differences would naturally grow up between the nations, separated by the sea, and possibly in each case by contact with the peoples whom they found already in possession. One chief difference would of course consist in a gradual divergence of idiom. Every language must continually change and shift its form, exhibiting like an organized being its phases of growth, decline, and decay; and, in the case of these divided peoples, it is hardly to be supposed that their unwritten idioms would follow precisely the same course of phonetic alteration. There is no reason to disbelieve in their original unity, merely because the Welsh insensibly approached the Gaulish form: it will be remembered that the Welsh itself broke up during the historical period into several different idioms; and this may help us to understand how the change of the older language was effected.1

There are several passages from Tacitus which support the view, that the language of the insular Britons was different from that of the Gauls. But enough reasons have been already adduced in support of the theory. Taking it therefore to be sufficiently established for our purpose, we shall now endeavour to put it to a practical use. It will be found, that not only may the British history be illustrated by what is known about Ireland, but that the differences between the Welsh and the Gauls

1 William of Malmesbury noticed but a slight difference in his time between Welsh and Breton. "Linguâ nonnihil a nostris Brittonibus degeneres."-Gesta, i. 1. Giraldus calls the Breton an old-fashioned Welsh. "Magis antiquo linguæ Britannicæ idiomati appropriato." Descr. Cambr. c. 6.

2 "Gothinos gallica lingua coarguit non esse Germanos."-Tac. Germ. c. 43. And of the Estyi, "lingua Britannicæ proprior."-Ibid, c. 45. And of the Gauls and Britons, "sermo haud multum diversus.”—Agric. c. 11.

will help us to fix approximately the sites of the Gaulish colonies. There are proper names enough, inscribed on coins or mentioned in the narrative of the Roman wars, to furnish some slight glossary for such a purpose. Nor can one fail to gain some useful knowledge from them, by the use of the phonological tests, if it be remembered that the Gaulish immigration was a long and gradual process, and if allowance be made for the carelessness of classical writers in transcribing the barbarian names.1

1 Cic. Pro Font. 14. Pomp. Mela, Geog. iii.

Compare the "voces ferinæ," Ovid, Trist. v. 12; c. 3; and the complaints of the Geographer of

Ravenna about the names of places in Britain: "attamen nomina volueramus, Christo nobis adjuvante, designare," Ravenn. c. 32.

CHAPTER V.

THE GAULS IN BRITAIN.

Invasion by the King of Soissons.-Older settlements.-Kingdoms of Kent.-Forest of Anderida. -The Trinobantes-Extent of their dominions.-The Iceni.-The Catuvellaunian Confederacy.—Civilization of the Gaulish settlers.-Physical appearance. -Dress.-Ornaments.-Equipments in peace and in war.-Scythed chariots.— Agricultural knowledge.-Cattle.-Domestic life.

F"

IFTY years or more before the Roman invasions began the King of Soissons1 had extended his rule over the southern portions of our country. The transitory conquest may have increased the intercourse between the Island and the Continent; but the origin of that intercourse must be referred to an older date.

There are signs that an immigration from Belgium had been proceeding for several generations before the age of Divitiacus. There was a striking similarity between the language and manners of the Gauls on both sides of the Straits, the men of Kent in particular being nearly as much civilized as their kinsmen across the water; and there were also such slight differences as would naturally be found in colonies long separated from their parentstates. At a period not very remote from the life-time of Cæsar himself several Belgian tribes had invaded the country for purposes of devastation and plunder; and, finding the place to their liking, they had remained as

1 "Apud eos (Suessiones) fuisse regem, nostrâ etiam memoriâ, Divitiacum, totius Galliæ potentissimum, qui quum magnæ partis harum regionum tum etiam Britanniæ imperium obtinuerit."-Cæsar, De Bell. Gall. ii. c. 4.

colonists and as cultivators of the soil. Cæsar could recognize the names of several clans, and could point out the continental states from which the several colonies had proceeded.1 This can no longer be done; but we may still hope, by such methods as have already been mentioned, to distinguish and identify the situations of the Gaulish kingdoms in Britain. The Gauls of a later generation pushed far to the north and west; but in Cæsar's age they had not yet advanced to any great distance from the shores of the German Ocean. They were probably not yet established in the East Riding or to the westward of Romney Marsh; but their settlements were spreading all round the estuary and up the valley of the Thames; and it seems likely that they had occupied all the habitable districts on the coast between the Wash and the Straits of Dover.

The four kingdoms of the "Cantii" stretched across East Kent and East Surrey between the Thames and the Channel, and the whole south-eastern district was doubtless under their power. But it should be remembered that a great part of this extensive region was then unfitted for the habitation of man. The great marshes were still unbanked and open to the flowing of the tide; and several hundreds of square miles were covered by the dense Forest

1 De Bell. Gall. v. c. 14. Compare Pliny's mention of the "Britanni” in Belgium, Hist. Nat. iv. 17.

2 See Prof. Pearson's Historical Maps with reference to the configuration of the coast at this time; and with respect to Romney Marsh, which was not reclaimed until long afterwards, see Sir G. Airy's Essays on the Invasion of Britain. The Astronomer Royal states that, if the sluice at Rye were broken, the whole low-lying district as far as Robertsbridge would become a great tidal morass, and that such was undoubtedly its condition in the age of Cæsar.

of Anderida.1 The Gaulish kingdoms, with their thicklypacked villages and their "infinite number of inhabitants," must have lain to the east of the forest, skirting the sea upon the south and bounded to the north by a wide district of fens and tidal morasses which at that time received the spreading and scattered waters of the Thames.3

1 This forest must at one time have covered most of south-eastern Britain, and was probably connected with the other forests that stretched from Hampshire to Devon. The Andred's-Wold comprised the Wealds of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, taking in at least a fourth part of Kent, "the Seven Hundreds of the Weald," and all the interior of Sussex as far as the edge of the South Downs, and a belt of about twelve miles in breadth between the hills and the sea. Lambarde describes the Weald of Kent as being "stuffed with heardes of deere and droves of hogges," and adds that "it is manifest, by the Saxon Chronicles and others, that beginning at Winchelsea it reached in length an hundred and twenty miles towards the west, and stretched thirty miles in braidth towards the north." Perambul. Kent, 209. See Farley's Weald of Kent, i. 372; and Kemble, Anglo-Saxons, ii. 304. ?

2 Cæsar, De Bell. Gall. v. 12, 14. The Gaulish names to be noticed are those of the four kings, Cingetorix, Carvilius, Taximagulus, and Segonax, and that of the chieftain Lugotorix: upon the coins, those of Epillus and Dubnovellaunus; and compare the local names, Toliapis for Sheppey, and Rutupiæ for Richborough, which appear in Ptolemy's Tables.

3 The Astronomer Royal has published a paper on the Claudian Inva•sion of Britain (Athenæum, No. 1683), in which the ancient state of the Thames is carefully described. "Whatever may be the date of the mighty embankments which have given its present form to the river-channel, there can be no doubt that they did not exist in the time of Claudius. Those vast tracts known as the Isle of Dogs, the Greenwich Marshes, the West Ham and Plumstead Marshes, &c. (which are now about eight feet lower than high-water), were then extensive slobs covered with water at every tide. The water below London was then an enormous estuary, extending from the hills or hard sloping banks of Middlesex and Essex to those of Surrey and Kent, with one head towards the valley of the Thames and another head towards the valley of the Lea; and, on the whole, offering a greater resemblance to the Wash, though longer in proportion to its breadth, than to any other place on the English coast."