If we wish to multiply proofs that a _burh_ was the same thing as a borough, we can turn to the Anglo-Saxon illustrated manuscripts, and we shall find that they give us many pictures of _burhs_, and that in all cases they are fortified towns.[46] Finally, Florence of Worcester, one of the most careful of our early chroniclers, who lived when Anglo-Saxon was still a living language, and who must have known what a _burh_ meant, translates it by _urbs_ in nineteen cases out of twenty-six.[47] His authority alone is sufficient to settle this question, and we need no longer have any doubt that a _burh_ was the same thing which in mediæval Latin is called a _burgus_, that is a fortified town, and that our word _borough_ is lawfully descended from it. It would not have been necessary to spend so much time on the history of the word _burh_ if this unfortunate word had not been made the subject of one of the strangest delusions which ever was imposed on the archæological world. We refer of course to the theory of the late Mr G. T. Clark, who contended in his _Mediæval Military Architecture_[48] that the moated mound of class (_e_), which we have described in our first chapter, was what the Anglo-Saxons called a _burh_. In other words, he maintained that the burhs were Saxon castles. It is one of the most extraordinary and inexplicable things in the history of English archæology that a man who was not in any sense an Anglo-Saxon scholar was allowed to affix an entirely new meaning to a very common Anglo-Saxon word, and that this meaning was at once accepted without question by historians who had made Anglo-Saxon history their special study! The present writer makes no pretensions to be an Anglo-Saxon scholar, but it is easy to pick out the word _burh_ in the _Chronicle_ and the Anglo-Saxon _Laws_, and to find out how the word is translated in the Latin chronicles; and this little exercise is sufficient in itself to prove the futility of Mr Clark's contention.