if Carausius, ‘himself a German by extraction, a Menapian by birth . . . did not cause the setting of the Saxons along the Saxon shore, in Gaul as well as in Britain, he at last promoted it by his alliance with them' A substantially similar view as to the relations of Carausius and the Saxons is takesn by Schaumann (Zur Geschichte der Broberung England's durch germanische Stämme, Göttingen, 1845), Dirks (Les Anglo-Saxons et leurs petits deniers dit Sceattas, Brussels, 1870, pp. 15 ff.), and Howarth (Journ. of Anthropological Institute, February, 1878).
Maximian, deprived of his fleet, was unable to pursue Carausius immediately, but during part of 288 and 289 confined himself to making elaborate naval preparations. Csrausius meanwhile was supposed to bs trembling for his safety. ‘Quid nunc animi babet ille pirata?' asks the courtly panegyrist of Maximian in an oration delivered at Trêves on 21 April 289: ‘Ædificatæ sunt ornatæque pulcerrimæ classes cunctis simul amnibus oceanum petituræ’ (Maxertini Paneg. Max. Herc. dict. c. 12). The new fleet was brought into action—probably shortly after this date—its half-trained seamen proved to be no match for the sailors of Carausius, who had built a number of additional ships after the Roman model. Carausius was, moreover, an experienced soldier (Eutrop. ix. 22). On landing in Britain in 287 he had won over to his side (probably by bribery) the Roman legion stationed in the island, and he proceeded to organise an army by adding to the legion some oompanies of foreign mercenaries and evialnngmfirchlpunts from Gaul : the prospect of spoil made his servioe attractive, and 'barbarians’ also joined the ranks. Part of his fleet held possession of Boulogne. The contest between the rivals seems to have laated some time, the advantage being always, apparantly, on the side of Csrausius, and at last in Maximian was glad to come to terms with the usurper. Eurompius (ix. 22) only records the bare fact that peace was brought about; but from certain coins issued by Carausius, evidently at this period, it would appear that he was actually acknowledged by Maximian and Diocletian as a gunner in the empire. Carausius, probably from the very moment of his first setting sail for Britain had already placed his own portrait on the coins which he issued, and had styled himself 'Imperator,' 'Cæsar,' 'Augustus,' adding the usual imperial epithets of ‘Pius’ and ‘Felix;’ but he now issued a remarkable copper coin (a specimen is in the British Museum) an the obverse of which he placed the three heads of Dioeletian, Maximian, and himself, accompanied by the inscription caravsivs et fratres svi. The reverse bore the inscription pax avggg (i.e. ‘trium Augustorum’) and a female personification of pesos, holding olive-branch and sceptre. On a few other coins of Carausius, which must also belong to this period, the legends have reference to three Augusti, and not merely-as at first-to a single Augustus (Carausius himself). But the union of the imperial ‘brethren’ was soon to be dissolved. In 292 Dioolstian and Maximian invited Galsrius and Constantius Chlorus to share in the growing cares of empire, as Cæsars. The defense of Gaul and Britain was entrusted to Constantius; and he proceeded to strike a blow at the power of Esrausius hy an attaclr on Boulogne. He besieged the town both by land and sea, obstructing the mouth of the harbour by a mole. The garrison surrendered, and Constautius was mailing other preparations for the recovery of Britain, when he received the welcome news that Oanusiua had been assassinated by his chief minister, Allectua, 293. [The exact date and sequence of the events in the life of Carausius are not absolutely certain; the chronology that has here been adopted is that of Clinton (Fasti Rom.) According to other modern critics (see Pauli, Real-Encyclop.) the reign of Carausius lasted from 286 to 298, and the pews with Maximian and Diocletian was made, not in 290 but in 292. The date, 294, adopted by Gibbon (also in Monum. Hist. Briton. and elsewhere) for the death of Carausius is erroneous (see W. Smith's note in the Decline and Fall, ii. 71).]
The brief notion of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius,snd the neousarily unsatisfactory statements of the Panegy-rists, throw little light upon the character and motives of Carausius. He is contemptuously spoken of as the ‘pirate’ or the ‘pirate chief' (‘archi-pirata'), and his avarice and faithlessness are not unjustly stigmatised. All the ancient writers, however, recognise his ability in nautical and military affairs. His motive in seizing Britain and and his position as ‘imperator’ have been discussed by several modern writers. 'Under his oommand,’ says Gibbon, ‘Britain, destined in a future age to obtain the empire ef the sea, already assumed its natural and respectable station of a maritime power.' Carausius certainly relied upon his fleet, and he mg possibly, in the first instance, have Bed to ritain merely as to a harbour of refuge, without having any ultimate designs upon the empire, but, in any case, it is evident that he did not rest content with being a mere ‘king' of Britain.
