nected with certainty, as we are not sure whether Solidunum, or Bath, which his coins likewise bear, was captured from them or from some other British state; that city lying on the north of the Avon, and not being included within the Wansdike boundary, which may inspire some doubt that it was a city of the Dobuni. Nor are we sure that the name Cunetio, a former town of Wiltshire, is certainly mentioned on his coins. (See vol. v of the Journal for 1849, p. 152.) As time proceeded, a coin of Calleva, a town of the Southern Belgæ, inscribed REX CALLE, appears assignable to Cunobeline's son, Caractacus, if certain fragments of an inscription on the other face be part of one of the legends thought to belong to him; and there appears a great degree of probability that such is the case.

To continue. Long before the conclusion of Cunobeline's reign there appear to be indications that the coinage of the Southern Belgæ had ceased, for an interval at least, as there are no coins, apparently, which we can assign to this period; but the various coins of Bericus, or Vericus, whose date we know from Dion Cassius, assure us that it must have been extensively resumed about thirty or forty years after the Christian era. We have thus a species of numismatic sketch of the Southern Belgæ, or Firbolgi of Britain, which appears sufficiently confirmed by the appearance of their coins; since those types of theirs inscribed EPPILLVS, EPPI, etc., approximate in their lettering to the Roman consular coins. Those inscribed VIR and VIRI have an appearance somewhat later, whilst the coins inscribed VERIC, etc., which we have supposed to have been coined after an interval in which there was no coinage, have broad and decidedly-formed letters of the age of Augustus and of Tiberius. Chronologically, besides, there seems the names of some monarchs wanting between EPPILLVS and VIRI, if this last be a man's name, and VERICVS. How far this may be supplied by future discoveries, it is not easy to say. Coins may possibly be found to apply to this intermediate part; but at present it seems a somewhat broken series, and to justify the view here taken of it.

But there are the coins inscribed TIN and TINC, in several varieties. These have every appearance of being of the reign of Tiberius, and of about even dates with those inscribed VERIC. In short, they do not appear to be the

intermediate ones required to fill up the gap to which allusion has been made.

These particulars, and this historical sketch of the Southern Belgæ of Britain, may be thought somewhat meagre and indefinite; but, strictly speaking, all is herein comprised that can be obtained from numismatical or other documents to the effect; more, indeed, than has been attempted elsewhere. We may now proceed to identify one of the British leaders mentioned by Cæsar with the Eppillus of the Britanno-Belgic coins, which also has not been done before; and afterwards to proceed with some particulars referring to Vericus, which it may be possible to ascertain.

Going back then, first, to somewhat early British times, (that is, to the state of Britain during Cæsar's second invasion,) we may revert to the orders sent by Cassivelaunus, the British commander-in-chief, to the four Belgic kings, to which we have before alluded, directing them to attack Cæsar's naval camp; and may now give, with advantage, these particulars in Cæsar's own words: "Cassivelaunus ad Cantium quod esse ad mare supra demonstravimus quibus regionibus quatuor reges præerant Cingetorix, Carvilius, Taximagulus, Segonax, nuncios mittit atque his imperat uti coactis omnibus copiis castra navalia de improviso adoriantur atque oppugnent. (Gaulish Wars, v, 22.)

This passage, it may be necessary to remark, is usually translated as if it were implied that Cæsar says that there were at that time four kings in Kent. Now that it should have been so, that there were actually four kings in so small a district as Kent, seems very improbable; and the greater likelihood seems to be, that in giving the rendering of the passage, we must understand the "quibus regionibus", not as referring to Kent solely, but to the "civitates maritimæ" spoken of before by Cæsar, of which Kent was one; and this is the more confirmed, as in a preceding chapter (14), he speaks of Kent, not as being composed of "regiones", but as constituting a single "regio". The true construction of the passage will then be as follows: "Cassivelaunus sends messengers to Kent, which, as we have shewn before, was one of the maritime states over which four kings presided, Cingetorix, Carvilius, Taximagulus, and Segonax; and directs them that, collecting all

their forces together, they should suddenly assault and take the naval camp. This may be regarded as the true translation, and we may be able to assign the four kings to four Belgic states: the chief interest, of course, being the probable identification of the Eppillus of our ancient British coins with one of them.

Now the name Carvilius, according to all appearance, was the Celtic appellation, Gwayr-illil, or perhaps, Gwaywawr-illil; of which the first division is a personal name, the other a title, used, as has been observed on a former occasion, interchangeably with rex (see vol. vii of the Journal for 1851, p. 116); for which also we have the authority of the marquis de Lagoy (ibid.). With this, it is to be further observed that the celebrated Lelewel has given his opinion, in his Type Gaulois, p. 247, that this illil is only a form when used in composition, of the title eppillus, i. e., hereditary king; which seems, indeed, a very correct conclusion. We may therefore safely adopt it, and we have at once the name we seek, Gwawr Eppillus, that is, Gwawr the hereditary king; and as his coins are only found in Kent, at least it seems so reputed, the seat of his kingdom is pretty readily ascertained.

We may by the way observe that, in the deductions thus obtained, we have a curious comment on the form of ancient British and Celtic names. It may almost be said that it is a matter of chance in what shape or guise they come down to us; or perhaps, more correctly to express it, that it depends on the medium through which we receive them. Take, for instance, this name of Eppillus, or rather, as we may now say, of the British chief, Gwawr, Cæsar's contemporary. Had his name come down to us by the ancient British chronicles, we should have known of him simply by this name. They would probably have styled him Gwayr, earl of Kent. Had he been mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle, we should have heard of him as Gwayr the earldorman; and in neither case should have had intimation of his other appellations. The fact, however, is, that being an hereditary prince, he styles himself Eppillus on his coins; and, being known, it seems, to the people of the country as "Gwayr the eppillus", or, in shorter form, as "Gwayr-illil", that modification of it becomes adopted by Cæsar, who hands it down in a Roman dress as Carvi

lius. There might have been other titles and contingencies which might have obscured his real name. He might have been the Tascio, the Vertiscus, the Cingetorix, the Vercingetorix, the Ver-rix, according as the case may have been; and thus would have been verified M. A. Thierry's observation in his history of the Gauls, that, from his having titular designations, his real name might have never descended to us at all. Thus much we may say on this. subject, which is, perhaps, not without some interest. We may now pass on to a brief remark on the other three leaders mentioned by Cæsar.

The kingdom of the next, Cingetorix, may have been the Regni. There is reason to suppose that this was called a kingdom before the Romans came (see vol. vii of the Journal for 1851, p. 406); and this person's name concluded with the word rix, or king.

In the like manner we may add that Segonax probably applied to the Segontiaci, a Belgic state on the Thames, as the termination of the name apparently expresses some title, though we may not be able duly to explain it. This leaves Taximagulus for Hampshire and Wiltshire, or the central part of these Belgæ.

Respecting Vericus, though so little is known of him, yet one or two remarks may be suggested in connexion with that title, and allusion may be made to one or two collateral circumstances which may possibly apply to him. We infer, with sufficient certainty, from Dion Cassius, that he lived in the latter part of Cunobeline's reign, and in the reign of the sons of Cunobeline. One of the first particulars we have to mention of him is his name, which, as has been observed on former occasions, has every appearance of being titular. "Ver rix”, in Celtic, would imply high king; or perhaps as may more closely express the idea intended, "king paramount". Now duly to explain this. Vericus being king of the Southern Belgæ, a point sufficiently confirmed by his coins being found in the part of the island which they occupied, and these Belgæ consisting of several minor states, as the Belgæ of Hampshire and Wiltshire, the Cantii, Regni, and Durotriges; and as to make a distinction between being king of one of the tribes, and being king of them collectively, would have been necessary,-bearing this in mind, we need not doubt

the evident import of the etymology and form of the name, which we must interpret as before said, as conveying the idea of a paramount jurisdiction. We may therefore obtain an historical as well as etymological datum from this form of it, which brings to our notice one more fact connected with him.

His appellation then, as we thus find, being titular, some endeavour may be made to ascertain his personal name, in which a considerable degree of success may possibly be attainable. Some have supposed him to be the same person as Adminius, Cunobeline's son; but though there be one point of resemblance, that both fled to the Romans, and though there may be an impracticability of demonstrating to the contrary, that they are not identical, yet otherwise the probability is so small as not to be worth attention. But it seems far more consistent, that Vericus was the Lilius Hamo of the chronicles; and to shew this, we may recite the leading particulars which are professed to be given of this personage, omitting the more diffuse parts of the account, and more especially those which the more strikingly wear the complexion of romance. Lilius Hamo, whose name is declared to be British (Geoffrey of Monmouth), but who is a Roman (ibid., and Tysilio), and had associated much with the British hostages at Rome, by which means he had learned the British language (Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Tysilio), is described as having advised Claudius to undertake the British war (Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Gervaise of Tilbury). He lands at Portchester with the Roman army, is instrumental in killing the British king in a battle, and is himself killed shortly afterwards at Southampton (Tysilio, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Gervaise of Tilbury), which thence is named from him (ibid.).

It is difficult to resist the conviction, but that we have, in this narrative supplied by the chronicles, a distorted account of the latter part of the career of Vericus. The British chronicles are history mixed up usually with a large infusion of romance. The real matters of fact that we have to look to in the account, are, that a person with the British name of Lilius Hamo, who had advised the Roman emperor to undertake the war, landed with the emperor's forces at Portchester, and was killed in one of the battles which took place shortly afterwards.