XII. THE THEORY THAT CAESAR LANDED AT RICHBOROUGH OR SANDWICH · Part 12

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

[3244] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3253] See p. 329, _supra_.

[3254] See p. 614, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3261] _B. G._, iv, 23, § 6.

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

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

[3264] _Ib._, p. 313.

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

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

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

[3268] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3.

[3269] _Ib._, § 2.

[3270] See p. 629, _supra_.

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

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

[3273] iii, 2, § 23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3281] See p. 643, _supra_.

[3282] See p. 616, _supra_.

[3283] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3299] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

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

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

[3302] _Ib._

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

[3304] _Admiralty Tide Tables_, p. 119.

[3305] See p. 657, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

[3310] _B. G._, v, 18, § 1.

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

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

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

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

[3315] _B. G._, iv, 32, §§ 3-4.

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

[3317] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-2.

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

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

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

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

[3322] _B. G._, v, 12, § 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3329] _B. G._, iv, 25, § 1.

[3330] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 3; 26, § 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3337] Ed. Wesseling, p. 473.

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

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

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

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

[3342] _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

[3343] p. 630, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

[3348] iv, 16, § 7.

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

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

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

[3352] _Q. fr._, ii, 14, §§ 3-4.

[3353] _B. G._, v, 4, § 1.

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

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

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

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

[3358] _Ib._, iii, 1, §§ 17, 25.

[3359] _Att._, iv, 18, § 5.

[3360] _B. G._, v, 22, § 1.

[3361] _Ib._

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

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

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

[3365] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 3-5.

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

[3367] _Ib._, v, 22, §§ 3-5.

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

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

[3370] _B. G._, iv, 36, §§ 1-3.

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

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

[3373] _Hist. Rom._, xxxix, 51, § 3.

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

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

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

[3377] p. 319.

[3378] _B. G._, iv, 24, § 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3389] _B. G._, v, 19, § 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3398] _Agricola_, 35-6.

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

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

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

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

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

[3404] p. 342.

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

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

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

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

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

[3410] _B. G._, iv, 34, § 3.

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

[3412] See p. 680, _infra_.

[3413] _B. G._, v, 9, §§ 1-5.

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

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

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

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

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

[3419] _B. G._, vii, 69, § 2.

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

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

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

[3423] _Ib._, 9, §3.

[3424] See Addenda, p. 742.

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

[3426] _Caesar in Kent_, p. 163.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3434] See p. 674, _supra_.

[3435] _Ib._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3444] _Retrospections_, ii, 15.

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

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

[3447] _Ib._, n. 2.

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

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

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

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

[3452] See p. 337, _supra_.

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

[3454] _Ib._, 9, § 1.

[3455] _Ib._, 9, §§ 2-7.

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

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

[3458] _Ib._, p. 227.

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

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

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

[3462] _B. G._, v, 16, §§ 1-3.

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

[3464] _B. G._, iv, 32, § 5.

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

[3466] Dion Cassius, lxii, 12, § 3.

[3467] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 36.

[3468] See p. 677, _supra_.

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

[3470] _Ib._, p. 153.

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

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

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

[3474] _B. G._, i, 48, §§ 4-7.

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

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

[3477] _B. G._, v, 17, § 2.

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

[3479] _B. G._, v, 11, § 8.

[3480] _Ib._, v, 18.

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

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

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

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

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

[3486] _One Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 269.

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

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

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

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

[3491] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 384.

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

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

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

[3495] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 388.

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

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

[3498] _Ib._, p. 387.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3505] Manning’s _Surrey_, ii, 760.

[3506] _Origines Celticae_, ii, 388.

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

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

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

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

[3511] _Ib._, n. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

[3517] See _B. G._, v, 17, § 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3536] Vol. i, p. 16.

[3537] _Words and Places_, p. 185.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3548] See p. 359, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3561] It may be well to give the proof. Cicero (_Att._, v, 13, § 1) tells us that the period from the 18th of January, 702, the day on which Clodius was murdered, to the 22nd of July, 703, reckoning inclusively, comprised 560 days; and the reader may satisfy himself that this statement is untrue if there was an intercalary month in 703, and true if there was not. From these data and from the further statement made by Cicero in his speech _Pro Milone_, 98, that the day on which he delivered the speech, namely the 8th of April, 702, was the 101st day since the murder of Clodius, it follows that the intercalary month in 702 amounted to 23 days. It is stated by Curio in a letter to Cicero (_Fam._, viii, 6, § 5) and by Dion Cassius (xl, 62, §§ 1-2) that there was no intercalary month in 704. It can be proved from the chronological statements which have come down to us regarding the movements of Caesar and Pompey in 705 that there was no intercalary month in that year.

Plutarch (_Caesar_, 35, § 1) tells us that Caesar made himself master of Italy in 60 days. Shortly before the 17th of January, 705, the day on which Pompey fled from Rome, Caesar crossed the Rubicon (_Att._, ix, 10, § 4; Caesar, _B. C._, i, 14, § 3); and it has been proved (Stoffel, _Guerre civile_, i, 202-3; O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, 1893, p. 104, n. 2) that the exact date was either January 10 or January 11. On the 18th of March he took Brundisium (_Att._, ix, 15, § 6),--65 days, reckoning inclusively, after his passage of the Rubicon, if there was no intercalary month, but 87 or 88 if there was one. Again, he took Corfinium on the 21st of February, quitted it the same day (_ib._, viii, 14, § 1), and marched direct to Brundisium, where he arrived on the 9th of March (_ib._, ix, 13, § 13A). The distance between the two places, measured along the route which Colonel Stoffel believes Caesar to have followed, is 465 kilometres, or about 289 miles.

O. E. Schmidt (_Der Briefwechsel des M. T. Cicero_, pp. 385-9) decides for another route; but the difference of opinion between him and Colonel Stoffel does not affect my argument. If there was an intercalary month in 705, Caesar occupied 39 or 40 days on the march, which, considering the notorious rapidity of his movements, is incredible: if there was not, he occupied 17 days (see Stoffel, _Guerre civile_, i, 196-7). That there was no intercalary month either in 706 or in 707 is evident from a statement in one of Cicero’s letters to Atticus (x, 17, § 3), written on the 16th of May, 705,--‘At present the equinox is delaying us, which has been very stormy’ (_Nunc quidem aequinoctium nos moratur, quod valde perturbatum erat_). The equinox actually occurred on the 24th of March. If there was no intercalary month either in 706 or in 707, the 16th of May, 705, fell on the 24th or the 25th of March, 49 B. C. of the Julian calendar. If there was an intercalary month in either of those years, it fell on the 2nd or the 3rd of March. [Le Verrier, who also holds that there was no intercalation in 706 or 707, says that May 16, 705, fell on April 16, 49 B. C.; but Le Verrier assumed, wrongly, as we shall see, that ‘the year of confusion’ contained only 422, not 445 days.]

[3562] _De die natali_, xx, 4, §§ 8-10.--[adeo aberratum est] ut C. Caesar ... duos menses intercalarios dierum LXVII in mensem Novembrem et Decembrem interponeret, cum iam mense Februario dies III et XX intercalasset, faceretque eum annum dierum CCCCXLV, &c.

[3563] Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 521-3; or Stoffel, _Hist. de Jules César,--Guerre civile_, ii, 387-9.

[3564] _B. G._, v, 23, § 5.

[3565] Cicero, _Att._, iv, 18, § 5.

[3566] On the theory of Ideler the sixth day before the Kalends of October, 700, corresponded with the 29th of August, 54 B. C. See his _Handbuch der ... Chron._, ii, 1826, pp. 115-7, &c.

[3567] _Divus Iulius_, 40.

[3568] _De die natali_, xx, 4, § 8. According to Macrobius (_Sat._, i, 14, § 3), the year 708 contained 443 days; according to Solinus (i, 45) 344. These figures are obviously incorrect.

[3569] xliii, 26, §§ 1-2.--Τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἐτῶν οὐ πάντῃ ὁμολογούσας σφίσι ... κατεστήσατο ἐς τὸν νῦν τρόπον ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑξήκοντα ἡμέρας ἐμβαλών, ὅσαιπερ ἐς τὴν ἀπαρτιλογίαν παρέφερον. ἤδη μὲν γάρ τινες καὶ πλείους ἔφασαν ἐμβληθῆναι, τὸ δ’ ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει.

[3570] Colonel Stoffel (_Guerre civile_, ii, 299-304), while agreeing with Le Verrier’s conclusion, argues that the statement of Suetonius is in perfect accord with that of Dion; for, he remarks, Suetonius tells us that three months were intercalated in 708, namely, the ordinary month which should have been intercalated in that year, and two others between November and December; and, says Colonel Stoffel, three intercalary, months of 22, 23, and 22 days respectively would have amounted to 67 days.

[3571] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 588.

[3572] _Cäsars gall. Krieg und Theile seines Bürgerkriegs_, ii, 1880, p. 199. See also A. W. Zumpt (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, vii. Supplementband, 1873-5, p. 556), who, in my opinion, proves his point. Mommsen (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, p. 277) maintains that the mere fact that the two extraordinary intercalary months were called _prior_ and _posterior_ respectively, not _secundus_ and _tertius_, proves that the intercalary month inserted before March, 708, was not regarded as belonging to the calendar year 708 at all, but only to the consular year; in other words, that the calendar year began on the 1st of January in 709 for the first time. This view is severely, and I think justly, criticized by Bergk (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 631-5).

[3573] _Att._, x, 17, § 3.

[3574] Le Verrier should of course have written ‘23 jours’.

[3575] Col. Stoffel, _Guerre civile_, ii, 389.

[3576] Le Verrier overlooks or ignores the fact that in his very next letter (x, 18, § 1), also written at Cumae, Cicero described the weather as ‘an absolutely dead calm’ (_mirificae tranquillitates_).

[3577] Mr. Shuckburgh (_The Letters of Cicero_, i, 1899, p. 327) says by mistake, ‘the 26th of September,’ forgetting that in the unreformed Roman calendar there were not 30, but only 29 days in September.

[3578] _Att._, iv, 18, § 5. The MS. reading is (a litoribus Britanniae) _proximo_, which is nonsense. Dr. Vogel, however, attempts to translate the untranslatable. ‘What other meaning,’ he asks (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 283), ‘can the somewhat extraordinary expression _datas a litoribus Britanniae proximo_ have than that the letter was written in the neighbourhood of the coast of Britain, and therefore not quite at the sea?’ The words will not bear this or any other meaning; and it is obvious that Caesar would have gained nothing by writing when he was ‘not quite at the sea’; unless, indeed, in order to save a few hours’ delay in the transmission of an unimportant private letter, he had sent on a messenger to the coast with orders to embark on a special galley! For _proximo_ Boot substituted _proximis_, a conjecture which is generally accepted. Whatever Cicero may have written, it is certain that the letters which he received from his brother and from Caesar were written in Britain; but T. Bergk, to whom the conclusions which commend themselves to plain men are generally distasteful, insists (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 616) that _litoribus Britanniae proximo_ means ‘the coasts nearest _to_ Britain, that is to say, Boulogne’; and he defends this interpretation by the argument that Caesar had a rooted dislike of mentioning unknown names. But, as Bergk himself maintains, Boulogne was the Portus Itius; and, as Caesar twice mentioned the Portus Itius in his _Commentaries_ (_B. G._, v, 2, § 3; 5, § 1), it is difficult to see why he should have shrunk from doing so in a letter.

Bergk’s theory leads him to the absurd conclusion that Caesar quitted Britain for Gaul on the day before he wrote this letter, that is to say, on the 29th (or 30th) of August of the Julian calendar. Absurd, because, as I show in the text (p. 713), Cicero would in that case have written, not (exercitum _e_ Britannia) _reportabant_, but _reportaverant_; and because Caesar, who had not quitted Britain in the preceding year until, at the earliest, September 11, would not have felt obliged to sail four weeks before the equinox ‘because the equinox was at hand’, and would certainly have thought it perfectly safe to wait several days longer for the return of the ships which carried the first detachment of his army back to Gaul, and which he could ill spare.

[3579] _B. G._, v, 23, § 5.

[3580] Cicero, _Att._, iv, 18, § 5; _B. G._, v, 23.

[3581] Cicero, _Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 1.

[3582] Cf. Unger (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 586), and Zumpt (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, vii Supplementband, 1873-5, p. 564).

Bergk (_ib._, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 618), remarking that Napoleon admits that Caesar quitted Britain in 55 B. C. as early as the 12th of September, says that the rise of Arcturus, which, according to Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xviii, 31 [74], § 310), took place on that day, marked the commencement of the stormy season, and that it is therefore inconceivable that Caesar would have postponed his departure until the middle of the month. I do not attach the least importance to this argument. Caesar went by the equinox, not by the rise of Arcturus, and he waited as long as he thought safe. Moreover, Bergk apparently forgets that the date fixed by Pliny for the rise of Arcturus was borrowed from the Julian calendar, the astronomical calculations for which were not made until 46 B. C. [It should be noted that, according to Columella (_De re rust._, xi, 2), whom Bergk also quotes, the rise of Arcturus took place on the 17th of September, but the 13th presaged the approach of stormy weather (_tempestatem significat_).]

[3583] Vol. ii (3rd ed.), pp. 251-2. See also Varro, _Rerum rust._, ii, 1, and W. Soltau, _Röm. Chron._, 1889, p. 38, n. 1.

[3584] _Hist. Rom._, xl, 47, § 1.

[3585] _Ib._, xlviii, 33, § 4.

[3586] _Nat. Hist._, xviii, 25 (57), § 211.--ea ipsa ratio postea comperto errore correcta est, ita ut duodecim annis continuis non intercalaretur.

[3587] _Collect. rerum memorabilium_, i, 45-6.--vitium admissum est per sacerdotes. Nam cum praeceptum esset, anno quarto ut intercalarent unum diem, et oporteret confecto quarto anno id observari, antequam quintus auspicaretur, illi incipiente quarto intercalarunt, non desinente. Sic per annos sex et triginta cum novem dies tantummodo sufficere debuissent, duodecim sunt intercalati.

[3588] _Divus Augustus_, 31.--Annum a Divo Iulio ordinatum, sed postea neglegentia conturbatum atque confusum, rursus ad pristinam rationem redegit.

[3589] _Ib._, 40.--annumque ad cursum solis accommodavit, ut trecentorum sexaginta quinque dierum esset, et intercalario mense sublato unus dies quarto quoquo anno intercalaretur.

[3590] _De die natali_, xx, 4, § 10.--Praeterea pro quadrante diei, qui annum verum suppleturus videbatur, instituit, ut peracto quadrienni circuitu dies unus, ubi mensis quondam solebat, post Terminalia intercalaretur.

[3591] _Sat._, i, 14, §§ 6, 13.--[Caesar] statuit ut quarto quoque anno sacerdotes ... unum intercalarent diem ... sic annum civilem Caesar habitis ad lunam dimensionibus constitutum edicto palam posito publicavit et [error] huc usque stare potuisset, ni sacerdotes sibi errorem novum ex ipsa emendatione fecissent. Nam cum oporteret diem qui ex quadrantibus confit quarto quoque anno confecto antequam quintus inciperet intercalare, illi quarto non peracto sed incipiente intercalabant. Hic error sex et triginta annos permansit ... sed hunc quoque errorem ... correxit Augustus, qui annos duodecim sine intercalari die transigi iussit, ut illi tres dies ... sequentibus annis duodecim nullo die intercalato devorarentur.

[3592] See W. Soltau, _Röm. Chron._, p. 171, and L. Holzapfel in _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 67.

[3593] See p. 713, _supra_.

[3594] xl, 47, § 1.--καὶ ἡ ἀγορὰ ἡ διὰ τῶν ἐννέα ἀεὶ ἡμερῶν ἀγομένη ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τοῦ Ἰανουαρίου νουμηνίᾳ ἤχθη.

[3595] xlviii, 33, § 4.--ἡμέρα ἐμβόλιμος παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα ἐνεβλήθη, ἵνα μὴ ἡ νουμηνία τοῦ ἐχομένου ἔτους τὴν ἀγορὰν τὴν διὰ τῶν ἐννέα ἡμερῶν ἀγομένην λάβῃ &c.

[3596] Mommsen, falling into an inexplicable confusion of thought, insists (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 283-6) that the extraordinary intercalation mentioned by Dion took place not in 713 but in 714. Dion’s words, he says (_ib._, p. 283, n. 5), belong to a passage which immediately follows his description of the events of 714; which deals with the events of 713 and 714; which begins with the words ἔν τε τῷ πρὸ τούτου ἔτει (713); and which ends with the words ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τοῖς δύο ἔτεσιν (713-4) ἐγένετο. He says that Dion’s words, taken by themselves, allow us to refer the extraordinary intercalation either to 713 or to 714; but he maintains that it must be referred to 714, because otherwise the sequence of the nundinal letters would be inexplicable. But the truth is, as the simple arithmetical calculation which I have given on pp. 713-4 shows, that the sequence is perfectly explicable if the extraordinary intercalation took place in 713, hopelessly inexplicable if it took place in 714. Except Unger, all recent chronologists (see, for instance, _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 51 and n. 1) have recognized Mommsen’s blunder. Dion says that the extraordinary intercalation took place ἐν τῷ πρὸ τούτου ἔτει: Mommsen himself affirms that τὸ πρὸ τούτου ἔτος was the year 713; yet he will have it that the extraordinary intercalation took place in 714!

[3597] The year 702, as we have already seen, contained 378 days; each of the five years 703, 704, 705, 706, and 707 contained 355 days; the year 708 contained 445 days; one of the four years 709, 710, 711, and 712 contained _ex hypothesi_ 366 days, and the other three 365; and if there had been no intercalation in 713, that year would have contained 365 days. Then the number of days from the Kalends of January, 702, to the last day of December, 713, would have been 378 + 355 × 5 + 445 + 366 + 365 × 4 = 4,424 days, which is a multiple of 8.

[3598] _Röm. Chron._, pp. 171-3.

[3599] Holzapfel, A. Mommsen, and Unger.

[3600] See _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 88.

[3601] See p. 715, _supra_.

[3602] καὶ δῆλον ὅτι [ἡμέρα ἐμβόλιμος] ἀνθυφῃρέθη αὖθις, ὅπως ὁ χρόνος κατὰ τὰ τῷ Καίσαρι τῷ προτέρῳ δόξαντα συμβῇ (_Hist. Rom._, xlviii, 33, § 4).

[3603] _Röm. Chron._, i, 1883, pp. 11-8.

[3604] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 56, note.

[3605] See p. 716, _supra_.

[3606] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 85.

[3607] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 72.

[3608] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 50.

[3609] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 48.

[3610] Assuming that the pontiffs misunderstood Caesar’s regulation, and did not simply set it aside, is it possible to explain their mistake? It is often taken for granted that the Romans only used the inclusive method of reckoning. This, however, is an error: Holzapfel shows that our method was generally adopted by Cicero, except of course in the case of dates. Generally, however, in ordinary speech, when the number in question was less than ten, the tendency was to employ the inclusive method; and, as the same tendency prevailed in official phraseology, Holzapfel argues (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 74) that it would not have been unnatural for the pontiffs to interpret Caesar’s regulations in this sense. See also Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 162-3, 317; L. Holzapfel, _Röm. Chron._, pp. 353-4; and p. 602, n. 5, _supra_. But, apart from the question of Roman methods of reckoning, is it likely that the pontiffs should have been ignorant of the astronomical reason which led Caesar to enact that one year in every four must contain an intercalary day?

Holzapfel thinks that it is. ‘We shall hardly do the pontiffs an injustice,’ he says (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 74), ‘if we assume that they knew about as much of the actual duration of the [solar] year as Censorinus, who treats the matter as not yet thoroughly ascertained.’ The passage in Censorinus (_De die natali_, xix, 2), to which Holzapfel refers, runs as follows:--_Hoc tempus quot dierum esset, ad certum nondum astrologi reperire potuerunt_. He then quotes various astronomers, all of whom agreed of course that the number of days was 365, but differed in regard to the fraction of a day by which the duration of the year exceeded 365 days. Perhaps the pontiffs did not know that Sosigenes, upon whose calculations Caesar relied, estimated that fraction at one quarter (see p. 725, _infra_). If they set aside Caesar’s regulation not from ignorance but deliberately, their motive must have been to avoid the coincidence of the Kalends of January in every third year with a nundinal day.

[3611] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 72 and n. 1.

[3612] _Sat._, i, 13, § 17.--quotiens incipiente anno dies coepit qui addictus est nundinis, omnis ille annus infaustis casibus luctuosus fuit, maximeque Lepidiano tumultu opinio ista firmata est.

[3613] To spare the reader the trouble of doing a sum, I give the proof. The 1st of January, 702, fell, as we have already seen (p. 713), on a market-day; therefore, if the 1st of January, 711, did the same, the number of days that elapsed from the 1st of January, 702, to the last day of December, 710, inclusive, must have been divisible by 8. The year 702 contained 378 days; each of the years 703-7 contained 355 days; 708 contained 445; and _ex hypothesi_ 709 and 710 each contained 365. Now 378 + 355 × 5 + 445 + 365 × 2 = 3,328, which is exactly divisible by 8.

[3614] Cf. Th. Mommsen, _Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, pp. 25, 286. Unger remarks (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 760) that the outburst of 676 [or rather 677] was too insignificant to have been selected by Macrobius as an illustration. Moreover, says Holzapfel, the particular _tumultus_ owing to which the superstitious dread of the coincidence of _nundinae_ with the Kalends of January was intensified must have been preceded by other calamities associated with the same coincidence. In the earlier part of 702, when the Kalends of January fell on a market-day, there were no consuls, which might well awaken apprehensions. In 705, when the same coincidence occurred, the Civil War broke out. The _Lepidianus tumultus_ of 711 was accompanied by proscriptions; therefore the superstition would have been confirmed, as Macrobius says, by that _tumultus_.

Undoubtedly,--if, as Holzapfel maintains, it is true that in 711 the Kalends of January fell upon a market-day. But this is the very point at issue; and Holzapfel seems to ignore the possibility that the _Lepidianus tumultus_ of 677 may also ‘have been preceded by other calamities associated with the same coincidence’. Moreover, Matzat objects that of the events of 711 the outbreak of Lepidus was the least important, and that if Macrobius had intended to refer to that year, he would have said _tumultus Antonianus_. Holzapfel replies that when Lepidus joined Antony, the war which the latter had begun assumed a new phase, and Lepidus became commander-in-chief of the united armies (Velleius Paterculus, ii, 63, § 1; Appian, _B. C._, iii, 84), a fact which justifies the phrase, _Lepidianus tumultus_. Further, to show how flagitious the conduct of Lepidus appeared to contemporaries, he refers to Cicero, _Fam._, xii, 8, § 1 (_Scelus adfinis tui Lepidi ... cognosse te arbitror_), 9, § 2 (_Nos, confectum bellum quom putaremus, repente a Lepido tuo in summam sollicitudinem sumus adducti_), and 10, § 3 (_Praeclare viceramus, nisi spoliatum, inermem, fugientem Lepidus recepisset Antonium. Itaque numquam tanto odio civitati Antonius fuit quanto est Lepidus; ille enim ex turbulenta re p., hic ex pace et victoria bellum excitavit_).

[3615] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 760.

[3616] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 60-1.

[3617] _Pharsalia_, viii, 808.

[3618] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 69.

[3619] Matzat’s theory, Holzapfel insists (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 71-2), forces him to contradict himself. First, he argues (_Röm. Chron._, i, 1883, p. 17) that Caesar fixed the time of his first intercalation _simply_ with the object of preventing the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day; in other words, he holds that the intercalary day contemplated by Caesar was a movable one. But if so, we must disregard the testimony of Dion, who says that the intercalation of 713 was ‘contrary to the regulations’ (παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα). Accordingly in _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 51, Matzat silently abandons his earlier view, and assumes that Caesar intended to intercalate in 714, 718, 722, &c. But if this cycle had been observed, the 1st of January, 714, 717, 720, and so on, would have fallen on a market-day; and therefore Matzat’s revised theory is obviously irreconcilable with his original view, that Caesar intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day.

Matzat has not, so far as I can discover, made any rejoinder to Holzapfel’s article; but it is not impossible to answer this argument. Supposing that Caesar intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day, why should we disregard the testimony of Dion? Caesar’s regulation was that the intercalation should take place every four years. If, no matter for what reason, the first intercalation took place in 710, the second would fall due in 714. By transferring it to 713, Caesar’s regulation would be contravened. Nor is the theory that Caesar intended to intercalate in 714, 718, 722, &c., necessarily inconsistent with the view that he intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day; for, as I have remarked in the text, he may perhaps have failed to look ahead.

[3620] _Röm. Chron._, pp. 328-9; _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 77-8.

[3621] The writers of the article CALENDARIUM in Smith’s _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_ (i, 344), who assume that Caesar’s calendar came into operation on the 1st of January, 45 B. C., argue that his motive for making the year begin on that day ‘was probably the desire to gratify the superstition of the Romans by causing the first year (_sic_) of the reformed calendar to fall on the day of the new moon ... the mean new moon occurred at Rome on the 1st of January, 45 B. C., at 6^h 16′ p.m. In this way alone can be explained the phrase used by Macrobius (_Sat._, i, 14, 13): _annum civilem Caesar habitis ad lunam dimensionibus constitutum edicto palam posito publicavit_.’ Holzapfel, on the other hand, shows (_Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 87) that ‘Macrobius’s words, if one considers the context, only imply that Caesar made no alteration in the place of Kalends, Nones, and Ides, which originally had reference to the lunar phases’. See also Th. Mommsen (_Die röm. Chron. bis auf Caesar_, 1859, p. 277, n. 2) and Matzat (_Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp.

61-3). Matzat’s arguments were directed against A. Mommsen, who assumed (_Philologus_, xlv, 1886, pp. 411-38) that the new moon had occurred on the 2nd of January 45 B. C., and accordingly argued that Caesar’s calendar began on that day. Mr. J. K. Fotheringham (_Journal of Philology_, No. 57, 1903, pp. 98-9) affirms that ‘there was a new moon on the 2nd of January, 45 B. C., which Caesar may have calculated for the 1st, and there was another new moon on the 1st of March’. I have myself calculated the date of the new moon in question, first by reckoning back the number of lunations from the new moon of January 6, 1856, which occurred at 11.17 p.m., taking the length of a lunation to be 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2·84 seconds, and allowing 2 hours for the secular acceleration of the moon’s mean motion; and, secondly, by the method explained in Augustus De Morgan’s _Book of Almanacs_, 1851, pp. xiv-xv. Both methods have led me to the same result, namely, that there was a new moon on January 2, 45 B. C.

[3622] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 57-8.

[3623] _Sat._, i, 13, § 19.--dies ille quo abundare annum diximus eorum est permissus arbitrio qui fastis praeerant, uti, cum vellent, intercalaretur, dum modo eam in medio Terminaliorum vel mensis intercalaris ita locarent ut a suspecto die celebritatem averteret nundinarum. Atque hoc est quod quidam veterum retulerunt non solum mensem apud Romanos verum etiam diem intercalarem fuisse.

[3624] _Ueber die vierjährigen Sonnenkreise der Alten_, 1863, p. 1.

[3625] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 56.

[3626] _Röm. Chron._, p. 328; _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, pp. 66-7, 72, 77.

[3627] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 57.

[3628] _Hist. Rom._, xlviii, 33, § 4.

[3629] _Philologus_, xlix, 1890, p. 76.

[3630] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, p. 57.

[3631] See p. 714, _supra_.

[3632] See pp. 719-21, _supra_.

[3633] _Sat._, i, 14, § 15.--post hoc unum diem secundum ordinationem Caesaris quinto quoque anno incipiente intercalari iussit, &c.

[3634] _Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 52-3.

[3635] See p. 719, _supra_.

[3636] A. Mommsen, a brother of the great historian, has devised a singular theory of the working of the Julian calendar (_Philologus_, xlv, 1886, pp. 411-38), which Holzapfel (_ib._, xlix, 1890, pp. 85-7) as well as Matzat (_Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 61 ff.) has conclusively refuted.

[3637] See p. 327, _supra_.

[3638] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 490-1.

[3639] _B. G._, v, 1-8.

[3640] _Q. fr._, ii, 13, § 1.

[3641] Napoleon (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 195, n. 4) arbitrarily identifies Blandeno with Lodi.

[3642] _Q. fr._, ii, 13, § 1.

[3643] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 199.

[3644] _Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 615, 620.

[3645] See O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, pp. 201-5, 378-9. The distance from Placentia to Rome _via_ Luca was 378 miles, _via_ Ariminum 403. See _Itin. Ant._, ed. Wesseling, pp. 124-7, 284, 287-8.

[3646] _Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 615-20; Napoleon III, _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 199.

[3647] See O. E. Schmidt, _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero_, pp. 378-80. Caesar did occasionally, as Schmidt admits, travel at the rate of 100 Roman miles a day (Plutarch, _Caesar_, 17; Suetonius, _Divus Iulius_, 57. Cf. Caesar, _B. C._, i, 3, § 6). In 1852, Lord Dalhousie rode and drove from Benares to Barrackpore, a distance of 400 miles, in 80 hours, including stoppages; and in the same year General Godwin travelled from Meerut to Calcutta--over 950 miles--in 11 days (Sir W. Lee-Warner’s _Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie_, i, 1904, pp. 403, 422).

[3648] See p. 730, _infra_.

[3649] _Att._, iv, 15, § 10.

[3650] _Q. fr._, ii, 15, § 4.

[3651] _Att._, iv, 15, § 9.

[3652] _Q. fr._, ii, 15, § 3.

[3653] Asconius, _in Scaurianum_, p. 18 (_M. Tullii Ciceronis opera_, ed. Orelli and Baiter, vol. v, pars ii, 1833).--Summus iudicii dies fuit a. d. IIII Non. Septembr.

[3654] ‘Caesar,’ writes Cicero, ‘wrote me a letter from Britain on the 1st of September, which reached me on the 27th’ (_Ex Britannia Caesar ad me K. Septembr. dedit litteras, quas ego accepi a. d. IIII K. Octobr._ [_Q. fr._, iii, 1, § 25]). ‘Your fourth letter,’ he tells Quintus, ‘reached me on the 13th of September, dated on the 10th of August from Britain’ (_Quarta epistola mihi reddita est Idibus Sept., quam a.d. IIII Idus Sext. ex Britannia dederas_ [_ib._, 1, § 13]). And, as we have already seen, letters from Caesar and Quintus, written on the British coast on the 25th of September, reached Cicero on the 24th of October. The extraordinarily long time--33 days--which Quintus’s ‘fourth letter’ took to reach his brother may easily be accounted for: Cicero was not at Rome when he received it, but at Laterium, near Arpinum, about 70 Roman miles E. by S. of Rome (_ib._, in, 1, § 4).

Napoleon insists (_Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 196, n, 3) that, in favourable circumstances, letters only required 20 days for transmission from Britain to Rome. This view is based upon a passage in one of Cicero’s letters (_Q. fr._ iii, 1, § 17) which, in the MSS., runs as follows:--_tabellarii a vobis venerunt a. d. XI K. Septembr. vicesimo die_ (‘letter-carriers arrived from you and Caesar on the 22nd of August after a journey of 20 days’). It is obvious, and is universally admitted, that (unless Cicero made a slip) _Septembr._ is wrong, and that Cicero meant ‘the eleventh day before the Kalends of October’, that is to say, September 20. It is equally obvious that he did not write _vicesimo_, or that, if he did, he made a mistake. For, at the end of the letter, he says (as we have already seen), ‘Caesar wrote me a letter from Britain on the 1st of September’; and, as the letter from Quintus reached him on the 20th of September, it must have been dispatched, if it really arrived _vicesimo die_, on the 1st of September, that is to say, on the same day as the letter from Caesar.

But this, as Dr. Vogel remarks (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, pp. 273-4), is disproved by the fact that Caesar, in this very letter, begged Cicero not to be alarmed at not having received a letter from Quintus by the same messenger, as Quintus was not with him when he reached the coast (_Ex Britannia Caesar ad me K. Septembr. dedit litteras ... quibus, ne admirer, quod a te nullas acceperim, scribit se sine te fuisse, cum ad mare accesserit_). As it is clear, therefore, that _vicesimo_ is wrong, various attempts have been made to amend the MS. reading. Bergk (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 622) arbitrarily changes _vicesimo_ to _tricesimo_. The most satisfactory conjecture, in my opinion, is that of C. Bardt (_Quaest. Tullianae_, 1866, p. 32). He believes that what Cicero wrote was _a. d. XI Kal., septimo vicesimo die_; that a copyist abbreviated this into _a. d. XI Kal., sept. vicesimo die_; and that this was corrupted into _a. d. XI Kal. Sept., vicesimo die_.

If Professor Tyrrell, who reads _a. d. XI Kal._ [_Sept._] _vicensimo die_ (_Correspondence_, ii, 1886, p. 150), reads this note, I am confident that he will allow his text to be emended in the next edition of his and Dr. Purser’s great work.

[3655] There can, I think, be little doubt that Quintus wrote and dispatched this letter on the very day of his arrival, or, at the latest, before the storm which totally wrecked 40 of Caesar’s ships on the next night but one after his arrival. If the storm had occurred when he wrote, he would surely have mentioned it; and there is not a word in Marcus Cicero’s reply which would lead us to suppose that he had done so. Moreover, Quintus knew that Marcus was waiting impatiently for news; and Caesar would naturally have desired to communicate at once with Labienus whom he had left in command in Gaul.

[3656] _B. G._, v, 8, § 2.--longius delatus aestu orta luce sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit. Tum rursus aestus commutationem secutus, &c.

[3657] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 198.

[3658] _Decline of the Roman Republic_, iv, 205.

[3659] See pp. 600-3, _supra_.

[3660] See pp. 706-7, _supra_.

[3661] _Norman Conquest_, iii, 399.

[3662] Dr. F. Vogel, who rightly concludes that Caesar could not have sailed on the 20th of July, has recourse to an unsatisfactory argument to prove his case. We know, he says (_Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 275), what misfortunes Caesar had met with in the preceding year owing to the high tide which was raised by the full moon: how then can we believe that he would have chosen the day of full moon for his second expedition? But Dr. Vogel himself argues that Caesar sailed about the 8th of July, the day after new moon. Did not the doctor forget that the tidal phenomena at full and new moon are nearly identical, and that the 8th of July was the very day on which a springtide occurred? If Caesar was himself unaware of these facts, his Gallic seamen could have enlightened him. Moreover, he must have known that at least one full moon would occur while he remained in Britain.

[3663] _B. G._, v, 9-10; 11, §§ 1-7.

[3664] _Q. fr._, iii, i, § 25.

[3665] See pp. 712-3, 726, _supra_.

[3666] _B. G._, v. 22, §§ 3-4.

[3667] _Ib._, 23, § 1.

[3668] _Ib._, 23, § 2.

[3669] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 280.

[3670] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 194, 199.

[3671] _Ib._, pp. 198-9.

[3672] Trebonius defeated Cassivellaunus about the 20th of July of the Julian calendar; and we may assume that Caesar did not begin to march towards the territories of Cassivellaunus until the following day. By the 5th of August he had returned to his naval camp. In those 17 days he marched to the Thames; crossed it at or near Brentford; marched on through the territory of Cassivellaunus into that of the Trinovantes (Essex); marched thence to the stronghold of Cassivellaunus, which was not far off; captured it in a single day; and marched back to the coast. Altogether the distance that he marched cannot have been less than about 200 miles. Evidently, therefore, he would not have had time enough to negotiate with Cassivellaunus and to receive the hostages whom he demanded before he returned to the coast.

Bergk insists (_Jahrbücher für classische Philologie_, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 616-8) that the campaign must have been finished at the beginning of August of the Julian calendar, because Caesar (_B. G._, v, 22, § 4) tells us that when it was finished the summer was nearly at an end, and, according to Caesar himself, autumn began on the 11th of August. But when Bergk says that, according to Caesar, autumn began on the 11th of August he seems to forget that this date was fixed in the Julian calendar, eight years after the invasion of Britain. He also forgets that the word _aestas_, in the _Commentaries_, denotes, not a season which ended on a fixed date, but the period during which campaigning was practicable; and two passages prove that it extended at least as far as the middle of September. In the last chapter of his First Book Caesar remarks that in a single ‘summer’ he had finished two important campaigns (_una aestate duobus maximis bellis confectis_); and it has been proved that the decisive battle of the second campaign was fought about the 14th of September (Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, p.

642). In the 20th chapter of the Fourth Book he says that he determined to invade Britain (in 55 B. C.), although only a small part of the ‘summer’ remained, and in this part of the world ‘winter’ set in early (_Exigua parte aestatis reliqua Caesar, etsi in his locis ... maturae sunt hiemes, tamen in Britanniam proficisci contendit_); and we know that he did not land in Britain until the 26th of August (see pp. 600-3, _supra_). The second passage, moreover, is one of many which prove that Caesar generally took no account of spring and autumn, but (like Thucydides) divided the year into two seasons,--_aestas_, the season in which campaigning was practicable, and _hiems_. He only once uses the word _ver_ (spring), namely, in _B. G._, vi, 3, § 4; and only three times--once only in the _Gallic War_ (vii, 35, § 1), twice in the _Civil War_ (iii, 2, § 3; 87, § 3)--uses the word _autumnus_; and in none of these four passages is there any reference to campaigning. The Latin word for ‘winter’, properly so called, is not _hiems_ but _bruma_.

[3673] _B. G._, v, 17, § 5--18, § 1.--Ex hac fuga protinus quae undique convenerant auxilia discesserunt, neque post id tempus umquam summis nobiscum copiis hostes contenderunt. Caesar cognito consilio eorum ad flumen Tamesim in fines Cassivellauni exercitum duxit.

[3674] About the 20th of October Cicero wrote to his brother (_Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 1), ‘for more than fifty days I have heard nothing from you or from Caesar’ (_dierum iam amplius quinquaginta intervallo nihil a te, nihil a Caesare ... adfluxit_). The last letter which he had received was the one written by Caesar on the 1st of September.

[3675] _Hist. de Jules César_, ii, 194.

[3676] _B. G._, v, 22, §§ 1-3.

[3677] See p. 726, _supra_.

[3678] _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 284.

[3679] _Ib._, pp. 284-5.

[3680] _Q. fr._, iii, 8, § 1.--Superiori epistolae quod respondeam, nihil est; quae plena stomachi et querelarum est, quo in genere alteram quoque te scribis pridie Labieno dedisse, qui adhuc non venerat. Delevit enim mihi omnem molestiam recentior epistola.

[3681] _B. G._, v, 8, § 1; 23, § 4.

[3682] _Q. fr._, iii, 8, § 2.

[3683] _B. G._, v, 24, § 2.

[3684] _Ib._, 24, § 1; 46; 47, § 1.

[3685] _Q. fr._, iii, 3, § 4.

[3686] See p. 728, n. 6, _supra_.

[3687] Of course I do not mean that he would not have attempted to do so in any conceivable circumstances; but that Volusenus would never have advised him to undertake such an operation when there was the alternative of landing between Walmer and Sandwich. 5.10.06.

[3688] See pp. 613-4, _supra_.