It remains for him to indicate here at the outset the materials founded upon by the previous writers which he considers of questionable authority, or must reject as entirely spurious. Among the first to be rejected as entirely spurious is the work attributed to Richard of Cirencester, _De situ Britanniæ et Stationum quas Romani ipsi in ea insula ædificaverunt_. It was published in 1757 from a MS. said to be discovered at Copenhagen by Charles Julius Bertram, and was at once adopted as genuine. The author at a very early period came to the conclusion that the whole work, including the itineraries, was an impudent forgery, and this has since been so amply demonstrated, and is now so generally admitted, that it is unnecessary to occupy space by proving it.[13] The whole of the Roman part of Pinkerton’s _Enquiry_ and of the elaborate work of Chalmers is tainted by it; and, what is perhaps more to be regretted, the valuable work of General Roy[14] on _The Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain_, published in 1793. He says in his introduction, ‘From small beginnings it is, however, no unusual thing to be led imperceptibly to engage in more extensive and laborious undertakings, as will easily appear from what follows, for since the discovery of Agricola’s camps, the work of Richard of Cirencester having likewise been found out in Denmark and published to the world, the curious have thereby been furnished with many new lights concerning the Roman history and geography of Britain in general, but more particularly the north part of it,’ and by this unfortunate adoption of the forged work by General Roy, there has been lost to the world, to a great extent, the advantage of the commentary of one so well able to judge of military affairs. Horsley’s valuable work, the _Britannia Romana_, was fortunately published in 1732 before this imposition was practised on the literary world; but Stuart has not been equally fortunate in his _Caledonia Romana_, published in 1845, the usefulness of which is greatly impaired by it.