CASTERS AND CHESTERS. 289 



King Ethelberht of Kent, older a good deal than Baeda's 

 time, we find the town described under the mixed form 

 of Hrofi-brevi. After such a certain instance of philo- 

 logical blundering as this, I for one am not inclined to 

 place great faith in such statements as that made by the 

 English Chronicle about Chichester, which it attributes to 

 the mythical South Saxon king Cissa. Whatever Cissan- 

 ceaster may mean, it seems to me much more likely that 

 it represents another case of double naming ; for though 

 the Eoman town was commonly known as Eegnum, that 

 is clearly a mere administrative form, derived from the 

 tribal name of the Eegni. Considering that the same 

 veracious Chronicle derives Portsmouth, the Eoman 

 Portus, from an imaginary Teutonic invader, Port, and 

 commits itself to other wild statements of the same sort, 

 I don't think we need greatly hesitate about rejecting its 

 authority in these earlier and conjectural portions. 



Silchester is another much disputed name. As a rule, 

 the site has been identified with that of Calleva Atreba- 

 tum; but the proofs are scanty, and the identification 

 must be regarded as a doubtful one. I have already 

 ventured to suggest that the word may contain the 

 root Silva, as the town is situated close upon the 

 ancient borders of Pamber Forest. The absence of 

 early forms, however, makes this somewhat of a random 

 shot. Indeed, it is difficult to arrive at any definite 

 conclusions in these cases, except by patiently following 

 up the name from first to last, through all its variations, 

 corruptions, and mis-spellings. 



The Cesters are even more degraded (philologically 

 speaking) than the Ghesters, but are not less interesting 



u 



