206 , Reviews, 
The water is so deep at high tide and the shingle beach 
here so abrupt and shelving, that Czesar’s larger ships could 
come close in shore, and it is literally true to the letter 
that his soldiers would have to jump into deep water, 
whilst the smaller galleys could row up to the very bank, 
and come to blows hand to hand with the enemy. The 
spring tide at full moon rises from eighteen to twenty feet, 
which would dash together and cripple his ships; here in 
the marsh, at the very border of the sea, rises a fit place 
for his camp, a mound of large extent elevated above the 
marshes, and affording under its shelter an anchorage for 
his fleet. This mound, ‘Green Barrow Hill’ or ‘ Grena- 
burh,’ lies between Weybourne and Salthouse ; opposite is 
an old Roman causeway running down to it from Kelling, 
with a track direct through the marshes to the hill, and 
with a streamlet of clear fresh water alongside.” 
Our Author tells us that some thirty miles of seaboard 
have disappeared, owing to the encroachments of the sea 
since Cesar’s time. This is all well and good, but then, 
how does he account for the eighty miles which he says 
Cesar must have sailed, in contradiction to Czsar’s “ Com- 
mentaries,” which mention thirty miles as the length of his 
passage. Why, our Author extricates himself by the fol- 
lowing very ingenious method :— 
“The ‘Commentaries’ mention the distance as being 
thirty miles. This we know to be wrong, as thirty miles 
is not the shortest (drevisstmum) passage across the 
Channel. Every student of history well knows how names 
and numbers are altered both in history, sacred and se- 
cular, as the transcriber’s will or fancy leads him. Cesar, 
no doubt, wrote LXXxX., but when the Channel theory was 
broached, the transcribers, knowing that could not be, 
struck out the L. and left the xxx. .The Emperopagea 
tions an instance of this kind (p. 94, Vol. II.) as regards 
‘the Doubs, at Besancon, where he says, ‘the copyists 
must have omitted an M. before DC.’” 
In concluding our short notice, we must confess that Mr. 
Surtees’ theory has a right to be thoroughly ventilated, as 
it is a very important antiquarian doubt, which ought to 
be cleared away, and we do not, as a contemporary has 
said, facetiously, as he supposes, say to Mr. Surtees, 
“ don't,’ but “do” dive deeper into the subject, and ere 
long we shall have it satisfactorily settled, as to whether 
‘Czesar did or did not cross the Channel. Wewould advise 
all who are interested in this question, to at once get this — 
pamphlet. 
