BRITANNICAE INSULAE. Ihe Saxons adopted the Roman sites lest tlian the Bomans did those of the Britons, the Germanic con- dition of a citj being different from the Roman. As such, it directed the architectural industry of the Anglo-Saxon towards the erection of independent towns out of the materials supplied by the older ones, in the neighbourhood — but not on the absolute site — of the pre-existent municipality. Without admitting this view in its full integrity, we may learn from it the necessity of determining the ancient sites of the Roman cities on the special evidence of each particular case; it being better to do this than to argue at once from the present names and places of the English towns of the present time. Place for place, the old towns and the new were near each other, rather than on absolutely identical spots. London, St Albans, Colchester, Gloucester, Win- chester, Norwich, Cirencester, Bath, Silchester, York, Exeter, Dorchester, Chichester, Canterbury, Wrox- cter, Lincoln, Worcester, Leicester, Doncaster, Caer- marthen, Caernarvon, Portchester,Grantchester, Car- lisle, Caerleon, Manchester, have the best claims to represent the old Roman cities of England, the lists of which, considering the difference of the authorities, are not more discrepant from each other than b ex- pected. The number of Ptolemy's iroAcZj is 56, all of which he names. Marcianus Heracleota, without naming any, gives 59. Nennius, at a later period, enumerates 34 ; the Saxon invasion having occurred in the interval. The vaUa are described in a separate article. [Vallum.] X Divisions. The divisions of the British Isles are only definite where they are natural, and they are only natural where the ocean makes them. Hi- bemia is thus separated from Albion simply by its insular condition — ex vi tertninu So are the smaller islands, Vectis, the Orcades, &c. ; all of which were known to the ancients. But this is not the case with the ancient analogies of North and South Britain — if such analogies existed. No one can say where Britannia ended and Cale- donia began — or rather no one can say how far Britannia and Caledonia are the names of natural and primary divisions. In the way of ethnology, it is safe to say that all the Caledonii were comprised within the present limits of North Britain, except 80 far as they were intrusive invaders soulihwards. It is safe to say the same of the Scots< But it is not safe to say so of the Plcts ; nor yet can we affirm that all the Britons belonged to the present country of England. In Ptolemy the Caledonii are a specific population, forming along with Comabii, Creones, and others, the northern population of Albion — the name having no generality whatever. Dion's Caledonii are certainly beyond the wall, but between them and the wall are the Meatae. In Tacitus the Caledonii are either the political con- federacy of Galgacas, or the natives of the district around the Grampians. The wider extent to the word is a point in the history of the temij less tlian a point in the history of the people. The practical primary division which can be made is that between Roman Albion and In'le- pendent Albion; the former of which coincided more or less closely with Britannia in the restricted sense of the term, and with the area subsequently named £ngland; the latter with Caledonia and Scothnd. Britannia appears to have been constituted a BRITANNICAE INSULAE. 441 Roman province after the conquest of a portion of the island in the reign of Claudius. The pro- vince was gradually enlarged by the conquests of successive Roman generals; but its boundary on the south was finally the wall which extended from the Solway Frith (Ituna Aestuarium) to the mouth of the river Tyne. Britain continued to form one Roman province, governed by a con- sular legatus and a i»tx;urator, down to a. D. 197, when it was divided into two jirovinces, Bri' tannia Superior and Inferior^ each, as It appears, under a separate Praeses (Herodian, iii 8. § 2 ; Dig. 28. tit 6. 8. 2. § 4). It was subsequently divided into four provinces; named Mcaima Cae" sariensia, Flavia, Britannia prima, Britannia tecunda (S, Rufus, Brev. 6), probably in the reign of Diocletian or of Constantine. To these a fifth province, named Valentia, was added in a. d. 369 (Amm. Marc, xxviii. 3. § 7), so that at the be- ginning of the fifth century, Britain was divided into five provinces; two governed by Consulares, namely. Maxima Caetariensi* and Valentia; and three by Praesides, namely, BriUmnia Prima, Bri- tannia Secunda, and Flavia Caesarientis, All these governors were subject to the Vicarius BriUmniae, to whom the general government of the island was entrusted. The Vicarvws appears to have usually re- sided at Eboracum ( York), which may be r^arded as the seat of government during the Roman dominion* (Not Dig, Occ. c. 22 : Rocking, ad he. p. 496, seq.; comp. Marquardt, in Becker's Handbuch der Romitchr Alterth, vol. iii. pi. i. p. 97, seq.) The distribution and boundary of these five pro* vinces we do not know — though they are often given. Respecting the next class of divisions we do not know even this. We do not know, when talking of (e. ^.) the Ordovices, the Iceni, or the Novantae, to what class the term belongs. Is it the name of a natural geographical division, like Highlands and Lowlands, Dalesmen or Coastmen t or the name of a political division, like that of the English counties? tliat of a confederacy ? that of a tribe or chui ? Is it one of these in some cases, and another in another? Soma of the terms are gec^raphical. This is all that it is safe to say. Some of the terms are geo- graphical, because they seem to be compounded of substantives significant in geography; e.g. the prefixes car- , and ire^, and Sur-. The only systematic list of these divisions is Ptolemy's; and it gives us the following names, each of which is noticed separately. They are enu- merated, however, at present, for the sake of showing the extent to which, not only Roman but Independent Albion was known to the w^riters of the second cen- tury, and also because some of them illustrate the general geography of the British Isles. 1. North of the Clyde and Forth, the line of defences drawn by Agricola, lay the Epidii, Cerones, Creones, CorncHiacae, Careni, Comabii,Caledonii, Cantae, Logi, Mcrtae,yacomagi,Venecantes,Taizalae, — in all thir- teen. The apparently Keltic elements in these names are printed in Italics. They are British rather than Gaelic; and, as such, evidence in favour of the oldest population of Scotland, having belonged to that division. This inference, however, is traversed by the want of proof of the names having been naiive. Hence, when such truly British names as Cantae and Comabii (compare Cantium and Comubii) appear on the extreme north of Scotland, they may have been the names used by the British informants of Ptolemy's
