[3023] The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xxvi.
[3024] E. A. Freeman’s Norman Conquest, iii, 532-4; Journal of Philology, xx, 1892, pp. 63-4.
[3025] See p. 571, supra.
[3026] When Professor Ridgeway resuscitated Airy’s theory, he found himself called upon to meet the objection which we have just considered. Mr. Malden (Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, pp. 197-8) told him that Caesar would never have landed ‘opposite the Great Wealden Forest, where resistance would be easy and supplies scarce’. The professor replied (ib., p. 206) that a passage in Caesar’s narrative proves that he did land opposite the Wealden Forest. The passage will be found in the ninth chapter of Caesar’s Fifth Book, in which he describes the combat which took place on the banks of a stream, about 12 miles from his camp, the day after his second landing. The Britons, on being driven from the banks, withdrew into woods (repulsi ab equitatu se in silvas abdiderunt). Mr. Malden (Journal of Philology, xx, 1892, p. 63) makes the obvious reply:—‘All that Caesar tells us is that there were woods in which the Britons took refuge ... but Caesar does not lead us to believe that he landed in a place where his march inland was barred by an all but impenetrable forest 30 to 40 miles wide.’
[3027] Athenæum, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 302.
[3028] Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 240.
[3029] Napoleon III, Hist. de Jules César, ii, 553.
[3030] Ib., p. 553.
[3031] Journal of Philology, xx, 1892, p. 197.
[3032] The late arrival of some of Caesar’s ships (B. G., iv, 23, § 4) can only be accounted for on the assumption that during the voyage the wind shifted to an unfavourable quarter,—an assumption which is verified by Caesar’s express statement (iv, 26, § 5) that the cavalry transports were unable ‘to make the island’, and had to put back.