in the estuary in Caesar’s time than there is

now.

Henry’s objection (_Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de

Boulogne-sur-mer_, pp. 58-9), that there would not have been enough

water in the harbour at sunset, when Caesar set sail on his second

voyage, therefore collapses; but even if his statement were true,

the inference which he draws from it would be refuted by himself:

for he tells us (p. 52) that in 55 B.C. the ships ‘ont dû partir du

mouillage’. If so, why not in 54 B.C. also?

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

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

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

readers, much less.

Mariette (_Lettre à M. Bouillet_, &c., pp. 16, 51) actually holds

that the _ulterior portus_ was the harbour of Bononia (see p. 591, n.

1, _infra_), as distinguished from that of Gesoriacum! The _ulterior

portus_, he says, is generally assumed to have been eight Roman miles

from the Portus Itius, simply because the eighteen ships which carried

Caesar’s cavalry were detained eight miles from the Portus Itius by

contrary winds. But, he insists, Caesar does not say that the place

where the eighteen ships were detained was a harbour: he merely

indicates the harbour where the cavalry embarked, without saying where

it was; it was not the same place as that at which the vessels had been

detained some days before.

I only notice this theory because Mariette was a really eminent man. If

it were necessary to refute it, it would be sufficient to say, first,

that, as Caesar tells us (_B. G._, iv, 22, § 4) that the eighteen

ships (which he reserved for his cavalry) were detained by contrary

winds at a place eight miles from the harbour which sheltered the rest

of the fleet, and in the next sentence but two says that he ordered

the cavalry to advance to the _ulterior portus_ (which he had not

mentioned before), and embark, the inevitable conclusion is that the

place where the eighteen ships had been detained was the _ulterior

portus_; secondly, that if the _ulterior portus_ had been virtually

in juxta-position with the port from which Caesar sailed, he would

certainly have taken care that they sailed along with him.

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

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

[2886] _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

[2887] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 23 (37), § 122. Wauters (_Bull. de l’Acad. Roy

... de Belgique_, 2^e sér., xlvii, 1879, pp. 125-6) actually argues

that because Lambert of Ardres, who wrote in the thirteenth century,

called Wissant the _portus Britannicus_, therefore Wissant was the

_portus Morinorum Britannicus_ of Pliny! He forgets that Lambert was

not referring to the time of the Roman Empire: he simply meant that in

his own time Wissant was a frequented port of departure for England.

Courtois insists (_Bull. de la Soc. des ant. de la Morinie_, iii, 1862,

p. 391) that Pliny distinguishes the _portus Morinorum Britannicus_

from Gesoriacum. As well might a modern leader-writer be said to

distinguish London from ‘the metropolis’.

[2888] See A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 363-8,

371-2, 383-8. Roman tiles, bearing the inscription CL. BR., have been

found at Bréquerecque, east of Boulogne, on the banks of the Liane; and

inscriptions found at Tintelleries and Bréquerecque prove that CL. BR.

stands for _classis Britannica_ (_ib._, p. 364, and V. J. Vaillant,

_Classis Britannica_, 1888, pp. 16-7).

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

[2890] _Divus Claudius_, 17.

[2891] _Itin. Ant._, ed. Wesseling, pp. 356-63; A. E. E. Desjardins,

_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 387.

[2892] Zosimus (_Hist. Nov._, ed. L. Mendelssohn, 1887, vi, 2, §

2) says that Bononia was the first port to be met with in Germania

(Inferior), that is to say, by a traveller coming from the east;

and much stress has been laid upon this passage by the advocates of

Boulogne: but it only proves what we knew already, namely, that if

Wissant had ever been a Gallic port, it fell into complete disuse under

the empire.

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

[2894] _Portus Itius_, p. 12.

[2895] _Chorographia_, iii, 2, § 23.

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

[2897] Napoleon III (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 171-2) maintains that

the fact of the great Napoleon’s having selected Boulogne for the

embarkation of the troops with which he intended to invade England is

a strong argument in favour of Caesar’s having done the same. I lay no

stress upon this argument because it is superfluous if it can be shown

that Wissant would not have served Caesar’s purpose equally well; and

that this has been shown those who have read so far will not deny.

It is hardly necessary to add that Boulogne was only one, though the

principal, of several ports selected by Napoleon.

[2898] _Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 432. ‘If,’ says Long, ‘it

was named Gesoriacum in Caesar’s time, why did he name it Itium?’

The obvious answer is that he did not name it ‘Itium’. He named it,

or rather its harbour, _portus Itius_,--‘the Itian harbour,’ or, as

Professor Rhys expresses it, ‘the Channel harbour.’

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

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

[2901] _Portus Itius_, p. 19.

[2902] Desjardins also finds it necessary to explain why the name

_Gesoriacum_ was succeeded by _Bononia_. His explanation (_Géogr. de la

Gaule rom._, i, 373) is that the port of Gesoriacum was different from

the port of Bononia. Remarking that, according to Eumenius (_Paneg.

Constantii_, c. vi), the port of Gesoriacum was blocked by the emperor

Constantius Chlorus, in order to prevent the escape of Carausias, he

says that ‘sans doute’ this port was then abandoned for the new (and

hypothetical) port of Bononia, ‘aux Tintelleries,’ further down the

Liane. This, he says, explains why the name Bononia was alone used

(except in the itineraries) after the time of Constantine. I have

noticed that Desjardins uses the words ‘sans doute’ when there is a

doubt which he is unable to remove. As he insists that the ports of

Bononia and Gesoriacum were different, he must, I think, have been off

his guard when he quoted, in support of his contention, an anonymous

writer, who mentions the arrival of Constantine at ‘Bononia, which

the Gauls originally called Gesoriacum’ (_Bononiam, quam Galli prius

Gesoriacum vocabant_ [M. Bouquet, _Recueil des hist. des Gaules_, i,

1738, p. 563B]). And in his own edition of the Peutinger Table (p. 13,

col. 2) I find the words _Gesogiaco quod nunc Bononia_.

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

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

[2905] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 50, §2.

[2906] Ed. Wesseling, p. 463.

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

[2908] The arguments of d’Anville, intended to prove that ten maritime

stades were equivalent to one Roman mile, may be found in his _Traité

des mesures anciennes_, 1769, pp. 71-6. Everybody knows that there

were stades of various lengths, one of which was one-tenth of a Roman

mile (_Itin. Hierosol._, ed. Wesseling, p. 609); but the stade by

which Strabo usually reckoned was one-eighth of a mile (_Geogr._,

vii, 7, § 4.--λογιζομένῳ, ὡς μὲν οἱ πολλοί, τὸ μίλιον ὀκταστάδιον.

Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, ii, 23 [21], § 85.--Stadium centum viginti

quinque nostros efficit passus). See J. Wex, _Métrologie grecque et

rom._ (trans. P. Mouat), 1886, p. 16; F. Hultsch, _Griech. und röm.

Metrologie_, 1882, pp. 49, 59-60; and Ideler in _Abhandlungen der

Königlichen Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1826 (1829), p. 15;

1827 (1830), p. 127.

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

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

[2911] Cf. R. Schneider, _Portus Itius_, p. 10. No doubt the ancients

did commonly overestimate distances; but any one who had time to go

through Strabo could pick out exceptions. Thus he tells us (i, 4, §4)

that the distance from Massilia to ‘the middle of Britain’ (εἰς μέσην

τὴν Βρεττανικήν) is 5,000 stades, and (ii, 1, §40) that the distance

from Carthage to Massilia is not more than 9,000. The latter, _in a

straight line_, is about 10,500: the former, measured only as far as

Portsmouth Harbour, about 5,200.

[2912] See p. 558, _supra_.

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

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

[2915] See also J. F. Henry, _Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal

de Boulogne-sur-mer_, p. 190, and _Boulogne-sur-mer et la règion

boulonnaise_, i, 369.

[2916] Haigneré (_Recueil hist. du Boulonnais_, i, 377) questions

whether there is any mention of Ambleteuse as a port earlier than

the sixteenth century; but it is certain that a charter was granted

to the town in the year 1209. See _Bull. de la Soc. acad. de

Boulogne-sur-mer_, i, 1864-72 (1873) pp. 139-46.

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

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

[2919] _B. G._, iv, 38, §§1-2.

[2920] See p. 561, _supra_.

[2921] _B. G._, ii, 31-3; v, 39, §3.

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

[2923] _Ib._, iv, 21, §5; 27; 30.

[2924] _Ib._, iv, 37, §1.--‘About 300 soldiers had landed from these

two vessels and were making the best of their way to camp, when the

Morini, who had been quite submissive when Caesar left them on his

departure for Britain, surrounded them,’ &c. (_Quibus ex navibus cum

essent expositi milites circiter CCC atque in castra contenderent,

Morini, quos Caesar in Britanniam proficiscens pacatos reliquerat, spe

praedae adducti ... circumsteterunt_ &c.)

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

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

[2927] _B. G._, v, 8, §2.

[2928] _B. G._, v, 23, §6; 24, §1.

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

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

1894, p. 63, note).

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

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

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

[2934] _Formae orbis antiqui_, 1894, xxvi.

[2935] _B. G._, iv, 20, § 4. I agree with Meusel in adopting the

reading (ad) _maiorem_ (navium multitudinem idonei portus), not

_maiorum_. A moment’s reflection will show that we ought to read

_maiorem_, even though there is no better _MS._ authority for it than

the _codex Vratislaviensis I_. Caesar was not anxious to find out what

harbours would accommodate a flotilla of large ships, but what harbours

would accommodate a large flotilla. The draught of his ships was so

small that when they were aground the men could jump overboard and wade

ashore. See _Classical Review_, xv, 1901, p. 176.

[2936] See p. 554, _supra_.

[2937] Mr. H. E. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xxii, 1894, p. 168)

remarks that the words _cuius loci haec erat natura atque ita montibus

angustis mare continebatur uti ex locis superioribus in litus telum

adigi posset_ have been ‘taken as applying to old Dover harbour’. It

is true that they have been taken in this sense by commentators who

were ignorant of the meaning of _angustis_; but even if they could

be interpreted as meaning a creek or inlet hemmed in by precipitous

heights, they could not apply to ‘old Dover harbour’, which occupied

part of the Priory Valley, and was never hemmed in by ‘precipitous

heights’. Hoffmann unnecessarily conjectures that Caesar wrote not

_angustis_ but _anguste_.

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

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

[2940] _quae tamen ancoris iactis cum fluctibus complerentur,

necessario adversa nocte in altum provectae continentem petierunt_

(_B. G._, iv, 28, §3). The meaning of _adversa nocte_ has been

much discussed. According to C. Schneider (_Comm. de bellis C. I.

Caesaris_, i, 397), who refers to a passage in the _Civil War_, ii,

31, §7--_namque huius modi res aut pudore aut metu tenentur, quibus

rebus nox maxime adversaria est_--the word _adversa_ is equivalent to

_obstante_, that is to say, ‘being unfavourable to them’: but, assuming

that this is the meaning, did Caesar intend to convey that the ships

stood out to sea _though_ night was unfavourable to the voyage, or

_because_ night was unfavourable to their remaining where they were? I

unhesitatingly reject the former alternative, for all Caesar’s voyages

between Gaul and Britain were made by night, and, moreover, on this

particular night there was a full moon: on the other hand, it would

not have been more dangerous to remain at anchor in the night than in

the daytime. I agree with Kraner-Dittenberger (_C. I. Caesaris comm.

de b. G._, 1890, p. 85), who hold that, just as _adverso colle_ (_B.

G._, ii, 19, §3) means ‘up the hill’, and _adverso flumine_ (_ib._,

vii, 60, § 3) ‘up the river’, so _adversa nocte_ means ‘in the face of

night’ (‘der Nacht entgegen’, ‘in die Nacht hinein’), a translation

which reminds one of Browning’s famous line ‘And into the midnight we

galloped abreast’.

[2941] See p. 331, _supra_.

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

[2943] See p. 680, _infra_.

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

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

1-2; 8-11; 12, § 5; 13; 23.

[2946] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 2.

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

[2948] The time of the full moon was kindly calculated for me by

Messrs. John A. Sprigge, William Frazer Doak, M.A., F.R.A.S., and T.

Charlton Hudson, B.A., F.R.A.S., all of the Nautical Almanac Office.

[2948] _B. G._, iv, 28; 29, § 1.

[2950] _Geogr._, iv, 3, § 4.--δίαρμα δ’ ἐστὶν εἰς τὴν Βρεττανικὴν ἀπὸ

τῶν ποταμῶν τῆς Κελτικῆς εἴκοσι καὶ τριακόσιοι στάδιοι· ὑπὸ γὰρ τὴν

ἄμπωτιν ἀφ’ ἑσπέρας ἀναχθέντες τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ περὶ ὀγδόην ὥραν καταίρουσιν

εἰς τὴν νῆσον.

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

Supplementband, 1884, p. 613.

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

p. 51.

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

[2954] xliv, 37, §§ 5-6.--C. Sulpicius Gallus ... pronuntiavit nocte

proxima, ne quis id pro portento acciperet, ab hora secunda usque ad

quartam horam noctis lunam defecturam esse.

[2955] At Sheerness on December 30, 1904, six days before new moon,

‘the tide rose to an extraordinary height [owing to a severe gale],

at least 5 ft. above the natural level’ (_Times_, Dec. 31, 1904, p.

4, col. 2). ‘Them tides,’ said an old seaman to me at Dover, ‘is the

queerest tides in the world; I’ve seen myself more flow of water at

nips than at springs. It all depends on the wind.’

[2956] Napoleon III (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 175), after citing

two irrelevant passages, asserts that ‘le _post diem quartum_ de César

doit se comprendre dans le sens de quatre jours révolus, sans compter

le jour du débarquement’; and then, remarking that the storm broke

out on the 30th of August, he concludes that ‘quatre jours pleins

s’étaient écoulés depuis le débarquement; cela nous conduit au 26.

César prit donc terre le 25 août.’ To make things perfectly clear, let

us put the matter in this way:--the orthodox view is that, according

to the _common_ Roman method of reckoning, the fourth day after Monday

would be Thursday; Napoleon’s view is that it would be Saturday! It is

neither profitable nor exciting to slay the slain. I will therefore

only remark that Napoleon’s interpretation of the words _post diem

quartum_ is peculiar to himself, and that it has been demolished by

Merivale (_Contemporary Review_, iii, 1866, pp. 125-6) and, still more

effectively, by Heller (_Philologus_, xxvi, 1867, pp. 674-6).

Long (_Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 169), remarking that ‘the

Romans sometimes reckoned inclusively and sometimes not’, concludes

that ‘the expression “on the fourth day” is ambiguous’. The famous

jurist, F. C. von Savigny (_System des heutigen römischen, Rechts_,

iv, 1841, pp. 602-16), collected a large number of examples of both

methods, which both Merivale and Heller have overlooked; and L.

Holzapfel (see p. 719, n. 1, _infra_) shows that Cicero often used

the exclusive method, which, for numbers from ten upwards, appears to

have been invariable (Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_,

2nd ed., 1859, p. 163, n. 17, and L. Holzapfel, _Röm. Chron._, 1885,

p. 353). Those, however, who are familiar with the language of the

_Commentaries_ will have no difficulty in concluding that Caesar

himself, in that work, used the inclusive method. In _B. G._, vi, 33, §

4, he writes, _discedens post diem VII sese reversurum confirmat_; and

in vi, 35, § 1, _diesque adpetebat VII quem ad diem Caesar ... reverti

constituerat_. Therefore, as Merivale observes, ‘_dies VII = post diem

VII_.’ See also Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 2nd

ed., 1859, p. 163, n. 317; L. Holzapfel, _Röm. Chron._, pp. 353-6;

_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 74; and Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of

Gaul_, 1899, pp. 723-5.

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

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

[2959] xl, 1, § 3.

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

[2961] _B. G._, v, 8, § 3.

[2962] See p. 599, _supra_.

[2963] S. F. Surtees, _Julius Caesar: did he cross the Channel?_ 1866;

_Julius Caesar: showing beyond reasonable doubt, that he never crossed

the Channel, but sailed from Zeeland, and landed in Norfolk_, 1868.

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

Reviewed_, 1869.

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

1795, p. 29.

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

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

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

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

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

[2971] _Julius Caesar_, p. 196.

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

[2973] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxi, 1864, pp. 235, 237; _Origines

Celticae_, ii, 366. Dr. Guest’s notions about the Thames were perhaps

incorrect. See p. 696, _infra_.

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

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

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

to make.

[2977] _The Cinque Ports_, p. 8.

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

enormously exaggerated.

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

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

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

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

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

[2984] _Ib._, p. lxxxvi.

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

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

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

[2988] ‘Winds,’ says Beechey (_ib._, xxxiv, 1852, p. 239), ‘greatly

affect the time of turn of the stream.’ ‘Strong winds,’ says Mr. S. H.

Brown, Trinity House Pilot (_Diagrams and Tables of Tidal Streams_,

&c., 1895, p. 4), accelerate and prolong the stream running in the

same direction, retard the opposing stream,’ &c. See also _The Channel

Pilot_, part i, 1900, p. 541, from which we learn that ‘on some

occasions ... 8 hours north-eastern and only 4 hours south-western

streams have been found’.

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

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

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

respectively.

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

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

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

[2995] It is remarkable that most of the writers who have dealt with

the question of Caesar’s landing-place should have taken so little

pains to inform themselves about the tides. Thus Cardwell, who was in

1860 Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford, says that ‘If you

know what was the time of high-water at Folkestone at any full moon

during the present year, you know the time of high-water at the same

place whenever the moon was full a hundred or a thousand years ago.

It is also a fact that each successive tide is later by twenty-five

minutes than the one which had preceded it’ (_Archaeol. Cant._, iii,

1860, p. 7). Both these statements are grossly inaccurate, as the

professor might have seen if he had taken the trouble to devote half

an hour to the study of the _Admiralty Tide Tables_. Thus, taking the

August full moon of the years 1883-1900, the time of high tide at

Folkestone varied between 11.5 a.m. in 1896 and 10.17 a.m. in 1900;

while the time of high tide of the fifth day before the full moon

varied between 6.21 a.m. in 1893 and 4.46 a.m. in 1898; and high tide

on the morning of August 19, 1896, was 90 minutes later than high tide

on the morning of August 18, not 50 minutes, as it should have been

according to Cardwell. If he had said that ‘_on the average_ each

successive tide is later by twenty-five minutes than the one which had

preceded it’, he would have told the truth.

[2996] See p. 666, _infra_.

[2997] On the day when the stream turned westward soonest--only 3

hours 40 minutes after high water--the force of the wind was all but

imperceptible (_Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, p. 290).

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

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

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

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

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

[3003] See the note at the end of Airy’s article in _Archaeologia_,

xxxiv, 1852; Sir C. Lyell, _Principles of Geology_, 1875, p. 534; and

_Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers_, clix, 1905, p. 129.

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

[3005] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 2.

[3006] Viscount Wolseley, _The Soldier’s Pocket-Book_, 1886, p.

491.--‘Good eye-sight can distinguish bodies of troops at 2,000

yards; at that distance a man or horse appears like a dot; at 1,200

yards cavalry is distinguished from infantry,’ &c. I am aware that in

certain primitive districts, for instance the islands of Inishbofin

and Inishshank off the coast of Galway, the average range of vision is

abnormally great (_Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iii, 1893-5, p.

324); but we may reasonably assume that Caesar could not see eight or

nine times as far as a modern Englishman.

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

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

Ports_, p. 225.

[3009] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1852, p. 239.--‘At full and change of the

moon,’ says Admiral Beechey, ‘close in shore off Hastings the stream

turns to the west at 11^h; but the turn becomes later as the distance

off shore increases, and at 5 miles distance the stream turns to the

west at 1^h.... The stream runs to the west about 6½ hours,’ &c.

[3010] Airy himself, as we have seen, makes no allowance for any

variation which may have been produced by wind or other causes from

the normal hour of the turn of the stream. I am willing to make any

reasonable allowance; but the intelligent reader will have seen that no

such allowance would disturb the conclusion which I have reached in the

text.

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

[3012] _B. G._, iv, 28, § 2.

[3013] _Ib._

[3014] According to Falconer’s Marine Dictionary, 1815, p. 220, the

lee-way of a ship in a gale varies from 5½ to 6½ points. The amount of

course depends upon the force of the gale, the build of the ship, and

other circumstances.

[3015] See Addenda, p. 740.

[3016] I need hardly say that if Caesar’s transports had been anchored

off Pevensey on the night of the full moon a north-north-easterly gale

could not have driven them ashore unless they had been inside the

harbour, which Caesar would have mentioned.

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

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

[3019] Lewin (_The Invasion of Britain_, &c., 1862, pp. xxxii-xxxiii)

points out that if Caesar approached the British coast anywhere near

Pevensey, ‘he must have anchored, in the first instance, somewhere off

the high cliffs between Hastings and Cliff’s End,’ because at no point

between Hastings and Pevensey are the ‘precipitous heights’ off which

he anchored to be found. But, continues Lewin, if he anchored at any

point between Hastings and Cliff’s End, ‘eight Roman miles would not

carry him so far as Pevensey Marsh.’ [For ‘eight’ read ‘seven’.]

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

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

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

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

[3024] E. A. Freeman’s _Norman Conquest_, iii, 532-4; _Journal of

Philology_, xx, 1892, pp. 63-4.

[3025] See p. 571, _supra_.

[3026] When Professor Ridgeway resuscitated Airy’s theory, he

found himself called upon to meet the objection which we have just

considered. Mr. Malden (_Journal of Philology_, xix, 1891, pp. 197-8)

told him that Caesar would never have landed ‘opposite the Great

Wealden Forest, where resistance would be easy and supplies scarce’.

The professor replied (_ib._, p. 206) that a passage in Caesar’s

narrative proves that he _did_ land opposite the Wealden Forest. The

passage will be found in the ninth chapter of Caesar’s Fifth Book,

in which he describes the combat which took place on the banks of a

stream, about 12 miles from his camp, the day after his second landing.

The Britons, on being driven from the banks, withdrew into woods

(_repulsi ab equitatu se in silvas abdiderunt_). Mr. Malden (_Journal

of Philology_, xx, 1892, p. 63) makes the obvious reply:--‘All that

Caesar tells us is that there were woods in which the Britons took

refuge ... but Caesar does not lead us to believe that he landed in

a place where his march inland was barred by an all but impenetrable

forest 30 to 40 miles wide.’

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

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

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

[3030] _Ib._, p. 553.

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

[3032] The late arrival of some of Caesar’s ships (_B. G._, iv, 23, §

4) can only be accounted for on the assumption that during the voyage

the wind shifted to an unfavourable quarter,--an assumption which is

verified by Caesar’s express statement (iv, 26, § 5) that the cavalry

transports were unable ‘to make the island’, and had to put back.

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

[3034] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 2-4.

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

[3036] _Ib._, v, 8, § 2.

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

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

[3039] See _Tidal Streams_, &c., and _Admiralty Tide Tables_, pp.

112-3, 119.

[3040] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-2.

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

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

[3043] _B. G._, v, 11, §§ 8-9.

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

[3045] _B. G._, v, 2, § 3.

[3046] _Ib._, 23, §§ 5-6.

[3047] _Att._, vi, 8, § 4.

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

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

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

[3051] Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, _Correspondence of Cicero_,

iii, 1890, p. 246, note.

[3052] _Att._, x, 18, § 1.

[3053] _B. G._, iii, 15, § 3.

[3054] _Tranquillitas_, in the singular, does of course sometimes mean

‘fine weather’: but in such cases the context makes the meaning clear;

and if Caesar had intended to express this meaning, he would, as his

_usus loquendi_ shows, have written _nactus idoneam ad navigandum

tempestatem_. Cf. H. Meusel, _Lex. Caes._, ii, 689.

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

[3056] According to Jean Brant of Antwerp, who published an edition

of the _Commentaries_ in 1606, some scholars affirmed that _XXXX_ was

to be found in ‘good _MSS._’ (_C. I. Caesaris quae exstant_, ed. G.

Jungermann, 1606, p. 501 of notes): but this vague statement, which

C. Schneider (_Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, ii, p. 10) naturally

discredits, is incapable of confirmation. The reading _XXXX_ is not

attested in any critical edition.

[3057] See p. 558, _supra_.

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

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

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

[3061] See _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.

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

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

[3064] Caesar’s men certainly did not begin to row at 3 a.m. Daybreak

did not occur before 3.15; and, as Mr. Peskett remarks (ib., xx, 1892,

p. 198), ‘the starting on the right course with the turn of the tide of

a large and probably somewhat scattered fleet is not a momentary act

which you can assign to a particular minute of the day.’

[3065] _B. G._, v, 8, § 5.

[3066] _Ib._, iv, 23, § 2.

[3067] _Ib._, v, 8, § 3.

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

[3069] As a matter of fact it would have been against them much longer.

See _Admiralty Tide Tables_, pp. 112, 115, 118, and S. H. Brown,

_Diagrams and Tables_, &c., 1895.

[3070] The professor denies that Caesar’s men could have taken all the

time from daybreak to noon to row with the tide from a point off the

South Foreland to Romney Marsh; and, on the assumption that they landed

on the eastern end of the marsh, he is unquestionably right. But there

is no evidence that they began to row at daybreak (see p. 620, n. 3,

_supra_): we are not obliged to assume that because _all_ the ships,

including stragglers, had reached Britain by about noon, rowing went on

in all till twelve o’clock; and the professor would have done better to

conclude, not that they rowed to Pevensey, but that they drifted as far

as the latitude of Deal, and rowed to a point on the eastern coast of

Kent.

[3071] The theory that Caesar landed between St. Leonards and

Bulverhythe, which was advocated by R. C. Hussey (_Archaeol. Cant._, i,

1858, pp. 94-110), requires no comment; for the same arguments that are

fatal to Airy’s theory are fatal also to it.

[3072] See p. 609, _supra_.

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

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

[3075] I have reproduced the relevant part of Lewin’s map on the map

facing p. 531.

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

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

[3078] _B. G._, iv, 26, § 5.

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

[3080] _Ib._, p. xciii.

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