Page:Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey.djvu/151

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
NOTES TO KENT.
113

inspected the place.[1] It may be added farther, that about Losenham House, indeed anywhere in the parish of Newenden, beside the spot above mentioned, there is no appearance of military works.

A few observations may be added on, probably, the latest public advocacy of the pretensions of Newenden by Mr. William Holloway, who argues at some length (Romney Marsh, 23 to 40) in favour of the idea suggested by Camden. Mr. H. quotes the words of his authority thus: "Newenden, I am almost persuaded, was that haven I have so long sought after . . . Anderida, &c." (compare with the extract above from Gibson's Camden.) Such language appears to indicate, that at first Camden himself felt no certainty on the subject, although afterwards, if he wrote what is cited as from him in the preceding note, he seems to have almost persuaded himself that his conjecture was fact. Moreover, as previously noticed, a part certainly of Camden's statement is disproved by good evidence: compare a former part of this Note comprising the Domesday description of Newenden, and remarks thereupon.

The general drift of Mr. Holloway's argument upon the subject we are considering may be reduced somewhat to rule thus:—Proposition: To discover the site of an ancient city and port, not far from the southern coast of Britain, and on the boundary of the forest of Anderida. 1. An extensive fortification is recorded to have existed, and traces of it are even now visible, at Newenden. 2. This can have been inhabited only in very early times. 3. Newenden is "situated on the southern sea coast of England;" and, 4, "on the border of, or in, the forest of Anderida" (ut sup. 32.) 5. Also Newenden was a port at the period referred to. Ergo, Newenden is the spot required. Q. E. D.—One grand defect in this reasoning has been overlooked, namely, that the character of the city required is disregarded. It appears to me, that it is assumed to be simply a British city, whereas it was Romano-British, the authority for which, namely, the addition of 'ceaster' or 'cester' to the name, perhaps few will

  1. Mr. Holloway indeed (History of Romney Marsh, Lond. 1849, 24) quotes Camden as saying in a note, " The inhabitants show the plot where were situated the town and haven." I found no such words in Gibson's edition of Camden ad voc. Newenden, as will be perceived by referring to my quotation from Camden in the early part of this Note. But admitting Camden to have written as above, his expressions may mean only, that the inhabitants showed the site of some ancient, large settlement, which Camden inferred to have been Anderida. And besides, granting the existence of a tradition to that effect, no credit could be given to it, as descending uncorrupted through a period exceeding a thousand years, and through people of different races and languages.
8