XII. THE THEORY THAT CAESAR LANDED AT RICHBOROUGH OR SANDWICH · Part 10

[2337] Ἴσως γὰρ δή τινες ἐπιζητήσουσι, πῶς ... οὐδὲν ἐπὶ πλεῖον εἰρήκαμεν ... περὶ τῶν Βρεττανικῶν νήσων, καὶ τῆς τοῦ καττιτέρου κατασκευῆς, ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἀργυρείων καὶ χρυσείων τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἰβηρίαν,, &c. (iii, 57, §§ 3-4).

[2338] See E. H. Bunbury, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 1879, p. 12.

[2339] _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 38.

[2340] _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, p. 401. Cf. H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, pp. 45-6.

[2341] _Engl. Hist. Review_, xix, 1904, p. 140, note.

[2342] _Bibl. Hist._, v. 22, § 2.--Κομίζουσιν εἴς τινα νῆσον προκειμένην τῆς Πρεττανικῆς, ὀνομαζομένην δὲ Ἴκτιν· κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ἀμπώτεις ἀναξηραμένου τοῦ μεταξὺ τόπου, ταῖς ἁμάξαις εἰς ταύτην κομίζουσι δαψιλῆ τὸν καττίτερον. Ἐντεῦθεν δ’ οἱ ἔμποροι παρὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων ὠνοῦνται καὶ διακομίζουσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλατίαν· τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον πεζῇ διὰ τῆς Γαλατίας πορευθέντες ἡμέρας ὡς τριάκοντα κατάγουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων τὰ φορτία πρὸς τὴν ἐκβολὴν τοῦ Ῥοδανοῦ ποταμοῦ.

[2343] See K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 471-2; H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_, iii, 1891, pp. 34-5; and Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, part i, 1897, p. 860. Müllenhoff justly remarks that the account which Diodorus gives in v, 22 of the mode in which the tin trade was conducted must have been derived from an eye-witness; and that of all the ancient writers Pytheas was the only one who saw with his own eyes what went on at Ictis. Professor Ridgeway assumes that Diodorus’s account of Ictis was borrowed from Posidonius; but the descriptions which Elton (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, pp. 30-1, 34-5, 92) and Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 45-6) have published of the visit of Posidonius to Britain are purely imaginary; for there is absolutely no evidence that he ever crossed the Channel. Elton refers to a passage in the _Solutiones_ of Priscian of Lydia, a writer of the sixth century (_quaest._ vi, p. 571 of F. Dübner’s edition), which proves nothing about Posidonius. See J. Bake, _Posidonii Rhodii reliquiae doctrinae_, 1810; _Fragm. hist. Graec._, ed. C. Müller, iii, 1849, pp. 245-96; R. Scheppig, _De Posidonio_, 1869, p. 7; _Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, p. 378; and M. Dubois, _Examen de la géogr. de Strabon_, 1891, p. 327.

[2344] Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 45) says that, according to Diodorus, the tin was brought ‘to the outlet of the Rhone, that is to say, to the meeting of the Rhone and the Saone’, &c. But πρὸς τὴν ἐκβολὴν τοῦ Ῥοδανοῦ ποταμοῦ can only mean ‘to the mouth of the Rhône’. Ἐκβολή sometimes means the issue of a river from a mountainous country: it cannot mean that part of a river where it is joined by an affluent; and I doubt whether the professor would seriously maintain that ‘the outlet of the Rhône’ is at Lyons.

[2345] v, 38, § 5.--Πολὺς δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Πρεττανικῆς νήσου διακομίζεται πρὸς τὴν κατ’ ἀντικρὺ κειμένην Γαλατίαν, καὶ διὰ τῆς μεσογείου Κελτικῆς ἐφ’ ἵππων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμπόρων ἄγεται παρά τε τοὺς Μασσαλιώτας καὶ εἰς τὴν ὀνομαζομένην πόλιν Ναρβῶνα.

[2346] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 16(30), § 104.--Timaeus historicus a Britannia introrsum sex dierum navigatione abesse dicit insulam Mictim in qua candidum plumbum proveniat; ad eam Britannos vitilibus navigiis corio circumsutis navigare. E. H. Bunbury (_Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 1879, p. 603, n. 9) remarks that ‘it is impossible to say what sense we are to attach to the word “introrsus”, upon which the interpretation of the whole passage, in a geographical sense, depends’. I shall show presently (p. 505, _infra_) that only one sense which is not nonsense can be attributed to _introrsum_.

Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 471) holds that Pliny confused the distance of Ictis from Britain with that of Thule, which, as he says in an earlier passage (_Nat. Hist._, ii, 75 [77], § 187), was ‘six days’ sail northward from Britain’ (_sex dierum navigatione in septentrionem a Britannia_). See p. 505, _infra_.

[2347] The geographical position of Corbilo cannot be fixed. Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 1876, p. 288) was originally inclined to place it near Beslon in the peninsula of Guérande, because the neighbourhood is ‘rempli de souvenirs celtiques’. Beslon is no more on the Loire than Margate is on the Thames; and if the tin had been landed there, it would have been necessary either to tranship it and carry it across the Loire, or to take the pack-horses by a roundabout route up the valley of that river. Afterwards (_ib._, ii, 1878, pp. 139, 484-5, 485, n. 1) Desjardins changed his mind, and identified Corbilo with St.-Nazaire: ‘cet emplacement’, he remarked, anticipating one of the objections which I have just made against his former view, ‘cet emplacement s’accorde-t-il beaucoup mieux que celui de Beslon avec le texte de Strabon, qui porte cet ancien port sur la Loire, et non sur la mer.’ He relied mainly upon the investigations of an engineer, M. René Kerviler, who, ‘ayant eu l’occasion de faire des travaux d’approfondissement à Saint-Nazaire, y a découvert des substructions qui avaient fait vraisemblablement partie de l’ancien port de _Corbilon_.’ See _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., xxxiii, 1877, pp. 145-53, 230-9, 342-53. M. Kerviler himself identified the remains with those of the _Brivates portus_ of Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 8, § 1.

[2348] _Geogr._, iv, 2, § 1.--πρότερον δὲ Κορβιλὼν ὑπῆρχεν ἐμπόριον ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ ποταμῷ, περὶ ἧς εἴρηκε Πολύβιος, μνησθεὶς τῶν ὑπὸ Πυθέου μυθολογηθέντων, ὅτι Μασσαλιωτῶν μὲν τῶν συμμιξάντων Σκιπίωνι οὐδεὶς εἶχε λέγειν οὐδὲν μνήμης ἄξιον ἐρωτηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Σκιπίωνος περὶ τῆς Βρεττανικῆς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ Νάρβωνος οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ Κορβιλῶνος, αἵπερ ἦσαν ἄρισται πόλεις τῶν ταύτῃ.

[2349] Cf. _Folk-lore_, i, 1890, pp. 85-6, and H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 36.

[2350] Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 471, and D. Detlefsen in W. Sieglin’s _Quellen und Forschungen_, &c., Heft 9, p. 77.

[2351] _Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 34.

[2352] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 46.

[2353] Mr. Alfred Tylor blunders even more hopelessly than Elton. ‘The transhipment of tin’, he says (_Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 233), ‘was described by ancient writers as taking place at Vectis, six days’ sail from Cornwall.’

[2354] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, pp. 95-7.

[2355] _Ib._, pp. 98-101.

[2356] See pp. 250, 359-60, _supra_.

[2357] Mr. Alfred Tylor (_Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 233) argues, in favour of the identification of Ictis with the Isle of Wight, that ‘Stans Ore Point is said to be named from Stannum (tin)’; and Elton (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 230) thinks that ‘the course of the metal-trade may be indicated by the names of places on the coast-road leading eastward from the Exe, as ... Stans Ore Point’. Now, as O. Schrader points out (_Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, 1890, p. 217), _stannum_ probably did not get the meaning of ‘tin’ before the fourth century A. D.; and even if the derivation in question could be established, it would not prove that Ictis was the Isle of Wight. Tin was doubtless conveyed eastward from Cornwall; but not for the supply of the Mediterranean markets.

[2358] _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 236.

[2359] vi, 2, § 6.--ᾬκουν δὲ καὶ Φοίνικες περὶ πᾶσαν μὲν τὴν Σικελίαν ἄκρας τε ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἀπολαβόντες καὶ τὰ ἐπικείμενα νησίδια ἐμπορίας ἕνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Σικελούς.

[2360] B. Jowett, _Thucydides translated into English_, i, 1881, p. 409.

[2361] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1865 (1866), p. 71.

[2362] _Trans. Roy. Geol. Soc. Cornwall_, iii, 1828, pp. 91-4.

[2363] _Principles of Geology_, i, 1875, pp. 546-7.

[2364] The italics are mine. Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 471-2) asserts that ‘Ictis can only be looked for at the promontory of Belerium’ [the Land’s End], and that ‘it is undoubtedly one of the small islands off the Land’s End, which are marked on the Ordnance Map (sheets 32 and 33)’. It must be presumed that Müllenhoff came to this singular conclusion because Pytheas landed at Belerium. But there is no reason to suppose that he landed at the precise spot which we call the Land’s End; and if he did he certainly went on to visit the tin mines. If Müllenhoff had known the Cornish coast, or even studied the map carefully, he would have seen that tin could not have been conveyed in carts down the cliffs opposite the small islands to which he refers, and that, as Dr. Barham says (_Trans. Roy. Geol. Soc. Cornwall_, iii, 1828, p. 91), ‘there is not ... any other island [besides St. Michael’s Mount] on the Cornish, or any neighbouring shores to which carts can pass at low water; there is no other spot, at all answering to the description of Diodorus, which becomes alternately an island and a peninsula with the changes of the tide.’

George Smith (_The Cassiterides_, p. 114) points out that ‘twelve miles to the west of St. Michael’s Mount, and eighteen miles to the east of it, comprehend almost the whole of the ancient tin mining district’. Professor Rhys, on the other hand, states (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 44) that the tin districts ‘in ancient times were chiefly Dartmoor, with the country around Tavistock, and that around St. Austell, including several valleys looking towards the southern coast of Cornwall’; and he adds that ‘in most of the other districts where tin existed it is supposed to have lain too deep to have been worked in early times’. I do not know whether among these ‘other districts’ he includes the one near St. Michael’s Mount; but it is certain that the tin in this district was worked in early times. It was the district of Belerium, where the tin-workers mentioned by Diodorus lived; and he says that there were veins of tin in the hard rock near the surface (αὕτη δὲ πετρώδης οὖσα διαφυὰς ἔχει γεώδεις, ἐν αἷς τὸν πόρον κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τήξαντες καθαίρουσιν [v, 22, § 2].

Cf. Strabo, iii, 5, § 11, and _Ency. Brit._, 9th ed., vi, 425). Mr. P. W. Flower (_Hist. of the Trade in Tin_, 1880, p. 26) tells us that from pre-Roman days ‘Cornish men have been sinking deeper and deeper in their search for cheaper metal’; while Prof. Haverfield (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 122), after remarking that ‘the tin districts of Dartmoor [were] worked largely in the middle ages’, says, ‘The Dartmoor tin is, I believe, far more difficult to work than the Cornish, and this fact may explain the Roman neglect of it.’ See also, for evidence that Cornish tin was won in the Bronze Age, _Archaeologia_, xvi, 1812, p. 137, pl. 10; xlix, 1885, p. 181; and _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxi, 1874, pp. 53, 60. I am astonished to find that M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 235-6), noticing a paper the writer of which maintains that no tin was worked in Britain until after the date of Domesday Book, says, ‘Cette manière de voir, bien que contredite par les textes, mérite réflexion.’

[2365] _Archaeologia_, lix, part ii, 1905, pp. 281-8.

[2366] _Principles of Geology_, i, 1875, pp. 543-4.

[2367] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1865 (1866), p. 71.

[2368] _Geol. Mag._, 1879, pp. 74-5.

[2369] _Chips from a German Workshop_, iii, 1870, pp. 330-57. Elton, even in his second edition (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 37), repeated the obsolete argument alluded to in the text.

[2370] See p. 31, _supra_.

[2371] See p. 222, _supra_.

[2372] iv, 16 (30), §§ 103-4. Prof. Ridgeway (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904, p. 343) affirms, Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 304) apparently denies that _Ictis_ and _Vectis_ were phonetically connected. See Addenda, p. 740.

[2373] See p. 499, n. 5, _supra_.

[2374] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 85.

[2375] See p. 221, _supra_.

[2376] _Dicuili liber de mensura orbis terrae_, ed. G. Parthey, 1870, pp. 42-4 (7, 11-4). Dicuil was an Irish monk, who wrote A. D. 825.

[2377] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 146.

[2378] Φιλόξενοί τε διαφερόντως εἰσὶ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ξένων ἐμπόρων ἐπιμιξίαν ἐξημερωμένοι τὰς ἀγωγάς.

[2379] This is admitted, or rather maintained, by Prof. Ridgeway.

[2380] See p. 499, nn. 2 and 5, _supra_.

[2381] _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 223.

[2382] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, p. 105.

[2383] See p. 501, _supra_.

[2384] _B. G._, iii, 8, § 1. Cf. Strabo, iv, 4, § 1.

[2385] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 1.

[2386] I cannot see how Mr. Reginald Smith (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 85) reconciles his theory, that the route in ‘the opening years of the first century B. C.’ passed through Kent with his previous assertion (p. 84) that ‘about 90 B. C.’ it left the British coast at the Isle of Wight.

[2387] As Professor Ridgeway assumes that Posidonius was the authority whom Diodorus followed both in v, 22 and in v, 38, he would be compelled to maintain that in the passage which served as the basis of the former chapter Posidonius was describing only the route which the tin trade followed in the time of Pytheas, in the other that which it followed in his own time. How can the professor prove this?

[2388] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 119.

[2389] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 47-50.

[2390] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, pp. 83-4.

[2391] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, p. 178.

[2392] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, pp. 119-20.

[2393] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 122.

[2394] Numerous Roman inscribed objects of lead have been discovered in Spain (_Corpus Inscr. Lat._, ii, 4964, and Suppl., 6243, 6247-8); but so far as I can ascertain, none of tin.

[2395] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlvii, 1890, p. 232.

[2396] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, pp. 119-20.

[2397] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlvii, 1890, pp. 230-3; xlix, 1892, p. 178; _Corpus Inscr. Lat._, vii, 13.

[2398] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 120.

[2399] _Ib._, p. 122.

[2400] _Ib._, p. 118.

[2401] _Ib._ What puzzles me is how Professor Haverfield reconciles his view that in the third century ‘Cornish tin began to take its place as an article of commerce in Roman Britain’ (_Mélanges Boissier_, 1903, p. 251) with his own suggestion (_ib._, p. 250) that ‘either the tin ores had never been so rich as fancy painted, or the accessible deposits had been worked out [two centuries earlier], or ... Spanish competition had ousted British tin’. Evidently the accessible deposits had not been worked out; and British tin must have had superabundant vitality if it reasserted itself two centuries after it had been ousted.

[2402] _Hist. Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients_, pp. 451-5.

[2403] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 910.

[2404] _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 419. Cf. F. J. Haverfield in _Mélanges Boissier_, p. 249, n. 1. Mr. Reginald Smith (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 137) suggests, with the approval of Mr. C. H. Read, that a bronze statuette, found near Aust-on-Severn, may have been deposited ‘by Phoenician traders to our shores’. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 192.

[2405] See G. Smith, _The Cassiterides_, p. 54.

[2406] G. Smith, _The Cassiterides_, pp. 47-9. See also pp. 56-7, and E. H. Bunbury, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 12.

[2407] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 329.

[2408] See pp. 484-6, _supra_.

[2409] _Tin Mining in Spain_, p. 28.

[2410] _Ora Maritima_, 113-6.--

Tartesiisque in terminos Oestrymnidum Negotiandi mos erat: Carthaginis Etiam coloni, et vulgus, inter Herculis Agitans columnas, haec adibant aequora.

See also H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 110-1.

[2411] Prof. Haverfield (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xix, 1904, p. 746) thinks that ‘the “Periplus” of Avienus cannot safely be attributed to Himilco’; but M. Camille Jullian (_Ann. de la Faculté des lettres de Bordeaux,--Bull. hisp._, v. 1903, p. 109; _Journal des Savants_, nouv. sér., No. 2, 1905, pp. 95-8) supports my view. I am not sure, however, that Prof. Haverfield means to express a doubt whether the Periplus was _ultimately_ based upon Himilco’s report. Cf. _Rhein. Mus._, l, 1895, p. 336.

[2412] _Hist. Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients_, p. 455.

[2413] E. Hübner, _Monumenta linguae Ibericae_, 1893, p. xxvi; H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, &c., p. 42.

[2414] _Nat. Hist._, ii, 67, § 169.--Hanno Carthaginis potentia florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae navigationem eam prodidit scripto, sicut ad extera Europae noscenda eodem tempore Himilco. I find that Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 93-5) has anticipated a remark which I was about to make, namely, that the object of Himilco’s voyage was undoubtedly to open up new markets for trade, and not merely to explore. See also Lord Avebury’s _Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 57-67, though I think that his argument might have been more valuable if he had taken note of Mr. Borlase’s _Tin Mining in Spain_.

[2415] Mr. W. C. Borlase (_Tin Mining in Spain_, pp. 24-6), remarking that ‘there is an extremely rare form of [the palstave], namely with two loops, and that has been found exclusively in Cornwall and Devon (in the mining districts especially), in Ireland, and in the western and north-western portion of the Iberian Peninsula’, and that ‘bronze celts of this class belong ... to ... 1250 to 1050 B. C.’, concludes that ‘at that period then--the very period to which has been assigned the foundation of Gades--Cornwall and the west coast of Spain were already in communication’. Perhaps; but not necessarily Cornwall and Gades. Similar celts have also been found in France (J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 96-7).

Müllenhoff also argues (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 5-8) that the passage in the _Odyssey_ (x, 81-6) which describes the country of the Laestrygones, where the days in summer were very long and the nights very short, would seem to be based upon stories told by Phoenician mariners; but, as I have already remarked (p. 218), if Homer’s lines were founded upon fact, it is more probable that the stories came to him from Scandinavia.

[2416] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 910.

[2417] _The Builder_, Aug. 26, 1865, p. 604.

[2418] C. F. Wiberg (_Der Einfluss der klassischen Völker_, &c., 1867, p. 13) thinks that ‘the promontory of Herakles’, or Hartland Point (Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 2), may owe its name to the Phoenician worship of Hercules; but I do not know that any one except Prof. Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 461) attaches any importance to this suggestion.

[2419] _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, p. 401.

[2420] i, 13, § 5.--οἰκοῦντες γὰρ τὴν πόλιν οἱ Κορίνθιοι ἐπὶ τοῦ ἰσθμοῦ ἀεὶ δή ποτε ἐμπόριον εἶχον, τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸ πάλαι κατὰ γῆν τὰ πλείω ἢ κατὰ θάλασσαν, τῶν τε ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσου καὶ τῶν ἔξω, διὰ τῆς ἐκείνων παρ’ ἀλλήλους ἐπιμισγόντων, &c.

[2421] B. Jowett, _Thucydides translated into English_, i, 1881, p. 10.

[2422] See p. 126, _supra_.

[2423] See p. 485, n. 5, _supra_.

[2424] _Nat. Hist._, vii, 56 (57), § 194.

[2425] _Fabulae_, ed. M. Schmidt, 1872, CCLXXIV (p. 149).

[2426] _Variarum_ iii, 51 (J. P. Migne, _Patrologiae cursus completus_, lxix, 1848, col. 594).

[2427] See C. Müller’s edition of Diodorus, i, 1842, p. 316 (Reliquiae libri vii, 13). The commencement of the maritime supremacy of the Phoenicians is here dated 58 years after the commencement of that of the Phrygians, and 279 years after the Trojan War.

[2428] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 18; _Essex Naturalist_, i, 1887, pp. 266-76.

[2429] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., vii, 1900, p. 252.

[2430] See pp. 151, n. 4, 253, 256, _supra_.

[2431] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 252.

[2432] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., vii, 253-4.

[2433] _Nat. Hist._, xvii, 8 (4), § 45. Cf. _Essex Naturalist_, i, 249.

[2434] _Ib._, pp. 249-50.

[2435] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., x, 1904, pp. 98-101.

[2436] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 250.

[2437] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 19.

[2438] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., x, 1904, p. 98. Cf. _Times_, Sept. 30, 1905, p. 3, cols. 3-4.

[2439] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 250-1.

[2440] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 453.

[2441] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 453.

[2442] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 326-7.

[2443] J. A. H. Murray, _New Eng. Dict._, iii, 192-3.

[2444] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 457.

[2445] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vii, 1900, p. 253.

[2446] _Vict. Hist. of ... Essex_, i, 310-1.

[2447] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 4.

[2448] A. Joanne, _Dict. géogr. ... de la France_, 1869, p. xli.

[2449] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 349 and n. 3, 391.

[2450] In particular C. de Laroière in _Annales du comité flamand de France_, x, 1868-9 (1870), pp. 249-322.

[2451] See _Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique_, 3^e sér., viii, 1884, pp. 681-9. Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 391) admits that it is only ‘probable’ that it existed at that time. Cf. R. Blanchard, _La Flamande_, 1906, pp. 134-46.

[2452] _Rev. sc._, 2^e sér., xv, 1878-9 (1879), pp. 90-3. According to M. V. J. Vaillant (_Classis Britannica_, 1888, pp. 66-7), an inscription (_SALINATORES CIVITATIS MORINORVM_), ‘cité par I. Gruter, nous rapporte à une époque où la mer pénétrait librement jusqu’au delà de Saint-Omer et où les marais salants étaient exploités sur les rives de ce large golfe par les Morins et les Ménapiens.’ M. Vaillant gives neither the reference nor the date of the inscription: it was found at Ariminum in Cisalpine Gaul, and makes mention of the emperor Vespasian; and it is reproduced in Gruter’s _Inscr. ant. totius orbis Romani_, ii, 1707, p. MXCVI, 4. Needless to say, it does not prove that the ‘gulf’ existed in Vespasian’s time, but only that there were salt-works in the territory of the Morini.

[2453] See pp. 565-7, 572, 586-7, _infra_.

[2454] _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 359-61.

[2455] A. Joanne, _Dict. géog. ... de la France_, p. xlii.

[2456] _Hist. eccl._, i, 25. Cf. Solinus, ed. Th. Mommsen, p. 114.

[2457] _Archaeol. Cant._, xii, 1878, p. 3. See also _Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 48.

[2458] _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., 1774, pp. 137-9; _Archaeologia_, i, 1770, pp. 79-83.

[2459] _Hist. of Sandwich_, 1792, p. 865.

[2460] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 207.

[2461] _Itin. Ant._, ed. P. Wesseling, 1735, p. 472.

[2462] The reference is incorrect. For ‘30’ read ‘230’.

[2463] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 207.

[2464] Sheet 290.

[2465] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, pp. 212-3.

[2466] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxiv, 1900, p. 110.

[2467] _Ant. of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne_, 1850, pp. 53-4. See also _Archaeol. Cant._, xiv, 1882, pp. 368-9; xxiv, 1900, p. 108; and _Archaeologia_, li, 1888, p. 465. Beale Poste (_Britannia antiqua_, 1857, p. 282) states that in one of the sand-hills, half a mile north of Sandown Castle, a large number of coins of Victorinus, Probus, Tetricus, ‘and others of the lower empire’ were found in 1839.

[2468] See _Archaeol. Cant._, viii, 1872, pp. 13-4. Boys, quoted by Roach Smith (_Ant. of Richborough_, &c., p. 53) remarks that, ‘in digging to lay the foundation of Richborough sluice, the workmen, after penetrating through what was once the bed of the river that runs close by ... came to a seashore that had been suddenly covered with silt.’

[2469] ‘Just north of the Isle of Richborough’, says Dowker (_Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xl, 1884, p. 272), ‘is a large artificial excavation in the hill. I gave a description of this when I wrote the account of the ... excavation at the Castrum; and I drew attention to its being a Roman harbour. It is just opposite a farm that goes by the name of “Fleet”.’

[2470] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 356.

[2471] _Ib._, xxxiii, 1876, p. 71.

[2472] _Ib._, facing page 64.

[2473] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxiv, 1900, p. 108.

[2474] _Dict. Nat. Biogr._, xlviii, 15.

[2475] _Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, p. 505.

[2476] _The Cinque Ports_, 1888, p. 229.

[2477] I am glad to find that this remark has been anticipated by Mr. C. R. S. Elvin (_Records of Walmer_, 1890, p. 30).

[2478] _Itinerary_, 2nd ed., vii, 1744, fol. 127 (p. 116). Professor Burrows may perhaps have followed Hasted, who says (_Hist. of Kent_, iv, 1799, p. 163) that ‘_Upper Deal_ was composed of the habitations of a few poor fishermen only, though at a less distance from the sea than at present, owing to the great increase of beach thrown on this shore afterwards’; and in note _e_ he observes that ‘Leland ... seems to confirm this’. Leland, as I show in the text, does no such thing. Hasted goes on to say that ‘Even so late as the year 1624, a house ... on the _west_ side of the _Lower Street_ (the farthest at this time from the sea shore) is described in a deed of that date to abut _ad le sea bank versus orientem_’. Very likely: but the fact does not prove that the west side of Lower Street was an inch nearer the sea in 1624 than it is now; for the breadth of ‘_le sea bank_’ is not stated. Anyhow Deal Castle has not moved since 1624: therefore, if Hasted is right, the sea must then have made a sudden bend landward immediately north of Deal Castle, and formed a bay; which is absurd. The west side of Lower Street is now about 550 feet from the high-water mark of ordinary tides (_Six-Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheets 58 and 58A).

[2479] The distance from the ‘high-water mark of ordinary tides’ to the nearest point of Upper Deal appears to be about 3,900 feet (_Six-Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 58).

[2480] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, p. 71.

[2481] _Ib._, p. 58.

[2482] _Ib._, p. 59.

[2483] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 1885-6 (1887), pp. 174-5.

[2484] ‘It is certain,’ wrote Dowker in 1876 (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 59), ‘that when the sea swept the Stonar beach, Deal had no existence.’ Even men of science sometimes use the word ‘certain’ a little rashly. At that time Dowker asserted that the Stonar beach ‘must have travelled from the cliff between Dover and Deal’. In 1887 (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 174-5) he ‘pointed to the stones of which it is composed as evincing their origin from the cliff at Pegwell.... To imagine it to have travelled from the south, we must,’ he said, ‘have a shore-line cutting far back beyond the Deal beach, of which at present there was no evidence.’

[2485] _Itin. curiosum_, 2nd ed., 1776, pp. 126-7.

[2486] It must be borne in mind that Stukeley wrote before the great increase of shingle in the neighbourhood of Walmer.

[2487] _Ib._; C. R. S. Elvin, _Records of Walmer_, pp. 2-3, 5.

[2488] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series_, of James I, 1611-8, p. 324 (vol. lxxxii, 129), under date 1615; _ib._, Charles I, 1625-6, p. 321 (vol. xxv, 82), under date 1626; _ib._, 1627-8, p. 200 (vol. lxv. 62), under date 1627. In the British Museum is a print, called ‘N. W. View of Deal Castle’, published in 1735, from which it would appear that at that time the castle was as close to the sea as it is now,--neither more nor less.

[2489] _Records of Walmer_, p. 5.

[2490] _Coast Erosion_, p. 3.

[2491] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1888 (1889), p. 910. The following table, compiled by Major A. C. Hepper, R. E. (_ib._, 1885, p. 440), illustrates the movements of the shingle during the period between 1741 and 1884:--

_Increase_ _Decrease_ _Place_ _From_ _To_ _Feet_ _Feet_ Walmer Castle 1741 1841 308 -- ” ” 1841 1859 34 -- ” ” 1859 1872 33 -- ” ” 1872 1884 10 -- Deal Castle 1741 1859 85 -- ” ” 1859 1872 -- 40 ” ” 1872 1884 35 -- Sandown Castle 1741 1859 -- 145 ” ” 1859 1872 -- 50 ” ” 1872 1884 -- 5 No. 2 Battery 1859 1884 140 --

The encroachment of the sea north of Deal between 1848 and 1856 was due to the extraordinary prevalence of north-easterly winds.

[2492] _Britannia antiqua_, 1857, p. 282.

[2493] In regard to this statement, and also that of Roach Smith, recording the discovery of coins at Stonar (see p. 520, _supra_), Sir John Evans has written to me, ‘I have no personal knowledge of either of the finds of Roman coins that you mention. Roach Smith, however, and Beale Poste are competent authorities in such a case, and I see no reason why you should not accept their statements.’

[2494] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxv, 1902, p. 1.

[2495] _Ib._, pp. 4-5. This discovery stultifies Hasted’s remark (_Hist. of Kent_, iv, 1779, p. 173), that ‘towards the village of Walmer [as one comes from Deal] is a flat, many feet lower than the high-water mark, which the beach thrown up along the shore has fenced from the sea, and which probably when _Caesar_ landed on this coast might be all covered with water’. Cf. C. R. S. Elvin, _Records of Walmer_, p. 3.

[2496] See also _Archaeol. Cant._, xxvi, 1904, pp. 11-2.

[2497] Part i, 9th ed., 1900, p. 339.

[2498] _Britannia antiqua_, pp. 288-9.

[2499] _The Channel Pilot_, part i, 1900, p. 338.

[2500] _Geogr. Journal_, ix, 1897, p. 655.

[2501] G. B. Gattie, _Memorials of the Goodwin Sands_, 1890, pp. 3, 5-6.

[2502] _Principles of Geology_, 1875, i, 530-1.

[2503] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, ed. B. Thorpe, ii, 1861, p. 203.--An. M. XCIX.

[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.