Zimmer thinks that the description of Ceretic as _guletic_ in the Welsh source points to his position as claiming to be a successor of the Roman _dux Britanniarum_. I do not feel certain that we can go so far, but I have no doubt that Ceretic and his _milites_ represented the Roman defence of North Britain. That these _milites_ were Roman citizens is clear from Patrick’s words (_Letter_, p. 375₂₃, _militibus—non dico ciuibus meis atque ciuibus sanctorum Romanorum sed ciuibus demoniorum_—the sting of this reproach is that they professed to be Roman). Coroticus was a _tyrannus_ for Patrick (_per tirannidem Corotici_, p. 376₁₉). It is not clear whether the _reges_ and _tyranni_ who arose in various parts of Britain in the fifth century (for example, Vortigern) bore Roman official titles: the fact that there were also generals who were not _reges_ and who seem to correspond to the Roman commanders (Ambrosius Aurelianus; Arthurius) cannot be considered decisive. For the continuance of Roman civilisation in Britain after the rescript of Honorius (A.D. 410), see Mr. Haverfield’s observations in “Early British Christianity” in _Eng. Hist. Rev._, July 1896, pp. 428-30; and on the other hand for a Celtic revival, his paper on “The Last Days of Silchester,” _ib._ Oct. 1904, pp. 628-9. [It is hardly necessary to mention the old view in Rees, _Welsh Saints_, p. 135, followed by Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 352, that Coroticus was Caredig, of Cardigan, son of the Welsh chief Cynedda.] P. 192.—That the scene of the outrage was in North Ireland, in Down or Antrim, is only a probable conjecture: (1) these coasts were the most likely destination of an expedition from Strathclyde; and (2) the circumstance that Patrick _happened_ at the time to be close to the place suggests Ulster. Zimmer says nothing as to this; but his theory would evidently compel him to assume that the outrage was committed in South Ireland, for otherwise the _Letter_ of St. Patrick would imply that his activity was not confined, as Zimmer contends that it was, to North Leinster. For a conjecture that the date may have been A.D. 459, see above, App. B, p. 303. _Ib._—Heathen Scots. _Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum_ (Patrick, _Letter_, p. 375₂₆). The Picts, not the Scots, are apostates (cp. p. 379₇); the natural inference is that the Scots (of Britain) were still heathen. Zimmer’s inference that they were Christians (p. 55) seems extraordinarily perverse. He asks us to observe that the Scots “are not reproached with paganism.” The implication is inadmissible. Their paganism is taken for granted; in fact, it is their excuse. If they had been professing Christians their guilt would have been greater even than that of the Picts, who had fallen away from Christianity. The fact that it is on the Picts, not on the Scots, that Patrick’s reproaches fell, proves that the Scots were heathen and therefore might not be expected to know better.