To solve this further problem, there are two points that must be borne in mind. The first of these points is that “ceaster,” though now only found in place names, and therefore, naturally, to our ears, a component of proper names, was, in the mouths of the earliest English, not a proper but a common name. We are reminded, for instance, by Mr. Grant Allen, that in Beowulf the city-folk are described as the “dwellers in ceasters;” and even so late as the days of Alfred, Chester, as Mr. Freeman loves to remind us, is spoken of as “a waste ceaster,” that is a deserted city. How, then, did this English word _ceaster_, a word formed to denote an object for which, being new to English eyes, a new word had been added to their speech, pass out of use as a general term, and become a component of certain proper names, embalmed in which it has descended even to our own day? Mr. Allen contends (though the suggestion surely is irreconcilable with his previous hypothesis of _Glevum castrum_ having existed as a Latin form) that “Sometimes they [_i.e._, the English] called the place by its Romanised title alone, with the addition of _ceaster_; sometimes they employed the servile British form; sometimes they even invented an English alternative; but in no case can it be shown that they at once disused the original, and introduced a totally new one of their own manufacture,” &c.[44] Now this brings me to the second of the two points of which I spoke; this is, that in the names we are considering, such as Gloucester and Doncaster, we have to deal with two component parts, and that the _nomen ipsum_, the real English name, is always to be sought in the second part, and not, as has hitherto, it would seem, thoughtlessly been assumed, in the first. That is to say, that in _Gleawan ceaster_, as an instance of the original form, we are to seek the true English name in the _ceaster_, and not in the _Gleawan_. So far from seeing in this form “the Romanised title alone, with the addition of ceaster,” we ought to see the English word _ceaster_ imposed by the conquerors upon the city of _Glevum_, a prefix to _ceaster_ being only added where necessary to distinguish it from other _ceasters_. This is illustrated by the parallel case of the three Romanised forms, _Venta Icenorum_, _Venta Belgarum_, and _Venta Silurum_. In each of these three forms the true place-name was _Venta_ (Gwent), and the tribal names are mere suffixes, added for the sake of distinction. This parallel will also illustrate the contrast between the Roman and the English Conquests. For whereas the Romans were contented to Latinise “Gwent” as _Venta_, the English, settlers rather than conquerors, acting as their descendants have done in America, not as they have done in Hindostan, ignored the Roman or, more accurately, the Latinised British name, and, in their own tongue, called _Glevum_ “Ceaster.” Here I must again quote from Mr. Allen’s able