Aurel. Vict. cap. 41. Lappenberg, referring to this fact (Thorpe, i. 47), asks, “May not the name Erocus be a corruption of Ertocus, a Latinization of the old-Saxon Heritogo, _dux_?” I think not; for an Alaman would have been called by a high and not low German name, Herizohho, not Heritogo. I think it much more likely that his name was Chrohho or Hrôca, a _rook_. By chronological steps we have now approached the period at which was compiled the celebrated document entitled ‘Notitia utriusque imperii’[27]. Even if we place this at the latest admissible date, it is still at least half a century earlier than the earliest date assigned to Hengest. Among the important officers of state mentioned therein as administering the affairs of this island, is the Comes Littoris Saxonici per Britannias; and his government, which extended from near the present site of Portsmouth to Wells in Norfolk[28], was supported by various civil and military establishments, dispersed along the whole sea-board. The term Littus Saxonicum has been explained to mean rather the coast visited by, or exposed to the ravages of, the Saxons, than the coast occupied by them: but against this loose system of philological and historical interpretation I beg emphatically to protest: it seems to have arisen merely from the uncritical spirit in which the Saxon and Welsh traditions have been adopted as ascertained facts, and from the impossibility of reconciling the account of Beda with the natural sense of the entry in the Notitia: but there seems no reason whatever for adopting an exceptional rendering in this case, and as the Littus Saxonicum on the mainland was that district in which members of the Saxon confederacy were settled, the Littus Saxonicum per Britannias unquestionably obtained its name from a similar circumstance[29]. Footnote 27: Pancirolus would date this important record in A.D. 438. Gibbon, however, refutes him and places it between 395 and 407. Dec. cap. xvii. I am inclined to think even this date inaccurate, and that the Romans did not maintain any such great establishment in Britain, as that herein described, at so late a period. For even Ammianus tells us in 364, “Hoc tempore Picti, Saxonesque et Scotti et Attacotti Britannos aerumnis vexavere continuis,” (Hist. xxvi. 4), which is hardly consistent with a flourishing state of the Roman civil and military rule. The actual document we possess may possibly date from 390 or 400, but it refers to the arrangements of an earlier time, and to an organization of Roman power in more palmy days of their dominion. Footnote 28: The document itself may be consulted in Graevius, vol. vii. The “littus Saxonicum per Britannias” extended at least from the Portus Adurni to Branodunum, that is, from the neighbourhood of Portsmouth to Branchester on the Wash. In both these places there were civil or military officers under the orders of the Comes littoris Saxonici. Footnote 29: