Of the four bodies of Attecotti in the Roman army, the first two were those probably enrolled by Theodosius, and seen by St. Jerome in Gaul. The two last, which are termed Honoriani, must, from their name, have been enrolled by Stilicho, the minister of Honorius. Orosius called the latter ‘Barbari ... qui quondam in fœdus recepti atque in militiam adlecti Honoriaci vocabantur’ (Oros. vii. 40). Thus, on the two occasions in which the territory between the walls was recovered, Attecotti were enrolled in the Roman army. They were Barbari who ravaged Britain, when the Barbarians occupied this part of the province. They were ‘in fœdus recepti et in militiam adlecti’ when the Romans recovered it—a combination only applicable to the half-provincial half-independent tribes between the walls; and they were probably the same people whom Ptolemy called the Ottedeni and Gadeni, who extended from the southern wall to the Firth of Forth. The same word seems to enter into the composition of the names Ottedeni and Attecotti. Footnote 99: The army is mentioned in Britain in 406. Stilicho was consul the preceding year. The Notitia Imperii refers to a state of matters after Theodosius, for the province of Valentia is mentioned, and the army there described must have been in Britain at this time. Footnote 100: Adversus hos Constantinus Constantem filium suum, proh dolor! ex monacho Cæsarem factum, cum barbaris quibusdam, qui quondam in fœdus recepti atque in militiam adlecti, Honoriaci vocabantur, in Hespanias misit.—Orosius, vii. 40. Footnote 101: This account of the usurpation of Constantine, and its consequences, is taken from Zosimus and Olympiodorus, two contemporary historians. The opinion generally entertained that the Roman troops returned to Britain after the year 410 rests upon no direct authority, and is opposed to the testimony of those contemporary historians. Mr. Bruce, in his _Roman Wall_, makes the pertinent remark (43): ‘The series of coins found in the stations of the north of England, and in the camps and Roman cities of the south, extends from the earlier reigns of the Empire down to the times of Arcadius and Honorius, and then ceases. Any legion coming later must have been destitute of treasure.’ The mistake has arisen from the false chronology of the invasions of the Scots and Picts, and of the assistance of the Romans in repelling them, applied to the narrative of Gildas. No dates are given in the work of Gildas; but if the mind is disabused of preconceived conceptions in this respect, it is impossible to compare Gildas’s narrative with the notices of the legion sent by Stilicho, and of the army which elected Constantine, the attack which followed, and the repelling of the invaders by the provincial Britons, without seeing the absolute identity of the events. The following comparison will show this more clearly:—