% tex2asc-version: 1.0
%
%    T. Rice Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    Book I.
%
%    Contributor:   Konrad Schroder <[email protected]>
%
%    Original publication data:
%         Holmes, T. Rice. _C._Iuli_Caesaris_Commentarii_/_
%              _Rerum_in_Gallia_Gestarum_VII_/_A._Hirti_Commentarius_VIII._
%         Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914.
%
%    Version: 0.00 (Alpha), 5 May 93
%
%    This file is in the Public Domain.
%
\input ks_macros.tex
\greekfollows
\centerline{C.~IULI CAESARIS}
\centerline{DE BELLO GALLICO}
\centerline{COMMENTARIUS PRIMUS}
\bigskip
%
1, \S 1. {\bf Gallia .~.~. divisa.} Notice the order of the words. They
must not be translated by `All Gaul is divided', which is not only hideous,
but wrong. The meaning is `Gaul, taken as a whole, is divided'. The
plural---{\it Galliae} and {\it Galliarum}---used of the several divisions
of Gaul, occurs in Cicero ({\it Fam.,} viii, 5, \S 2; 9, \S 2; \&c.); and
Caesar wished to make it clear that he meant the whole of Transalpine Gaul.

{\bf Celtae.} This word, in its widest sense, denotes various
kindred peoples, who spoke languages from which the modern
Celtic dialects are descended; who originally inhabited Central
Europe; and who migrated into Gaul, Spain, Britain, Italy,
and Asia Minor. The Greek equivalents of {\it Celtae} and {\it Galli}
were used indifferently by Polybius. Caesar uses the word
{\it Celtae} in a narrow sense; for the Belgae also were a Celtic
people. Galli in Celtic meant `warriors' or `brave men'. It
must be borne in mind that although all the people who dwelt
between the Seine and the Garonne called themselves Celtae
there were no Celtae there some centuries before Caesar's time.
The Celtae were a mixed population descended partly from
pre-Celtic inhabitants, partly from Celtic conquerors.


\S 2. {\bf lingua.} See pp. xxiv-xxv, xxviii-xxx, xlvii. Celtic was
not generally spoken in Aquitania. The Aquitanians spoke
Iberian, that is to say, Spanish dialects, probably including
Basque, which is still spoken in the south-western corner of
France and the adjacent part of Spain. Most of the Celtae
spoke a language called Gaulish or Gallo-Brythonic, which was
also that of the Belgae, and was virtually identical with the
language of the Brythons, or British Celts, from which Welsh
descended. Perhaps, however, in Caesar's time some of the
Celtae spoke another Celtic dialect, akin to that which was
the ancestor of Gaelic; for at a later period inscriptions were
erected in Gaul in a language which was different from Gaulish;
and though it may have been a dead language (Latin inscriptions belonging
to our own time are to be seen in London), it must have been once spoken in
Gaul.

{\bf Gallos .~.~. dividit.} These statements were accurate enough
for Caesar's purpose; but they are not literally correct. The
Bituriges Vivisci, a tribe which he does not mention, belonging
to the Celtae, inhabited the country round Bordeaux on both
banks of the Garonne, the estuary of which is called the
Gironde; and the Veliocasses, a Belgic people (ii, 4, \S 9), had
some territory on the left bank of the Seine ({\it C.G.,} p.~344).

\S 3. {\bf provinciae.} See p.~xlii.

\S 5--7. H. Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, pp.~20--3) and A.~Klotz
({\it C.G.,} pp.~27--30) have independently given reasons for believing
that this passage was not written by Caesar. The most noteworthy are that
{\it initium capit, ab} (Sequanis), {\it ab} (extremis Galliae finibus)
{\it oriuntur,} (spectant) {\it in,} (spectant) {\it inter,} and the
singular, {\it septentrionem,} are unclassical or inconsistent with
Caesar's style.

{\bf Eorum,} the vagueness of which Meusel derides, can only mean
{\it Gallorum} in the wider sense---Belgae, Aquitani, and Galli---or
it must be regarded as loosely equivalent to {\it terrae quam incolunt
Belgae, Aquitani, Galli,} the word {\it partium} being understood. As
far as I can see, {\it eorum} and {\it eos} are used just as vaguely in
vi,~11, \S 3, 13, \S 4, and vii, 75, \S 4, the genuineness of which is
certain.

2, \S 1. {\bf M. Messala .~.~. consulibus,}---that is to say, in 61 {\sc
B.C.}\ {\it et P.,} which is inserted in the {\sc MSS.} before {\it M.
Pisone,} is certainly an interpolation. As Meusel remarks ({\it J.B.,}
1910, p.~68), no Roman in the time of the republic had two praenomina; and
in such phrases Caesar invariably omitted {\it et}.

\S 5. {\bf milia passuum.} See p. 403.

3, \S 1. {\bf pertinerent.} The subjunctive is used because Caesar is not
giving his own opinion as to what preparations were required,
but that of the Helvetii: `to make the necessary preparations'
means `to make the preparations which, as they considered,
were necessary'.

\S 3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp. 54-5, 105) deletes {\it ad eas res
conficiendas} on the ground that Caesar would uot have repeated
so clumsily a phrase which he had used only two lines before.
I am not so sure. Certainly he would not have done so if he
had revised his work: but he wrote very rapidly (viii, Praef, \S 6);
and painstaking writers, in revising their manuscript, have often
detected similar clumsy repetitions, which they had made unconsciously.
Besides, if {\it ad eas res conficiendas} is espunged, it
becomes necessary to insert {\it dux,} as Meusel does, after {\it
Orgetorix.} On the other hand, Meusel is perhaps right in deleting {\it
sibi} ({\it J.B.,} 1910, pp.~54--5, 72); for it has no point unless Caesar
meant to imply that Orgetorix had delegated certain functions
to others. Klotz ({\it C.S.,} p.~6, n.~1) adopts the reading of
B$^2$,---(Is) {\it ubi;} but {\it in eo itinere} appear to be the opening
words of a new sentence.

{\bf suscipit} is an emendation, due to Davies and accepted by
Meusel. The {\it {\sc MSS.}}~have {\it suscepit;} but Caesar nowhere
changes
tenses of the indicative within a sentence or a series of connected
sentences without an evident reason. I have therefore
adopted similar emendations in a few other passages. See {\it J.B.,}
1894 pp.~342--4.

\S 4. {\bf amicus} was a title which the Senate bestowed on foreign
chieftains whom it wished to conciliate. See p.~xlii.

{\bf ut regnum .~.~. habuerit.} Careful readers will have noticed that {\it
persuadet} is followed not by {\it occupet,} but by {\it occuparet:} the
reason is that {\it persuadet,} like {\it deligitur} (\S 3), is historic
present, and is therefore equivalent to {\it persuasit.} Even in English
some writers, notably Carlyle, in telling a story, use the present tense
instead of the past when they feel that it is more vivid. Still, Caesar
almost always uses the present subjunctive after the historic present of
verbs of asking and the like,---{\it orare, rogare, imperare} \&c. ({\it
J.B.,} 1894, pp.~354--5). After {\it occuparet} one might have expected
{\it habuisset,} not {\it habuerit}--- but in relative clauses Caesar often
uses the perfect subjunctive even after and before secondary tenses of the
same mood. See {\it J.B.,} 1894, pp.~362--4, 381.

Evidently Catamantaloedis had either been dethroned or
succeeded by an oligarchical government. Such revolutions
(see pp.~liv--lvii) were common in Gaul in the century that preceded the
arrival of Caesar.

\S 5. {\bf Diviciaci.} (See p. lix.) We shall learn more about him
in chapters 16, 18--20, 31--2, 41, \&c.

{\bf principatum.} It is doubtful whether in this passage {\it principatus}
means `the principal [unofficial] power' or `the chief
magistracy '. If it means the latter, Dumnorix was at this time
(60 {\sc B.C.}) Vergobret of the Aedui (see 16, \S 5). In vi, 8, \S 9
{\it principatus} denotes `the chief magistracy' of the Treveri; but
in vii, 39, \S 2, where we learn that between Eporedorix and
Viridomarus there was {\it de principatu contentio,} the meaning is
simply that they were rivals for power, for the chief magistrate
was then Convictolitavis (vii, 33, \S 4). I am inclined to believe,
however, that Dumnorix was Vergobret; for if not, we must
assume that as he held the {\it principatus,} he was stronger than
the Vergobret, and if so, he would probably have made himself
king (cf. i, 18, \S\S 3-9, ii, 1, \S 4; and {\it C.G.,} pp.~555--6).

\S 7. {\bf totius Galliae} is equivalent to {\it totius Galliae civitatum}
(or {\it populorum}).

\S 8. {\bf Hac .~.~. sperant.} The meaning is clear, but the expression is
loose; for though {\it adducti} refers only to Casticus and
Dumnorix, the subject of {\it dant} and of {\it sperant} is really, though
not grammatically, Casticus, Dumnorix, and Orgetorix.

4, \S 1. {\bf per indicium,}---of an informer.

\S 2 {\bf ad} (hominum) is here equivalent to {\it circiter} or {\it fere.}

{\bf clientes} held an honourable position, which resembled that of
the armed retainers of mediaeval barons, and a powerful land-owner, who
could afford to maintain a large number of them
(cf. 18, \S\S 3--6, ii, 1, \S 4), might make himself supreme in his
tribe. In vii, 40, \S 7 Caesar remarks that `Gallic custom
brands it as shameful for retainers to desert their lords even
when all is lost'. He also uses the word {\it clientes} to denote
tribes which stood in a dependent relation to some more powerful tribe. Cf.
i, 31, \S 6; iv, 6, \S 4; v, 39, \S 3; vii, 75, \S 2.

{\bf obaeratos.} This word is illustrated by vi, 13, \S 2, where Caesar,
speaking of the lower classes of Gaul, says, `Generally, when
crushed by debt or heavy taxation or ill-treated by powerful individuals,
they bind themselves to serve men of rank, who exercise
over them all the rights that masters have over their slaves.'
({\it plerique cum aut aere alieno aut magnitudine tributorum aut
iniuria potentiorum premuntur; sese in servitutem dicant nobilibus;
in hos eadem omnia sunt iura quae dominis in servos}).

\S 3. {\bf Cum .~.~. conaretur.} As Mr.~W.E.P.~Pantin explains in
his lucid chapter on `The Conjunction {\it Cum} ({\it Macmillan's Latin
Course: 3d Part,} p. 60), `{\it Cum} with a subjunctive puts before
us the circumstances in which the action represented by the
principal verb takes place,' whereas {\it cum} with the indicative
tells us `only how one action is related to another with regard
to the time of its occurrence'.

5, \S 1. {\bf ut .~.~. exeant} explains {\it id quod constituerant.}

\S 3. {\bf domum reditionis.} The construction is noticeable; but
the noun, {\it reditio,} is formed from a verb of motion, and parallel
instances are to be found in Cicero ({\it Brutus,} 16, \S 62, \&c.).

{\bf essent.} After the historic present Caesar not infrequently uses
an imperfect subjunctive in final clauses which do not depend upon
verbs of asking and the like ({\it J.B.,} 1894, pp. 354--5). See the
second note on 3, \S 4.

{\bf mensum.} C.~Wagener ({\it N. ph. R.,} 1899, pp. 241---6) shows that
the
form {\it mensium} does not occur in any writer before, contemporary
with, or a little later than Caesar.

\S 4. The learner has probably noticed that {\it iis} is used instead
of {\it se,} and he will find other instances, but to lecture Caesar for
inaccuracy, as some editors do, is presumptuous. it would be
wiser to observe how he used the language of which he was
a master and to modify grammatical rules. Probably he shrank
from writing {\it secum} after (oppidis) {\it suis.}

{\bf oppugnabant} was proposed by H.~Kraffert instead of the
{\sc MS.} reading {\it oppugnarant.} As Meusel remarks ({\it J.B.,} 1894
pp.~236-7), to say that the Boi {\it had} once besieged Noreia would
in this context be pointless and irrelevant.

6, \S 1. {\bf  Erant omnino .~.~. possent.} There were other passes,
north of the Pas de l'\'Ecluse ({\it unum .~.~. Rhodanum}), leading
through the Jura; but they were out of the question, either
because the Helvetii shrank from encountering Ariovistus
(see pp.~lix--lxii) or for some other reason which Caesar ignored
({\it C.G.,} pp. 613--14). The subjunctive---possent---is necessary
because {\it quibus} is equivalent to {\it talia ut iis,} and the
explanation of {\it ducerentur} is similar.

\S 2. {\bf qui nuper pacati erunt.} See p. lx.

\S 3. {\bf quod nondum .~.~. viderentur.} The subjunctive is used
because the disaffection of the Allobroges is mentioned simply
as a ground for the confidence of the Helvetii, not as a fact
which Caesar guarantees.

\S 4. {\bf qua die.} {\it Dies} in the singular is often feminine when
it means a fixed day, and almost always when, as in 7, \S 6, it
means a period of time.

{\bf a.d. V. Kal.~Apr.} The Roman calendar was at this time
in disorder; and the disorder became much worse before
45 {\sc B.C.}, on the first day of which the Julian calendar came into
operation. Under the old calendar the year consisted of only
355 days, or, roughly, twelve lunar months, and an additional
month, consisting alternately of 22 and 23 days, was intercalated
every other year after the 23rd of February. This, however,
was an excessive correction, the excess amounting to 4 days
in every 4 years; and in 191 {\sc B.C.} the college of pontiffs
was authorized to make or to omit intercalations at their
discretion. This privilege they often abused, omitting an intercalary month
occasionally, in order to please some governor
of a province who wished to return as soon as possible to Rome.
Between 58 and 45 {\sc B.C.} only two months were intercalated;
and the result was that in 46 {\sc B.C.} the calendar was 90 days
in advance of the real time. In order to make it right, Caesar,
who was then Dictator, enacted that that year should contain
445 days. The date which he gives in this passage---{\it a.d. V.
Kal. Apr}---corresponded with March 24 of the Julian calendar
and with March 22 of our reformed calendar ({\it A.B.,} pp.~706--26;
{\it C.Q.,} 1912, pp.~73--81).

7, \S 1. {\bf eos .~.~. conari} is added to explain {\it id nuntiatum
esset.} The English phrase, `{\it It} was announced that,' \&c., is
somewhat
similar. We should say, `As soon as Caesar was informed that
they were attempting to march,' \&c.

{\bf Galliam ulteriorem} means Transalpine Gaul, including the
Roman Province.

{\bf ad Genavam.} Remember that if {\it ad} were omitted, the meaning
would be different.

\S 2. {\bf legio una.} This was one of the four legions---the 7th, 8th
9th, and 10th (see p. lxiii and 10, \S 3)---which Caesar had under
his command when he started for Gaul. In the time of Marius
the legion, on a war footing, was supposed to number 6,000 men
(Appian, Mithr., 87, 108); and the legions of Sulla (Plutarch,
Sulla, 9; Marius, 35) and of Lucullus (Appian, Mithr., 72) were
of the same strength. The organization of the army in the
time of Caesar remained the same; and we may infer from one
of Cicero's letters ({\it Att.,} ix, 6, \S 3) and from Caesar's narrative
of the civil war ({\it B.C.,} iii, 4, \S 3) that what we may call the
ideal strength of the legion was also unchanged. But it would
be a great mistake to suppose that when Caesar had, for example, eight
legions under his command, they amounted to
48,000 men; for his losses were of course considerable. He
tells us (v, 49, \S 7) that in the fifth year of the Gallic war two
legions, including perhaps the 400 cavalry (46, \S 4) that accompanied
them, numbered barely 7,000. From time to time, however, his losses were
repaired, wholly or in part, by fresh drafts
(vii, 7, \S 5; 57, \S 1). See {\it C.G.,} pp.~559--63.

\S 3. {\bf diceient.} See the second note on 3, \S 4. In final relative
clauses Caesar uses the present subjunctive after an historic
present much oftener than the imperfect. Here the imperfect
may be due to the influence of {\it obtinebant} ({\it J.B.,} 1894,
pp.~356--361). If the reader does not quite understand what I mean,
an English example will make it clear. In a book written by
a distinguished scholar this sentence occurs: `It would have
been easy enough for Virgil to have taken up at once the heroic
vein in the man' [Aeneas]. `To have taken up' ought logically
to be `to take up'; but the perfect was loosely used under the
influence of `it would have been'.

\S 4. {\bf L. Cassium.} This officer was defeated in 107 {\sc B.C.} by
the Tigurini (see 12, \S\S 4--7), one of the four Helvetian tribes.
According to the {\it Epitome} of Livy (ch.~65, with which cf.~Orosius,
v, 15, ~\S 23--4), the defeat took place in the country of thc
Nitiobroges, which corresponded with the departrnents of Lot-et-Garonne and
Tarn-et-Garonne. Mr.~W.E.~Heitland has suggested to me that when the
Helvetii determined to settle in Western Gaul ({\it B.G.,} i, 10, \S 1),
they may have been influenced by the recollection of what the Tigurini had
achieved ({\it C.G.,} p.~555).

{\bf sub iugum.} The `yoke' was composed of two javelins
planted in the ground and crossed above by a third. The troops
were disarmed before they defiled under it, and in doing so
they were of course obliged to stoop, and were mocked by their
enemies ({\it D.S.,} iii, 667).

\S 6. {\bf Id.~April.} The Ides, that is to say, the 13th, of April
corresponded with April 9 of the Julian calendar. Careful
readers will have inferred from the date that {\it diem} does
not mean `a day ', which, moreover, would in Latin be {\it unum
diem.}

8, \S 1. {\bf murum .~.~. perducit.}  Caesar's description, as Colonel
Stoffel pointed out after he had examined the banks of the
Rh\^one between Geneva and the Pas de l'\'Ecluse, is not to be
understood literally. Evidently he threw up earthworks only
in the places where the bank was not so steep as to form a natural
fortification, and Dion Cassius (xxxviii 31, \S 4), who says that
he fortified the most important points, had the wit to perceive
his meaning. Some commentators, indeed, have insisted that
a continuous rampart would have been a better protection.
But how could the Helvetii have climbed the banks, where they
were precipitous, with their wagons? And, supposing that
some of them had climbed without their wagons, they would
also have been able to climb the assumed rampart unless Roman
soldiers had been there to defend it; while if they had been
there, the bank would have served as a natural rampart. Caesar
was not writing a treatise for military engineers, but a popular
narrative; and he expressed himself loosely ({\it C.G.,} pp.~614---15).

\S 2. {\bf praesidia} here would be best translated by `piquets'.

{\bf castella,}---redoubts constructed at intervals along the line of
earthworks, and garrisoned by piquets ({\it praesidia}).

{\bf conentur.} The {\sc MS.} reading is {\it conarentur;} but, as
Meusel shows ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p. 356), after the historic present,
{\it communit,} the present, {\it possit,} which is found in
$\alpha\pi$, accords with Caesar's usage in final relative clauses, and
if he wrote it, not {\it posset,} which occurs only in $\rho$, he must
also have written {\it conentur.}

\S 4. {\bf Helvetii .~.~. conati.} These attacks were doubtless made
only by impatient isolated bands. The Helvetian commander
(see 13, \S 2) would not have sanctioned such folly.

9, \S 2. {\bf impetrarent} See the second note on 5, \S 3.

10, \S 1. {\bf renuntiatur.} Perhaps, as Meusel thinks, Caesar wrote
{\it nuntiatur;} but Schneider defends {\it renuntiatur} on the ground
that the news was probably brought by spies whom Caesar had
himself sent out to ascertain the plans of the Helvetii.

\S 2. {\bf provinciae} is genitive. Cf. v, 19, \S 2,---{\it magno cum
periculo nostrorum equitum cum iis confligebat.}

\S 3. {\bf legatum.} The reader will notice that this word is used
here and in many other passages in a sense different from that
which belongs to it in 7, \S 3 and 8, \S 3. As it is formed from
{\it legare,} its original meaning is that of a deputy or commissioner
of any kind. {\it Legati,} in the sense in which the word is used
here (see p.~lxiv), were generally, if not always, senators, and were
as a rule appointed by the senate (Cicero, Fam., i, 7, \S 10); but
Caesar, perhaps without consulting that assembly, could appoint
{\it legati} himself (Cicero, {\it Att.,} ii, 18, \S 3; {\it Q. fr.,} ii,
10 [12], \S\S 4--5);
and indeed Cicero did so when he was Governor of Cilicia
({\it Fam.,} xiii, 55, \S 1. Legati were expected to perform any duty
with which their chief might entrust them. On Monday a
{\it legatus} might be placed in command of a legion and lead it in
battle ({\it B.G.,} i, 52, \S 1); on Tuesday he might be sent to raise
a fresh levy of troops (vi, 1, \S 1). Several passages (i, 52, \S 1
ii, 26, \S 1; v, 1, \S 1; 25, \S 5; vii, 45, \S 7) prove that in Caesar's
time any {\it legatus} who commanded a legion in Gaul was specially
appointed to his command by Caesar and held it only so long
as Caesar pleased. The office of {\it legatus} was passing through a
transitional stage and gradually tending to crystallize into the
form which it assumed under the Empire, when the {\it legatus}
became a {\it legatus legionis} ({\it C. G.,} pp.~563---4).

{\bf Italiam} here, as often, means Cisalpine Gaul: for Caesar could
not levy troops outside his province.

{\bf duasque .~.~. conscribit.} Caesar raised these legions, which
were numbered XI and XII, on his own responsibility. This is
proved by the facts that it was agreed in the conference which
he held with Pompey and Crassus at Luca in 56 {\sc B.C.} that he
should receive a grant for the payment of the legions which he
had raised (Cicero, {\it De prov.~cons.,} 11, \S 28; Suetonius, {\it Divus
Iulius,} 24; Plutarch, {\it Caesar}; 21), and that this grant was voted
by the Senate (Cicero, {\it Fam.,} i, 7, \S10). We may suppose that
before Caesar left Italy the recruits had received orders to be
ready to assemble along the road, so as to join the veteran
legions on their march from Aquileia; for otherwise he might
not have been able to reach the Sa\^one near Lyons by the early
part of June, as he certainly did (12, \S\S 1--2; 16, \S 2). See
{\it C. G.,} p.~48, n.~2, and {\it C.Q.,} 1912, p.~80.

\S\S 3--5. {\bf qua proximum .~.~. exercitum ducit.} Ocelum (\S 5) was
close to Avigliana (see p. 418): therefore in the Italian part of
his march Caesar moved up the valley of the Dora Riparia, and
of course crossed the Mont Gen\`evre and passed by Brigantio
(Brian{\c c}on) in the country of the Caturiges. As he was making
for that part of the country of the Segusiavi which lies between
the Rhone and the Sa\^one near Lyons (see the note on 11, \S 1),
it will be evident to any one who consults a good map that his
shortest route would have led past Grenoble, if between Briancon
and Grenoble there was then a practicable road: but it is very
doubtful whether this route would have led him into the country
of the Vocontii, and I therefore believe that he took the
road which leads past Embrun, Chorges, Gap, and Die ({\it C.G.,}
pp. 615---16).

\S 5. {\bf citerioris provinciae,}---Cisalpine Gaul.

11, \S 1. {\bf Helvetii iam .~.~. pervenerant.} The route which the
Helvetii pursued, after threading the Pas de l'\'Ecluse (6, \S 2;
9, \S 1) to the Sa\^one, cannot be traced exactly, but can be
roughly indicated if we can find out where they crossed the
river. They crossed it where it was so sluggish that one could
not tell, by merely looking, in which direction it was flowing
(12, \S 1), and it answers most closely to this description in
that part of its course which lies between Tr\'evoux and Thoissey.
If the Helvetii crossed here, they had probably moved along the
right bank of the Rhone as far as Culoz, and then struck off
westward, along the line of the road which leads past Virieu-le-Grand,
Tenay, and St.~Rambert, and across the plateau of
Dombes. If, on the other hand, they crossed the Sa\^one at
M\^acon, they doubtless followed the route which passes through
Ch\^atillon, Nantua, and Bourg. M\^acon is on the direct road
from the Pas de l'\'Ecluse to Toulon-sur-Arroux, near which, as
we shall see in the note to 24, \S 1, the decisive battle of the
campaign was fought; and M.~Jullian argues that the Helvetii
could only have found the necessary boats at a frequented spot.
But boats might surely have been found between Belleville and
Villefranche, which are both on great roads: such boats as the
Helvetii did find were not sufficient, for they used rafts as well
(12, \S 1), and if they had crossed at a place so renowned as
M\^acon (Matisco), which Caesar mentions in vii, 90, \S 7, would
he not have said so?  Moreover, the territory opposite M\^acon on
the eastern bank of the river belonged to the Ambarri (p.~406):
if, then, the Helvetii had crossed at M\^acon, Caesar would surely
have written in 10, \S 5 not {\it in Segusiavos,} but {\it in Ambarros}
(exercitum duxit). See {\it C.G.,} pp. 616-19.

\S 3. Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p. 64) deletes {\it eorum,} because if
there were a pronoun, it ought to be {\it sui,} and even if {\it eorum}
were admissible, it ought to follow {\it agri.}

\S 4. {\bf $\langle$quo$\rangle$ Haedui Ambarri.} The {\sc MSS.} have {\it
Haedui Ambarri} only, which will not do. Accordingly Meusel deletes {\it
Haedui;} but, as he has justly remarked ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p.~72), one
cannot see how the word could have been interpolated, and accordingly
he was formerly inclined, as I am to believe that {\it quo,} which is
supplied in the Aldine edition (1513), dropped out of the text.

12, \S 1. {\bf Id Helvetii .~.~. transibant.} See the note on 11, \S 1.
Perhaps the Helvetii crossed the Sa\^one at various points, for it
has been suggested that if they had all crossed at one, they
would have opposed Caesar's passage ({\it C.G.,} p. 616).

\S 2. {\bf exploratores.} The English equivalent is not `scouts', but
`patrols'. Scouts, properly so called, were known as {\it speculatores.}

{\bf vero} is the reading of $\beta$. Most editors adopt the reading {\it
fere;} but Schneider points out that as three-fourths of the Helvetii
had already crossed the river, the remainder must have been
one-fourth, and therefore {\it fere} would be pointless. Cf.~Klotz,
{\it C.S.,} p.~98, n.~2.

{\bf de tertia vigilia} is generally explained as meaning `in the third
watch' ({\it Th.l.L.,} v, 64, with which cf. {\it Cl. Ph.,} 1913, pp.
7--13), though Caesar sometimes writes {\it tertia vigilia,} \&c., without
{\it de.}  I am not quite sure that de does not mean `just after' (the
beginning of the third watch). See the note on ii, 7, \S 1.
For military purposes the Romans divided the period between
sunset and sunrise into four watches of equal length, the third
of which began at midnight.

{\bf e castris profectus .~.~. transierat.} We have seen (11, \S 1) that
the Helvetii probably crossed the Sa\^one between Tr\'evoux and
Thoissey. When Caesar set out to attack the Tigurini he was
in the country of the Segusiavi (10, \S 5) and probably south of
Tr\'evoux; for Tr\'evoux, being situated between two places called
Amb\'erieux, may have belonged to the Ambarri. South of
Tr\'evoux the most suitable spot for a camp is on the heights
which command Sathonay. The Tigurini were evidently not
more than a few miles north of Caesar's camp; and we may
infer that the route by which they had approached the Sa\^one
was the valley of the Formans. This valley is dominated on
the left by hills which would have screened the Roman
column from observation as it marched from Sathonay ({\it C.G.,}
pp.~618--19).

\S 3. {\bf Eos impeditos .~.~. abdiderunt.} According to Appian
({\it Celtica,} 1, \S 3) and Plutarch ({\it Caesar,} 18), it was not Caesar
who defeated the Tigurini, but Labienus, and it has been said that
Plutarch's words---{\greek o>uk a>ut`os >all`a Labihn'os}---show that he
intended to correct Caesar. But, supposing that he did, what reason is
there to believe that his statement is more trustworthy than
Caesar's?  Caesar gave all his lieutenants, and especially Labienus,
full credit for their exploits; and even if he had wished to rob
Labienus of his due, he must have known that every officer in
the army would detect his lie, and would make the truth known
privately if not publicly. I believe that Plutarch and Appian
either drew hasty inferences from the fact that Caesar, when he
went back to Italy for reinforcements (10, \S 3), had left Labienus
near the Pas de l'\'Ecluse, that is, east of the Sa\^one, or, like some
modern writers, made the mistake of assuming that Caesar
himself was encamped on the west of the river. But, as
M.~Camille Jullian suggests, it is quite possible that Labienus
may have commanded a division under Caesar ({\it C.G.,} pp. 231---3).

\S 5. {\bf L. Cassium .~.~. miserat.} See the first note on 7, \S 4.

\S 7. {\bf quod.} See the second note on 14, \S 3.
13, \S 1. {\bf pontem.} As this was constructed in a single day, it
was doubtless made, like the bridge which Labienus threw across
an arm of the Seine (vii, 58, \S 4), by lashing barges together.

\S 2. {\bf et flumen transirent.} See the note on 5, \S 1.

\S 5. The conjunction {\it quod,} as the reader will notice in the
course of this book, has various senses. Here it evidently means
`as to the fact that', but the force of this clumsy phrase can
be given in another way,---`Granted that he had surprised one
clan .~.~. he need not therefore exaggerate his own powers,' \&c.

\S 6. {\bf contenderent quam dolo} is an emendation, proposed by
B.~Dinter. The {\sc MS.} reading, {\it quam dolo contenderent,} although
Heller ({\it Ph. Suppl.,} 1889, p.~359) has defended it, is hardly
grammatical.

14, \S 3. The only way of translating the first {\it quod,} which is
merely a connecting particle, is to omit it. Our language does
not require such a link between the two sentences. Meusel
({\it L.C.,} iii, 1536) regards this quod as a relative pronoun; and he
would interpret it, I suppose, as meaning `As to which' (, if, \&c.).

{\bf quod} (eo invito), as in 12, \S 7, and many other passages, serves
to explain a preceding word,---here {\it iniurarium.} A translation
will make this clear: `Even if he were willing to forget an old
affront, how could he banish the recollection of fresh outrages---their
attempt to force a passage through the Province?' \&c.
Where {\it quod} means `because', as in 6, \S 3, 9, \S 3, and 47, \S 2,
the meaning is unmistakable.

If {\it posse} is the right reading, not {\it posset,} which is found in
$\chi$, its subject can only be {\it se} understood. Meusel ({\it J.B.,}
1894, p.~339) thinks that it may be {\it populum Romanum.} This seems
to me impossible; for the Roman People could not have been
said to forget outrages which had only just been committed
and of which they therefore knew nothing. Meusel, remarking that in \S 2
the subject is {\it populus Romanus,} insists
that if the subject of {\it vellet} (\S 3) is Caesar {\it se} is required
before {\it posse,} and says that it may have been omitted in the {\sc
MSS.} by a copyist's neglect.

\S 4. {\bf Quod.} See the note on 13, \S 5.

{\bf se .~.~. tulisse.} Schneider argues that, although Sallust (Jugurtha,
31, \S 2) uses {\it impune} actively, {\it se} cannot refer to Caesar,
for Caesar had not long ({\it diu}) put up with the outrages of the
Helvetii. Referring to Cicero, {\it Fam.,} viii, 77, \S 3 ({\it servus meus
~.~. cum multos libros surripuisset nec se impune laturum putaret,
aufugit}), he says that {\it impune iniurias tulisse} means `had committed
injuries with impunity'; and similarly Kraner explains {\it impune
aliquid ferre} as meaning `to escape punishment for something'.
Mommsen, however ({\it J.B.,} 1834, p. 200), deleted {\it iniurias} ({\it
impune tulisse} would then mean `had got off scot-free'), remarking
that `nowhere in the speech of the Helvetii [13, \S\S 3--7] is there
any mention of lasting injury suffered by the Romans at their
hands, but it is plainly intimated that the Romans had long
refrained from attacking them'. Still, the Helvetii had committed outrages;
and I see no reason to doubt that Caesar
made the remark in question. Prammer's emendation---(iniurias)
{\it intulisse}---seems to me uncalled for.

{\bf eodem pertinere} may be translated by `pointed to the same
conclusion'.

\S\S 5--6. The reader will perhaps have noticed that although
in \S\S 1--4 past tenses of the subjunctive, as one would have
expect, follow the past indicative, {\it respondit,} in the next two
sentences Caesar preferred the present,---{\it doleant, velint, sint,} \&c.
This change was made because {\it consuesse} (\S 5) is virtually a
present tense ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~361).

15, \S 1. {\bf equitatumque.~.~.habebat.} See p.~lxiii. In the Gallic
war Caesar's cavalry consisted entirely of foreigners,---Gauls,
Spaniards, and, in the last two campaigns (52 and 51 {\sc B.C.}) if
not before, Germans. They were often commanded by their
national chiefs (viii, 12, \S 4). See {\it C.G.,} pp. 579---81.

\S 3. {\bf quod quingentis .~.~. propulerant.} The explanation of this
fact will be found in 18, \S 10.

\S 4. Kraner takes {\it in praesentia} as accusative plural,---`with a
view to existing circumstances.' I have little doubt that Meusel
is right in regarding it as ablative singular. There is a certain
instance of the noun {\it praesentia} in v, 43, \S 4.

Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p. 69) strikes out {\it pabulationibus,} because,
first, it seems to him to interrupt the connexion between {\it rapinis}
and {\it populationibus;} and, secondly, Caesar, as the words {\it suos
a proelio continebat} show, did not wish to let large numbers of
his troops become engaged in fighting, which he would have
been forced to do if he had tried to stop the Helvetii from
foraging, since, on account of the scarcity of fodder (16, \S 2),
they would have sent large numbers of men into the fields. But
as foraging was a kind of plundering, the first objection seems
rather strained: moreover, Caesar simply desired to postpone
a pitched battle, and he must anyhow have sent out considerable numbers of
troops in order to stop the Helvetii from
plundering and ravaging. {\it Pabulationibus} is perhaps open to
some suspicion; but it would be rash to delete it.

\S 5. {\bf Ita dies .~.~. fecerunt.} In 16, \S 3 Caesar says that the
Helvetii had struck off from the Sa\^one ({\it iter ab Arari .~.~.
averterant});
and though he does not tell us when they began to
move away, his words seem to imply that for some little time
they had marched up the valley. If they had diverged from it
at Belleville, they would have found themselves walled in
between abrupt hills, on the flanks of which it would have been
impossible to deploy. They must, then, have struck westward
near M\^acon; and as the scene of the decisive battle (see the
note to 24, \S 1) was near Toulon-sur-Arroux, Colonel Stoffel was
able to determine their route. From the neighbourhood of
M\^acon they followed the line of the road which leads to Autun
by way of Cluny, Salornay, and Mont St.~Vincent, and thence
turned westward past Sanvigne to Toulon-sur-Arroux ({\it C.G.}
pp.~619--21). It may be asked, Why did the Helvetii move up
the valley of the Sa\^one at all instead of taking the direct route
westward to the country of the Santoni? Because the direct
route was far more difficult and indeed would have been impracticable for
wagons ({\it C.G.,} pp. 50, 232).

16, \S 1. {\bf essent.} The subjunctive of course shows that {\it quod
~.~. polliciti} is not a mere statement of fact. In order to give the
sense of such subjunctives in good English one has to think hard.
Here I should say `(the grain which,) as he reminded them,
(they had promised)', \&c.

\S 2. {\bf quod Gallia .~.~. posita est.} If 1, \S\S 5--7, were
interpolated, it is obvious that these words were also.

{\bf frumenta.} The plural always denotes standing corn.

\S 4. {\bf Diem} is an accusative of time, the object of {\it ducere} being
{\it Caesarem} understood, and {\it Diem ex die ducere} may be translated
by `From day to day the Aedui kept him on the expectant'.
Similarly Cicero writes to Atticus (vii, 26, \S 3), {\it Tibi autem .~.~.
nihil rescripsi quod diem ex die exspectabam,} \&c.

\S 5. {\bf metiri.} It is very doubtful, as Meusel remarks ({\it J.B.,}
1910,
p. 335), whether Caesar ever used {\it oportere} except with an
accusative and infinitive or (which comes to the same thing)
with a passive infinitive used impersonally,---for example, {\it
conclamant .~.~. ad castra iri oportere} (iii, 18, \S 5). We may therefore
conclude that, although {\it metior} is a deponent verb, {\it metiri}
is here (and in 23, \S 1) used passively.

{\bf praeerat.} {\it Praeerant} is found in all the {\sc {\sc MSS.};} but
during
the last three centuries editors have almost unanimously substituted for it
{\it praeerat;} and if Caesar wrote the plural, he certainly
did so by a slip of the pen. For if he had meant {\it praeerant,} he
would of course have written not {\it quem vergobretum,} but {\it quos
vergobretos;} and that, at all events among the Aedui, only one
Vergobret could legally hold office at a time is proved by a
well-known passage in vii, 32, \S 3,---{\it summo esse in periculo rem,
quod, cum singuli magistratus antiquitus creari atque regiam
potestatem annum obtinere consuessent, duo magistratum gerant
et se uterque eorum legibus creatum dicat} ({\it C.G.,} pp. 505--7).

\S 6. Here, as in 14, \S 3 ({\it quod eo invito,} \&c.), it would be a
mistake to translate {\it quod} by `because'. The meaning is that
Caesar `took them seriously to task for not helping him', \&c.
{\bf possit.} The {\sc MSS.} have {\it posset,} which Meusel ({\it J.B.,}
1894, p. 371) corrects for reasons which are obvious.

{\bf multo etiam .~.~. queritur.} If these words are genuine, Caesar
means that `what he complained of more seriously still was
that they [the Aedui] had played him false',---they had not only
failed to supply bim with corn, but had also broken their
promise. Meusel, however ({\it J.B.,} 1910, pp. 49-50), thinks that
{\it sit destitutus} means substantially the same as the preceding
{\it non sublevetur,} and was added by a reader who needlessly tried
to strengthen what Caesar had written. I do not feel sure that
the passage is spurious; but it is certainly suspicious.

17, \S\S 2--4. The {\sc MS.} reading---{\it praestare debeant}---is
certainly wrong; for {\it si iam .~.~. perferre} must depend upon {\it
praestare.} As {\it debeant,} after {\it dubitare,} is ungrammatical, it
has been conjectured that Caesar wrote {\it debere;} but it seems more
likely that the scribe carelessly repeated the former {\it debeant} (\S 2).

\S 3. {\bf possint.} The {\sc MS.} reading, {\it possent,} if not
absolutely impossible, is very unlikely, for every other verb in the speech
is in a primary tense. With Meusel therefore I have adopted
F.~Hotman's emendation ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p. 370).

\S 6. {\bf quod.} See the note on 13, \S 5.

18, \S 3. {\bf ipsum esse Dumnorigem.} The sense is unmistakable
---`The individual referred to was Dumnorix': the words are
equivalent to {\it eum quem designari sentiebat esse Dumnorigem, non
alium.}

{\bf portoria.} These tolls were levied on merchandise transported by river
(Strabo, iv, 3, \S 2). Dumnorix made a low bid
for the right of collecting the tolls; and as he was master of
a strong force of cavalry (\S 5), nobody dared to bid higher.
Dumnorix then levied as high tolls as he could collect, and
made a large profit.

\S 6. {\bf largiter} is never used by Cicero and nowhere else by
Caesar. Prof.~J.~C.~Rolfe ({\it C.J.,} vii, 1911, p.~126) suggests that
Caesar punned upon {\it largiendum} (\S 4) and meant that Dumnorix
`by giving largess acquired the largest power'.

\S 8. {\bf suo nomine,}---`personally'.

{\bf Diviciacus .~.~. restitutus.} See 20, \S\S 2--3.

\S 10. {\bf quod proelium .~.~.~ fugae}---Dinter takes {\it quod} to be a
conjunction (see 13, \S 5). Schneider apparently regards it as
a pronoun. Notice that the two adjectives, {\it equestre adversum}
are rightly used without {\it et} because {\it proelium equestre} is
virtually one word. Similarly, one can say `a great and good man', but
not `a great and naval battle'.

19, \S 3. {\bf Valerium.} Doubtless this interpreter had taken the
name of his Roman patron.

{\bf principem Galliae provinciae} seems to mean simply `a leading
provincial': in other words, {\it principem} does not denote the
holder of a magistracy. See the second note on 3, \S 5.

\S 4. {\bf simul} does not refer to the preeeding sentence, but connects
{\it commonefacit} with {\it et ostendit}

Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p. 63) brackets {\it Gallorum,} because the
narrative which begins at 16, \S 5 shows that the meeting was not
attended by and Gauls except Aedui. If, he says, we omit
{\it Gallorum,} the meaning is unmistakable, whereas the insertion
of the word might suggest that other Gallic tribes were represented at the
meeting. Perhaps Caesar wrote {\it Gallorum} carelessly; but the word is at
least suspicious. Mommsen, however
({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~201), defends it on the ground that Caesar wished
to make it clear that Dumnorix had been denounced by his own countrymen.

20, \S 5. {\bf tanti .~.~. condonet.} Caesar could not yet afford to
punish Dumnorix (he found an opportunity of doing so four years later
[v, 6--7]) for fear of offending the patriotic party. among the Aedui,
with whom Dumnorix was popular (3, \S 5; 18, \S 3). See {\it C.G.,}
p.~52.

21, \S 1. {\bf sub monte.} This hill must be identified with Sanvigne,
about 6 miles east of the river Arroux: for, as we shall see in the note
on 24, \S 1, Caesar's next camp was hard by Toulon-sur-Arroux; the march
by which he reached it was very short, as we may infer from the fact
that the Helvetii, whom he followed took a fortnight or more to advance
with their unwieldy wagon-train from the point where they crossed the
Sa\^one to the neighbourhood of Toulon (15, \S 5); and Sanvigne is the
only hill east of the Arroux and within a short march of it which
answers to the descliption in 21, \S 1 and 22, \S 3. See Stoffel's {\it
Hist.~de Jules C\'esar---Guerre Civile,} ii, 1887, p. 445.

\S 2. {\bf legatum pro praetore.} Labienus was not only the ablest
of Caesar's generals, but the highest in rank. As {\it legatus pro
praetore,} he would be Acting Governor of Gaul and Commander-in-Chief in
the winter, when Caesar was in Italy. See 54, \S 2.

\S 4. {\bf L.~Sulla} was the famous dictator who overthrew Marius.
M.~Crassus was the millionaire of Rome, who, with Caesar and
Pompey, formed the first Triumvirate, and who had defeated
Spartacus, the leader of the rebel slaves, in 71 {\sc B.C.}

22, \S 2. {\bf a} (Gallicis armis) in this sense is extraordinary and
perhaps was not in the original manuscript. Indeed it is omitted
in L.\ If Caesar followed the usage of classical prose, he wrote
either {\it Gallicis armis} or {\it ex Gallicis armis. Insignibus} here
means `crests'.
23, \S 1. {\bf cum .~.~. oporteret.} Even in this passage {\it cum} does
not tell us only `how one action is related to another with
regard to the time of its occurrence' (see the note on 4, \S 3).
It does not tell us only that the rations would be due in 48 hours:
it tells us that their distribution would be a consequence of the
expiration of 48 hours. The difference is subtle, but real.

{\bf metiri.} See the note on 16, \S 5.

{\bf existimavit.} If the {\sc MS.} reading is right, {\it itaque,}
which Meusel inserted in 1894, is evidently required, but he now adopts
an old emendation,---{\it existimans.}

\S 2. {\bf equitum Gallorum.} The adjective of {\it Gallus} is {\it
Gallicus,} but Caesar never uses it as an epithet of living beings. The
phrase {\it equites Galli} is like {\it mare Oceanus.}

\S 3. {\bf existimarent .~.~. confiderent.} See the note on 6, \S 3.
Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~332), remarking that both Caesar and Cicero
often use such verbs in the subjunctive where logically the indicative
might seem preferable, says that, strictly speaking, the clause should
run either {\it seu quod .~.~. existimabant} or {\it seu quod, ut
existimabant, Romani discederent.}

24, \S 1. {\bf proximum collem.} This hill can be identified. When
Caesar struck his camp on the morning of the battle he was not
more than 18 Roman miles---and we may safely assume that he
was not much less---from Bibracte (23, \S 1), which was situated
on Mont Beuvray (see p.~411): when he was attacked he was
marching towards that town, and the Helvetii, who, on hearing
of his movement, had reversed their march (23, \S\S 2--3), were
trying to intercept him. Evidently therefore, the battle-field
was close to a point where a road leading to Mont Beuvray
diverged from the route by which the Helvetii had been marching
to Saintonge (10, \S 1). It was also somewhere south-east, south,
or south-west of Mont Beuvray, because the Helvetii couid have
had no motive for passing by the east and north of Bibracte in
order to reach the Loire, which they would be obliged to cross
on their way to Saintonge. It is now generally agreed that
the only site which fulfils all the conditions is about 3 miles
north-west of Toulon-sur-Arroux, and that the hill on the lower
slopes of which Caesar formed his army was the hill of Armecy.
The site was first pointed out in 1867; and some years later
Stoffel discovered by excavation an entrenchment on the plateau.
This entrenchment could only have been intended to serve a
temporary purpose, for its shape was that of a crescent, the
width from horn to horn being only about 300 yards; and there
are irregularities in it which seem to show that it was constructed in a
hurry. I am inclined to think that the men who erected it may have stopped
work when they saw that the battle was going in favour of their comrades:
this supposition would account for its not having been completed and made
into an enclosure.

But although the battle-field is certain, opinions differ about
details Stoffel believed that the hill to which the Helvetii fell
back after the failure of their first attack (25, \S 5) was just north
of the village of Montmort; but, as the plan (facing p.~25) will
show, in order to maintain this view, he was obliged to argue
that the Boi and Tulingi attacked the Romans on their left
flank, whereas Caesar says that they attacked them on the right
(see the note on 25, \S 6). Besides, according to Stoffel, in the
first stage of the battle, while the fighting was going on on the
hill of Armecy, the extremity of the Roman right wing was
posted on a steep declivity, whereas the Romans preferred a
gentle slope. Colonel Bircher therefore modified Stoffel's theory.
He concluded that the four veteran Roman legions (24, \S 2) were
posted on the lower slopes of Armecy, facing west-south-west,
and that the hill to which the Helvetii retreated was on the
further side of the valley through which runs the road from
Toulon-sur-Arroux to Luzy. This was the road by which the
Boi and Tulingi would have marched to reinforce the Helvetii.
Both Stoffel's theory and Bircher's are illustrated in the plan;
but Captain G.~Veith and M.~Jullian agree with me in following
Bircher ({\it C.G.,} pp.~624--7).

\S 2. {\bf in colle medio,}---`half-way up the hill'.

{\bf triplicem aciem instruixit.} This was the normal formation,
though Crassus in Aquitania formed his army for battle in two
lines (iii, 24, \S 1), probably because his troops were comparatively few;
while Caesar in Africa once deployed only a single
line ({\it Bell.~Afr,} 13, \S 2), and in the battle of Pharsalia, for a
special reason, improvised a fourth ({\it B.C.,} iii, 89, \S 3). In that
battle, according to Frontinus (ii, 3, \S 22), each line in Pompey's
army was ten men deep. Frontinus seems to mention this as
exceptional; and accordingly it has been conjectured that the
normal depth of a cohort was eight men ({\it C.G.,} pp.~587--8).

The thoughtful reader will probably ask himself certain questions, which
are suggested by Caesar's account of the battle with the Helvetii, but
which he does not answer, I suppose because he wrote for his
contemporaries, most of whom perhaps knew enough about warfare to
understand his book. The soldiers in the front rank of the fighting line
must have become tired after, say, twenty minutes of hand-to-hand
fighting. How were they relieved? When and how did the second line come
into action? What was the use of the third line? The first question and
the last can be answered easily. When the foremost ranks became tired,
or thinned by the loss of individual soldiers, the rear ranks advanced
between the files of those in front, and relieved them. Superintendent
Froest tells me that this method would be adopted by the police in
street fighting; and indeed no other method appears practicable. The
third line served as a reserve: how it was used in this battle will be
seen in 25, \S 7; generally, when its services were required, as, for
instance, in the battle with Ariovistus (52, \S 7), the cohorts that
composed it may have been directed against one or both of the enemy's
flanks or on his rear. It is the second question that has most perplexed
the commentators. Rudolf Schneider has tried to prove that as soon as
the light-armed auxiliaries had done their work and hand-to-hand
fighting had begun, the second line was regularly incorporated with the
first. But in the battle with the Helvetii the auxiliaries were far
removed from the fighting line: if, then, the second line was from the
commencement of the battle incorporated with the first, why was it
formed at all, and what was the sense of the expression {\it triplicem
aciem?} It is clear from Caesar s narrative (25, \S 7) that even after
the first stage of close fighting was over tbe first two lines still
remained distinct. My own belief is that the second line as well as the
third acted as a reserve, that if and when the first line needed
support, the second was incorporated with it, and occasionally perhaps
the third also. In the first stage of the battle each cohort of the
first line probably formed a separate group: it would have been
dangerous for the enemy to attempt to penetrate the spaces between the
groups, for they would have been liable to be attacked and cut off by
the fresh cohorts in reserve; and, on the other hand, these could
advance when they were wanted into the spaces and reinforce the first
line. It is not my business to give reasons for this opinion here, for
in doing so I should have to discuss many passages which are not in
Caesar's text: but the whole problem, which is interesting, is
thoroughly worked out in {\it C.G.,} pp.~588--99.

\S\S 2--3. {\bf in summo iugo .~.~. sarcinasque.} The {\sc MS.} reading,
which is untranslatable, is (ipse interim .~.~. veteranorum) {\it ita uti
supra se {\rm [}v.~1.~sed\/{\rm ]} in summo iugo .~.~. auxilia conlocari,
ac
totum montem hominibus compleret interea sarcinas} (in unum locum .~.~.
iussit). An attempt has been made to amend this by changing
{\it conlocari} and {\it compleri} into {\it conlocaret} and {\it
compleret.} Meusel deletes {\it ita uti supra se} and brackets {\it ac
totum .~.~. interea,} which, as Klotz remarks ({\it C.S.,} p.~239), is a
desperate remedy. I have adopted Klotz's conjecture, which is at all events
ingenious. Fortunately the general sense of the passage is in any case
clear.

\S 3. {\bf sarcinas} means the bundles (analogous to knapsacks)
which the soldiers carried (see p.~lxv). Accordingly Stoffel supposes
that the heavy baggage ({\it impedimenta}), which, as the reader will
have gathered from the preceding note, is not mentioned in the {\sc
MSS}., had been sent on under a small escort to Bibracte. But we should
have expected Caesar to tell us this. Moreover, as his army remained on
or near the battlefield for three days after the victory (26, \S\S 5--6),
it seems reasonable to suppose that they must have wanted some of their
heavy baggage. On the other hand, as only two days' rations were left
(23, \S 1), the baggage-cattle may have been sent to Bibracte to fetch
corn. The entrenchment on the hill of Armecy was not large enough to
protect the entire baggage train ({\it C.G.,} p.~628).

\S 5. {\bf phalange.} The men in the front rank held their shields,
which overlapped, before their bodies, while those behind bore
theirs horizontally over their heads. Cf. Livy, x, 29, \S 6.

25, \S 1. {\bf omnium} evidently means only the mounted officers of
the legions, not the cavalry.

2. {\bf pilis.} See p.~lxiv and {\it C.G.,} p.~599.

3. {\bf cum .~.~. inflexisset.} See p.~lxiv. When {\it cum} is used in
describing repeated action, it is generally coupled with an indicative.
The subjunctive, as Meusel observes ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~371), is here
not only iterative but causal. Caesar does, however, occasionally use
the subjunctire in a purely iterative sense, e.g. in {\it B.C.,} iii,
47, \S 7.

\S 5. {\bf spatio,} which is evidently required, was supplied by
B.~Dinter. Schneider's attempt to defend the {\sc MS.} text fails.

\S 6. {\bf novissimis praesidio erant.} These words have generally
been taken to mean that, after the emigrants retraced their
steps (23 \S 3), the Boi and Tulingi served as the rearguard of
the whole column, including the wagon-train, which they
marched past in order to come into action. But it is very
doubtful whether the first stage of the battle lasted long
enough to enable them to do this. M.~Jullian understands the
Latin in the sense that the Helvetii had left the Boi and
Tulingi on the road to guard the wagons in front of which
they had been marching. I believe that he is right; but if
so, the wagons must surely have been protected in their rear by
another force, which took no part in the battle ({\it C.G.,} pp.~629--30).

{\bf ex itinere} shows that the attack began immediately after the
march ended. I translate thus:---`marched up, immediately
attacked,' \&c.

{\bf $\langle$ab$\rangle$ latere apeito.} The insertion of {\it ab,} as
Meusel shows ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~299, with which cf.~{\it L.C.,} i,
36--9), is necessary. The words mean `on the right flank', which was
exposed (aperto) because the shield was worn on the left arm. This was
denied by Stoffel, who maintained that the words simply meant `on the
exposed flank',---left or right, as the case might be; but there are at
least three passages in Caesar---iv, 26, \S 3; v, 35, \S 2; and vii, 82, \S
2---which prove that {\it ab latere aperto} is a technical military phrase,
and means what I have said. For the troops which are mentioned in each of
these passages were exposed, as far as their position was concerned, on
their left as well as on their right; and therefore either {\it ab latere
aperto} signified `on the right and unshielded flank' or it signified
nothing. The passage on which this note is written is fully discussed in
{\it C.G.,} pp.~621--3, the arguments in which have been accepted on the
Continent as conclusive.

\S 7. Mommsen ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p. 201) gives a sufficient reason
for regarding {\it conversa} as an interpolation:---`the first two lines
did {\it not} change front.'

26, \S 2. {\bf ab hora septima.} The Romans divided the period
between sunrise and sunset into 12 hours, which of course were
only equal to our hours at the equinox.

{\bf pugnatum sit.} If Caesar had written {\it pugnaretur} he would, so
to speak, have been placing the reader at the standpoint of a
spectator of the battle; whereas the perfect merely states that
the battle lasted seven hours without calling upon the reader to
form a mental picture of it. See {\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~357.

\S 3. {\bf rotas} seems at first sight superfluous; and some editors
adopt Meiser's emendation, {\it raedas} (cf. 51, \S 2). Perhaps, however,
(inter carros) {\it rotas}(que) may be defended on the analogy
of {\it inter carros impedimentaque} (iv, 14, \S 4), if we may suppose that
in the latter case the baggage was {\it in} the carts; and, moreover,
the wheels may have played a part in the defence. See p.~436.

\S 5. {\bf Ex eo proelio .~.~. pervenerunt.} Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910,
p.~39)
rightly brackets {\it nullam partem .~.~. intermisso.} The words are
absolutely superfuous if {\it noctis} denotes the same night as {\it ea
tota nocte;} and if Caesar had meant to describe a succession of night
marches and to imply that the Helvetii rested by day, which is more than
improbable, he would have written not {\it noctis} but {\it noctium}
({\it C.G.,} pp.~632--3). Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p.~55) also regards
the words {\it triduum morati} as interpolated, because, being followed
in the next sentence by {\it triduo intermisso,} they are unnecessary.
Suspicious they certainly are; but I can conceive that, after writing
them, Caesar wrote {\it triduo intermisso,} and forgot that he was
repeating himself.

In translating {\it die quarto} we must remember that the Romans
as a rule reckoned inclusively. Thus if the battle was fought
on a Sunday, the Helvetii reached the country of the Lingones
on Wednesday; but it is impossible to tell what point in that
country they had reached when Caesar overtook them. They
may have retreated to Dijon, the place which they would
naturally have made for if as is probable, they already
intended to return to Switzerland. See the note on 30, \S 5, and
{\it C.G.,} pp.~631--4.

27, \S 4. {\bf ea.} See the note on 29, \S 2.

{\bf conquiruntur} refers to {\it obsides} and {\it servos,} {\it
conferuntur} to {\it arma.}

Schneider tries to reconcile {\it nocte intermissa} with {\it prima nocte}
by explaining the former as meaning `after night began to
intervene'; but, as Meusel points out ({\it J.B.,} 1910, pp.~56--7),
it can only mean `after a night had passed'.

{\bf in tanta multitudine} is virtually equivalent to {\it cum tanta
multitudo esset.}

{\bf existimarent.} See the note on 23, \S 3.

28, \S 1. {\bf in hostium numero habuit.} Probably the 6,000 fugitives
were put to death. Cf.~Cicero, {\it Verr,} ii, 5, 25, \S 64; 28, \S 73;
{\it Cat.,} iii, 10, \S 25.

\S 5. {\bf petentibus Haeduis} is not dative, but ablative absolute.
Cf. ii, 12, \S 5.

28, \S 1. {\bf litteris Graecis.} Greek characters were also used by
Druids (vi, 14, \S 3). Some Gallic inscribed coins have a jumble
of Greek and Roman characters ({\it C.G.,} pp.~730--1).

\S 2. Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p.~51) doubts whether {\it Quarum omnium
rerum} is an interpolation or a corruption. The words seem
superfluous. If they are genuine, they are used as the genitive
of {\it quae omnia,} just as {\it ea} is used in 27, \S 4.

{\bf milium .~.~. milium.} The reading of {\it X} is milia; but Meusel
({\it J.B.,} 1891, p.~275) asks whether Caesar would have been guilty
of such a solecism as {\it equitum numerus fuit Vmilia.} He refers
to iv, 15, \S 3---{\it cum hostium numerus capitum CCCCXXX milium
fuisset}---and many similar passages.

\S 3. {\bf Summa .~.~. CCCLXVIII.} A German writer thinks it
suspicious that the original number of the whole host, according
to Caesar, was exactly four times the number of the fighting
men; and he concludes that Caesar merely made a rough
estimate, based upon the ascertained number of the men, whose
individual names were recorded (\S 1). Even so, however, the
whole number could hardly have been less than 300,000; and
some critics have argued that Caesar was guilty of exaggeration.
Napoleon III, who accepted his figures, gave reasons for believing
that the Helvetii had 8,500 wagons; and if so, the length of the
column would have been nearly 80 miles, {\it if the wagons moved in
single file.} But after the defeat of the Tigurini (12, \S\S 2--3) the
length would have been reduced to 60 miles; and of course the
wagons did not move in single file except when they were
crossing a bridge or passing through a narrow defile (6, \S 1).
Wagons in South Africa have often moved four, or even five,
abreast; and if the reader will think for a minute he will see
that crossing a bridge would simply have caused delay: it
would not have increased the length of the column by one yard
more than the length of the bridge. Besides, it has been
suggested by Captain G. Veith that the Helvetii, having eaten
up the greater part of their three months' supply of corn (5, \S 3)
before the battle, and having, moreover, been disheartened by
the defeat of the Tigurini, had abandoned many of their wagons.
Anyhow, good judges are now almost all agreed that there is
no reason for disbelieving Caesar when he says that, according
to the Helvetian schedule, the original strength of the allied
army was 92,000 ({\it C.G.,} pp.~237--41). See, however, p.~436.

{\bf fuerunt.} Both the number and the tense are noticeable. In
\S 2 Caesar wrote {\it summa erat,} the plural here is due to the
infiuence of the predicate. In \S 2 Caesar probably used the imperfect
because he was emphasizing the process of computation
which was gradual; whereas in {\it fuerunt} we have the final result.

{\bf ad.} See the first note on 4, \S 2.

30, \S 1. {\bf totius fere Galliae} does not mean the whole of Gaul
in the wider sense,---the sense in which the word is used in 1, \S 1;
for the Belgae made war upon Caesar in the following year,
and, moreover, it may be doubted whether the representatives
of the more distant tribes would have had time to reach him:
indeed for the same reason the words can hardly mean the
whole of that part of Gaul which was inhabited by the Celtae.
Probably, then, Mommsen is right in supposing that Caesar
was loosely referring to Central Gaul. We must remember
that he said fere ({\it C.G.,} p.~634).

\S 2. {\bf populi Romani.} The Aldine edition, which Meusel now
follows, has {\it populus Romanus,} but I do not see any sufficient
reason for rejecting the authority of the {\sc MSS.} In {\it B.C.,} i, 7,
\S 7 {\it iniurias} takes an objective genitive: the men of the 13th legion
declared {\it sese paratos esse imperatoris sui tribunorumque plebis
iniurias defendere.}

{\bf terrae} is rightly bracketed by Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p.~72).

\S 5. {\bf concilio.} M.~Jullian may be right in supposing that this
council was held at Bibracte; for, although Caesar's narrative
suggests that the place of meeting was in the country of the
Lingones, he does not say so, and political reasons may have
influenced him to go to the capital of his subservient allies, the
Aedui, and to emphasize by his presence there at the head of
his victorius army the fact that he was now the master of Gaul.
Indeed, if the Helvetii retreated to Dijon (see the note on 26, \S 5),
we may be almost sure that the council was held at Bibracte,
for the distance from Dijon to Besan{\c c}on (Vesontio) is much
too short to correspond with Caesar's account of his march
37, \S 5; 38).

31, \S 1. Meusel brackets {\it in occulto,} which is omitted in the
first printed edition of the Commentaries. No doubt the words
are open to suspicion; but Schneider's defence seems to me
reasonable. He thinks that Caesar intended to show how
anxious the chiefs were for secrecy, {\it secreto} implying that they
wished inquisitive persons to be excluded from the proposed
interview, {\it in occulto} that they wished it to be held in a hidden
spot.

\S 3. {\bf Galliae totius .~.~. Avernos.}  See p.~lix, and cf. vi, 12, \S
1,
where Caesar says that, {\it when he arrives at Gaul,} `one faction
was headed by the Aedui, the other by the Sequani.' There is
no inconsistency between the two passages. Probably the
Sequani, after they were reinforced by Ariovistus, usurped the
supremacy which had been exercised by the Arverni.

\S 5. {\bf ad.} See the first note on 4, \S 2.

\S 6. {\bf clientes} here means dependent tribes. A state which had
`clients' exercised over them whatever power it could; and
some clients were less dependent upon the same state than
others. Thus the Cadurci, the Gabali, and the Vellavii were
under the {\it imperium} of the Arverni, and therefore had to render
military service when required to do so (vii, 75, \S 2) and
probably also to pay tribute, as the Eburones did to the Atuatuci
(v, 27, \S 2); but the Carnutes, although they were clients of the
Remi, were evidently not under their {\it imperium,} for they rebelled
against Caesar when the Remi remained loyal (vi, 4, \S 5). Client
tribes certainly managed their own internal affairs, and, as we
learn from vi, 12, \S\S 6--8, occasionally transferred their allegiance
flom one powerful state to another ({\it C.G.,} pp.~517--19).

{\bf nobilitatem} does not mean `the nobility' or `the nobles', but
simply `men of rank': in other words, it does not denote a
definite class, like our peerage, but merely the most prominent
members of the class which Caesar (vi, 13, \S 3) calls {\it equites,} or
knights. For in vi, 13, immediately after saying that in Gaul
there were only two classes which were held in any esteem, and
immediately before saying that `one of the two classes consists
of the Druids, the other of the knights,' he makes this remark:---
`Generally, when crushed by debt or heavy taxation or ill treated
by powerful individuals, they [the common people] bind them-
selves to serve men of rank ({\it plerique cum aut aere alieno aut
magnitudine tributorum aut iniuria potentiorum premuntur, sese
in servitutem dicant nobilibus}). If the nobiles had formed a
definite class, superior to the {\it equites,} Caesar would have said
that there were only three classes which were held in any esteem.

{\bf equitatum.} I am not quite sure whether equitatum here means
`cavalry' or `knighthood'---i.e.~`knights' (see p.~lv and vi,
15). Of course the Aedui had not lost all their cavalry, as 15,
\S 1 proves, but doubtless Diviciacus exaggerated.

\S 7. {\bf hospitio.} The {\it hospitium} between the Romans and the Aedui
(see p.~xli) was an example of what was called hospitium publicum,---a
friendly agreement concluded between the Roman
People and a foreigner or a foreign state. The articles of the
agreement were regularly engraved on stone or bronze and
preserved in the Roman archives ({\it D.S.,} iii, 300--1).

\S 8. {\bf potuerit.} A beginner who had just made the acquaintance of
Oratio Obliqua might expect to find potuisset here;
but in relative clauses of this kind Caesar often uses the perfect
conjunctive even when secondary tenses precede and follow.
Perhaps in this case the primary tense is used under the influence
of the present infinitive esse ({\it J.B.,} 1894, pp. 362--3). In Oratio
Recta the verb would be {\it potui.}

\S 10. {\bf tertiamque partem .~.~. occupavisset.} This region was
evidently in the plain of Alsace (43, \S 1; {\it C.G.,} p.~637).

{\bf pararentur} means not `were being prepared', but `had to be
prepared'.

\S 11. {\bf ex Galliae finibus.}  J.~Lange ({\it N.J.,} cli, 1895, p.~809)
conjectures that Caesar wrote (omnes) {\it Galli e finibus} (pellerentur)
symmetrically with {\it omnes Germani Rhenum transirent,} but that
a copyist mistook {\it Galli e} for {\it Galliae.} Perhaps; but it seems to
me more than rash to disregard the {\sc MS.} tradition for such a
reason.

\S 12. {\bf semel} is apparently opposed to {\it semel atque iterum} and
{\it Gallorum} to {\it Haeduos eorumque clientes} in \S 6; so we may
conclude that the Sequani, finding that they had gained nothing
by their victories (\S 10), had joined the Aedui and made a
desperate effort to get rid of Ariovistus. See 40, \S 8 and
{\it C.G.,} pp.~554--5.

{\bf quod proelium .~.~. Magetobrigam.} This battle was probably
fought in 60 {\sc B.C.}; for it appears from a letter of Cicero
({\it Att.,} i, 19, \S 2), written on the 1st of March in that year, that
the Aedui had recently suffered a defeat ({\it C.G.,} p.~554).

{\bf omnia exempla cruciatusque} is not a hendiadys; but, {\it exempla}
being a general word, {\it cruciatus} is added, to make it clear what kind
of {\it exempla} Ariovistus inflicted. {\it Exampla} means such
punishments as would be a warning to others: so we speak of `exemplary
punishment'.

\S\S 12--16. The secondary tenses of the subjunctive, which
occur, according to rule, in \S\S 3--11 (except in \S 8), are followed
in these last five sentences by primary tenses of the subjunctive, which
are due to the present infinitives, imperare, poscere, \&c. Diviciacus was
here speaking of what had recently happened and of what was actually going
on. See the note on 14, \S\S 5--6.

\S 12. {\bf obsides .~.~. facta sit} explains {\bf superbe .~.~. imperare}
and should be translated by a participial clause:---`Ariovistus .~.~. was
exercising his authority with arrogance and cruelty, demanding from every
man of rank his children as hostages,' \&c.

\S 14. {\bf ut.} See the note on 5, \S 1.

32, \S 5. {\bf tamen} is here used in what is called a concessive
sense, and the meaning of {\it reliquis .~.~. daretur} might be expressed
by `the others had at any rate a chance of escape'.

{\bf quorum oppida .~.~. essent,} as 38, \S 1 shows, was an exaggeration.

33, \S 1. {\bf beneficio suo} is explained by 35, \S 2.

\S 2. {\bf Et} is deleted by Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p.~59), on the
ground that Caesar could not have used it in the sense of `also'. This
makes me wonder why he inserts {\it Et} at the beginning of 52, \S 3.
He also deletes {\it in} (dicione), which, I may remark, is omitted
in {\it L,} because of about 170 passages in Caesar this is the only
one in which a preposition is repeated before the second of two
synonymous or nearly related concepts connected by a copulative
conjunction.
{\bf fratres .~.~. appellatos.} See p.~xli, the first note on 3, \S 4 and
{\it C.G.,} p.~519.

\S 4 {\bf ut ante .~.~. fecissent} is evidently to be taken not with the
preceding, but with the following clause, a1though in fact it
relates to the former as well.

{\it Cimbri Teutonique.} See pp. lviii--lix.

{\bf praesertim .~.~. divideret.} Schneider observes that Ariovistus
and his followers, who were settled in the country of the
Sequani, would have been able to cross the Rh\^one easily
whereas mountains would have been to some extent a barrier;
but in reality mountains are weak defences, and to cross a river
in the face of a resolute enemy is difficult. Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910
p.~34) argues that Caesar would have written {\it Rhodanus solus}
(or unus) and that after {\it Sequanos} he would have added {\it in quorum
finibus Germani considerant.} These reasons are hardly conclusive; but they
justify Meusel in bracketing {\it praesertim .~.~.
divideret.}

34, \S 1. {\bf utrisque} is a correction, made by Ciacconius, of
{\it utriusque.} The genitive would not be admissible except in
poetry; and, as Meusel says ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~285), even if it were
Caesar would bave written (medium) {\it ipsius et Caesaris.}

\S 2. {\bf velit.} Perhaps Caesar used the present in order to
show that the supposition was probable. In Oratio Recta (opus)
{\it esset} would remain {\it esset;} but {\it velit} would become {\it
vis.}

35, \S 2. {\bf in consulatu .~.~. appellatus esset.} Cf.~43, \S 4.\ I
believe that Caesar (and the Senate) had conferred upon Ariovistus
the titles of King and of Friend of the Roman People in order
to secure his neutrality in view of the threatened Helvetian
invasion. Caesar foresaw that when he went to Gaul he would
have to deal both with the Helvetii and with Ariovistus; and
to dispose of two formidable hosts separately would be quite as
much as he could manage. Guglielmo Ferrero, the well-known
Italian historian, does not agree with me: he has argued that
Caesar made an `alliance' with Ariovistus in order to purchase
his aid against the Helvetii. I need only say here that if Caesar
conferred titles upon Ariovistus in order to obtain his aid against
the Helvetii, it is impossible to explain why he never availed
himself of it. It was as much as he could do, unaided, to defeat
the Helvetii: why, then, did he not call upon Ariovistus to join
him? Obviously because he had never contemplated a proceeding which would
paralyse his policy. If he had accepted the aid of Ariovistus against the
Helvetii, it would have been impossible for him to turn round afterwards
and expel Ariovistus from Gaul. And that was what he meant to do ({\it
C.G.,} pp.~218--24).

Generally in Caesar when Oratio Obliqua depends, as it does
here, upon a historic present, the tenses of the subjunctive are
primary: here, however, secondary tenses---{\it appellatus esset,
referret,} \&c.---are used under the influence of the past participle
{\it adfectus} ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~362).

\S 4. {\bf id} is deleted by Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p.~59), who remarks
that Caesar writes {\it si ita fecisse(n)t} or {\it si id fecisset,} but
not {\it si id ita fecisset.}  Probably the {\it id} was due to
dittography,---the careless repetition of a word by a copyist in the same
or nearly the same form. Schneider, however, defends {\it id,} on the
ground that Caesar had to define his requirements as precisely as possible.

{\bf quoniam .~.~. defenderet.} See pp.~lix--lx. Messala and Piso were
consuls in 61 {\sc B.C.} Quod is not a conjunction but a relative pronoun,
equivalent to {\it quantum;} and the clause {\it quod .~.~. posset} might
be translated by `so far as the public interest would permit'. {\it
Commodo} is ablative, not dative.

36, \S 4. {\bf vectigalia .~.~. faceret.} We may infer that the Aedui,
relying upon Caesar's aid, had withheld, or threatened to withhold, part of
the tribute. The subjunctive would be used even if the speech were in
Oratio Recta, for the clause {\it qui .~.~. faceret} is causal.

\S 5. {\it longe .~.~. afuturum.} These words are easy to understand
but hard to translate. Perhaps this will do,---(if not,) `much
good would the title of ``Brethren of the Roman People'' do
them!'

\S 7, {\bf qui inter .~.~. subissent.} It may be gathered from this
boast that Ariovistus arrived in Gaul in 71 {\sc B.C.}; for he affirmed
(44, \S 2) that he `had not left home and kinsmen without great
expectations and great inducements', and these words are
hardly consistent with the supposition that his wanderings had
begun in Germany ({\it C.G.,} pp.~553--4)

37, \S 2. {\bf eorum.} See the first note on 5, \S 4.

\S 4. {\bf Sueborum,} Accordinr, to Tacitus ({\it Germania,} 38), {\it
Suebi} was a general name, denoting a people whose several tribes
had particular names. The hundred pagi are noticed again in iv, 1, \S 4.

\S 5. {\bf refrumentaria .~.~. comparata.} These words, as one might
infer from 39, \S 6 and 40, \S 11, are not identical in meaning
with {\it frumento .~.~. comparato.} The sense is `he arranged as
quickly as possible for a supply of corn'. The corn was to be
sent after him.

38, \S 1. {\bf triduique viam .~.~. processisse.} Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910,
p.~44) is, I think, right in bracketing these words, although I do not
accept all his arguments. Following (cum) {\it tridui viam processisset,}
the clause is suspicious. Moreover, it would seem to
imply that Ariovistus had already completed the three days'
journey `from his own territory'---that is, from the territory
which he had wrested from the Sequani (31, \S 10) when Caesar's
informant started on his errand. If so, Ariovistus would nearly
have reached Vesontio (Besan{\c c}on) when the messenger reached
Caesar, and the suspected words would be inexplicable.  Therefore, although
I can frame no theory to account for the supposed interpolation, I
tentatively follow Meusel ({\it C.G.,} pp.  637--8).

\S 3.  {\bf idque} W.  Paul ({\it B.ph.W.,} 1884, col.~1209--10), who
thinks that {\it id} here is weak and pointless, may be right in proposing
{\it idemque.}

\S 4.  {\bf ad ducendum bellum.} I am inclined to think that Stoffel
({\it G.C.,} ii, 370--3, 378) is right in taking these words to mean `for
prolonging the campaign',--with the object of postponing a
decisive battle till a convenient day.  In ancient warfare an
army in a strongly fortified position was generally secure so
long as its supplies lasted, while one pitched battle generally
decided the issue of a campaign, because the beaten army,
when once its formation had been destroyed, was pursued and
routed, almost always with enormous loss.  Cf.  {\it L.C.,} i, 404.
Anyhow, Caesar was thinking of the advantage which possession
of Vesontio would confer upon Ariovistus.

\S 5.  {\bf non amplius .~.~.  MDC.} Caesar, like the other writers of
the Golden Age of Latin literature, invariably omits ouam with
amplius; and the literal meaning is (which is of) `1,600 feet,---no more'.

{\bf MDC,} which represents the actual distance, is an emendation, due to
Napoleon III, for the {\sc MS.} reading, DC.

39, \S 1.  Kraner says that {\it congressos} can only be used of hostile
encounters, and therefore can only refer to {\it Gallorum,} not to {\it
mercatorum.} But in vi, 5, \S 5 {\it cum Transrhenanis congredi} obviously
means `to join the peoples beyond the Rhine'.

{\bf mentes animosque} may be rendered by `judgement and nerve'.

\S 2.  {\bf tribunis militum.} See p.~lxiii.  Although Caesar, in order
to oblige politicians who might be useful to him, occasionally
granted sinecure tribuneships to men who had no experience
of war (Cicero, {\it Fam.,} vii, 8, \S 1), numerous passages in the
Bellum Gallicum (ii, 26, \S 1; iii, 14, \S \S 3--4; iv, 23, \S 5; v, 52,
\S 4; vi, 39, \S 2; vii, 47, \S 2; 62, \S 6) prove that the duties of
tribunes in general were most important ({\it C.G.,} pp.~565--7).

{\bf praefectis.} These were the officers of the auxiliary corps,---
the archers and slingers (see p.~lxiii).  The cavalry officers were
called {\it praefecti equitum.} They are not referred to here, as one
may gather from \S 5.

{\bf qui} refers only to {\it reliquis.} The men to whom Caesar alludes
may have included {\it contubernales,}---youths who accompanied a
general in the field without being attached to any particular
corps, in order to gain experience and to profit by his advice;
but probably these friends were `fashionable idlers and disappointed
professional men, who .~.~.  simply wanted to mend
their fortunes by looting' ({\it C.G.,} pp.~60, 101; {\it A.B.,}
pp.~327--8) or to ingratiate themselves with Caesar.

\S 3.  {\bf diceret.} Schneider remarks that the mood is due to a
kind of attraction, {\it quam .~.~.  diceret} being equivalent to {\it quae
sibi, ut dicebat .~.~.  necessaria esset.} Cf.~the note on 23, \S 3.

\S 4.  {\bf Vulgo .~.~.  obsignabantur.} Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910,
pp.~44--5) argues that these words are an interpolation.  The reasons
which he gives---that they break the context and, in their
existing position, can only refer to {\it non nulli} in \S 3, with which
they are inconsistent---appear to me inadequate.  Any one who
reads the chapter in my translation of the Gallic War will,
I think, admit that the suspected words fit naturally into
their place; and I find it impossible to believe that they were
invented.

{\bf signa ferri} simply means `to advance'. The standards
played so important a part as rallying-points for the men that
Caesar constantly uses the word {\it signa} in phrases in which it
cannot be translated literally.

40, \S 1.  {\bf omniumque ordinum .~.~.  centurionibus.} Councils of
war were not attended by centurions except those of `the first
rank',---the six centurions of the first cohort of each legion.
All the centurions were summoned to this council, which was
not a council of war, because all were, more or less, concerned.

{\bf adhibis centurionibus, vehementer eos incusavit.} This construction
frequently recurs in Caesar, often apparently, as here,
for the sake of emphasis, sometimes perhaps as a mere mannerism.  {\it
Adhibitos centuriones incusavit} would be much less
forcible than the expression which Caesar used.

{\bf putarent.} The learner should not pass on to the next sentence
until he is sure that he understands why Caesar wrote {\it putarent,}
not {\it putabant.} When he really understands he will never be
puzzled again.  If Caesar had used the indicative, the meaning
would have been, `Caesar accused them because they thought';
in other words.  `Caesar's motive for accusing them was that
they thought,' \&c.  But this is not exactly what he meant.
His meaning was, `Caesar accused them, and gave as his reason
for accusing them the fact that they thought,' \&c.  To bring
out the meaning of such subjunctives in idiomatic English
requires hard thinking.  This translation, I think, will serve.---
`Observing the state of affairs, Caesar called a meeting, to
which the centurions of all grades were summoned, and rated
them severely for presuming to suppose,' \&c.

\S 2.  {\bf iudicaret.} According to one of the rules formulated by
grammarians, we should expect {\it iudicare:} for the question is
what they call rhetorical,--that is to say, no answer is expected;
and in Oratio Recta {\it iudicaret} would become {\it iudicat.} But I have
noticed that Caesar often violates so-called rules of Oratio
Obliqua; and since he was certainly a master of his own
language, one may be allowed to suggest that the rules need
revision.  I find that Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1894, pp.~388--9) agrees
with me.

\S 4.  {\bf Quod si.} See the first note on 14, \S 3.  Here, however,
{\it quod} must be translated: its English equivalent is `But' (supposing,
\&c.).

\S 5.  {\bf Cimbris .~.~.  pulsis.} See p.~lix.

{\bf cum non minorem .~.~.  videbatur.}  Meusel ({\it J.B.} 1910, p.~42)
rightly brackets these words, because {\it videbatur} is ungrammatical.  In
the {\sc MSS.} {\it cum} precedes {\it Cimbris;} but as {\it Factum .~.~.
memoria} without the addition of {\it Cimbris .~.~.  pulsis} would hardly
have been intelligible to ignorant centurions, {\it Cimbris .~.~.  pulsis}
must have been written by Caesar, and accordingly I follow
Meusel in transposing {\it cum.} Beware of translating {\it videbatur}
by `seemed': the meaning is that the army, {\it as all could see} (or
{\it as was evident}), had earned, \&c.  One might translate by `the
army confessedly earned'.

{\bf servili tumultu.} This insurrection, the leader of which was
the famous Spartacus, occurred in 73--71 {\sc B.C.}

{\bf sublevarint} is an emendation, proposed by Morus, for {\it
sublevarent,} the reading of all the {\sc MSS.} except {\it f,} which has
sublevaret.  The imperfect is evidently wrong, for in Oratio
Recta the verb would be {\it sublevaverunt.}

\S 7.  {\it superarint} is the reading of $\alpha$, which Meusel follows,
apparently against his own inclination ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~366):
$\beta$ has {\it superassent.} Meusel thinks that the contracted form of
{\it superaverint} is somewhat suspicious, and that if Caesar had
written {\it superarint,} followed immediately by {\it potuerint,} he would
most probably have used present tenses ({\it commoveat} and
{\it quaerant}) in \S 8.  Moreover, he adds, the relative clause {\it
quibus
cum .~.~.  superassent} is closely connected with what precedes
and corresponds with the other relative clauses (\S \S 5--6) in
which we find the pluperfects {\it accepissent} and {\it timuissent,} and
it is more likely that the writer of $\beta$ would have altered {\it
superassent} into {\it superarint} than vice versa.  I may remark that
Meusel himself reads {\it perequitarit} in vii, 66, \S 7; and I agree with
Prof.~Postgate, who observes ({\it C.R.,} 1903, p.~444) that Caesar
used `one tense [{\it superarint}] for the recent victory of the
Helvetii and another [{\it superassent}] for the remote defeat' of the
slaves.

\S 8.  {\bf adversum .~.~.  Gallorum} refers to the battle of Magetobriga
(31, \S 12).

9.  {\bf barbaros} does not here mean `barbarian', though it
implies some contempt, such as an average Englishman feels
when he calls Indians `the natives'.  {\it Homines .~.~.  imperitos}
may be translated by `the simple natives'.

\S 10.  The position of {\it suum} shows that it is emphasized.

{\bf desperare .~.~. viderentur} is the reading of $\alpha$: $\beta$ has
{\it desperare aut praescribere auderent} which evidently will not do.  I
was once tempted to adopt an ingenious emendation, proposed by
Mommsen ({\it J.B.} 1894, p.~201),---{\it desperare viderentur aut
praescribere auderent;} but it seems to me that although the notion
of `daring' is implied in {\it praescribere, viderentur} is required with
both verbs.

\S 12.  {\bf dicantur.} See the note on 31, \S\S 12--16.

\line{\hrulefill}

\S 14.  {\bf in longiorem diem.}  See the first note on 7, \S 6.

\S 15.  {\bf sequatur.} See the note on 34, \S 2, and {\it J.B.,} 1894,
pp.~363--4.

{\bf dubitet} is a correction, made by Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~364).
The {\sc MSS.} have {\it dubitaret,} which, after {\it sequatur,} is out of
order.

{\bf praetoriam cohortem.} The praetorian cohort, or general's
bodyguard, was composed of the bravest men in the army.
The first general who formed a praetorian cohort was Scipio
Aemilianus in the siege of Numantia (133 {\sc B.C.}).

41, \S 1. {\bf innata.} I retain the {\sc MS.} reading, which seems to
me justified by Cicero ({\it Off.,} i, 19, \S 64--{\it in hac elatione
animi cupiditas principatus innascitur}) instead of J. Lange's
emendation, {\it inlata,} which is, however, supported by ii, 25,
\S 3 and vi, 43, \S 5.

\S 3.  {\bf primorum ordinem centurionibus.}  Who were the `centurions
of the first rank'? No less than eight theories have been
devised about them, but it is, I believe, now generally admitted
that they were the six centurions of the 1st cohort in each
legion.  For the ten cohorts in each legion were numbered;
the 1st ranked above the rest (v, 15, \S 4); and it may therefore
be presumed that all took rank according to their numbers.
That this was the case under the Empire is certain, for the
10th cohort was the lowest.  Moreover, a centurion was promoted in the
civil war `from the 8th class to the rank of
primipilus', or chief centurion of the legion; and Modestus,
a centurion who had served for eighteen years in four grades
of rank, held the position of {\it hastatus posterior} in the 3rd cohort,
which accords with the supposition that the 3rd cohort ranked
below the first two, but above all the rest.  A passage in Tacitus
({\it Hist.} iii, 22) shows that in the time of the Emperor Galba
there were not less than six {\it primorum ordinem centuriones} in
the 7th legion.  Lastly, it is proved by inscriptions that the
centurions of the 1st cohort known as {\it primus pilus prior; primus
princeps prior,} and {\it primus hastatus prior} were the first three
centurions of the legion; and the natural conclusion is that the
4th, 5th, and 6th centurions of the 1st cohort also ranked above
all the centurions of the other cohorts.

I am, however, inclined to believe that hesides the six centurions of the
1st cohort there were occasionally others who ranked as {\it primorum
ordinum centuliones.}  Caesar mentions three centurions (v, 35, \S 6; vi,
38, \S 1; B.C.  iii, 91, \S 1) who had been
the chief centurions of their respective legions; and he mentions
them in a way which shows that they were still respected by
the men just as much as if they had still been chief centurions.
Perhaps they were {\it evocati,} that is to say, men who had completed
their term of service, and were serving again as volunteers: anyhow it
seems not improbable that they would have ranked with
the {\it primorum ordinum centuriones} ({\it C.G.,} pp.~567--79).

\S 4.  {\bf ut milium amplius .~.~.  duceret} can only mean that the
circuitous part of the march was 50 Roman miles long; and this is just what
it would have been if Diviciacus had conducted Caesar by the natural route
which Stoffel indicated, namely, the road that leads past Voray, Rioz,
Filain, and Vallerois-le-Bois to Villersexel, and thence to Belfort.  In
regard to {\it amplius} see the note on 38, \S 5.

\S 5.  {\bf cum iter non intermitteret.}  As these words imply, it was
usual to give troops a day's rest occasionally; but evidently
Caesar wished to lose no time before encountering Ariovistus.

42, \S 1.  {\bf quod antea .~.~. existimaret.}  See the note on 35, \S 2. I
cannot explain why Caesar wrote {\it postularet, accessisset,} and {\it
existimaret} instead of {\it postulaverit, accesserit,} and {\it
existimet,} but perhaps, as Meusel suggests ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~362),
{\it mittit} found its way into the text owing to a copyist's blunder, and
should be replaced by {\it misit.}

\S 5.  Notice that {\it omnibus equis} is ablative, and {\it Gallis equitibus}
dative.  Caesar says {\it omnibus} (equis) because the Gallic cavalry
had of course spare horses.

{\bf legionarios} is used emphatically in contradistinction to {\it equitibus}
and also to the auxiliaries, who were brigaded with the legions.

Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p.~54) regards {\it cui .~.~.  confidebat} as
a marginal addition because in 40, \S 15 Caesar has already expressed
his confidence in the 10th legion.  Perhaps the words are open
to suspicion; but Caesar may have forgotten what he had said
or may have desired to emphasize it.

\S 6.  {\bf ad equum rescribere} means `enter in the list of {\it equites}'.
In Caesar's time the Roman {\it equites} were the class engaged in
business---banking, money-lending, \&c.---which senators were
forbidden to take part in (though they found ways of evading
the law), and comprising all whose property exceeded in value
400,000 sesterces (about {\it\$}3,333); but originally the {\it equites}
were the cavalry, who were selected from the wealthiest
citizens.  I suggest this as a translation of {\it plus quam .~.~.
rescribere:}--`Caesar is better than his word: he promised to make
the 10th his bodyguard; and now he's knighting us.'

43, \S 1.  {\bf Planities erat magna.}  This was evidently the plain
of Alsace.  See 53, \S 1.

{\bf tumulus terrenus.}  It is generally taken for granted that this
was a natural feature,---a knoll.  But if so, why did Caesar
describe it as {\it terrenus} (earthen)? He mentions four other
{\it tumuli} (vi, 8, \S 3; 40, \S 1; {\it B.C.,} i, 43, \S 1; iii, 51,
\S 8); but to
none of them does he apply the epithet {\it terrenus.}  It is true that
Livy (xxxviii, 20, \S 4) speaks of {\it colles terrenos:} but he is
contrasting them with rocky heights; and if the {\it tumulus} in
question was a knoll, it mattered nothing for the purpose of
Caesar's narrative whether it was rocky or grassy.  It is
certainly possible that it was simply an artificial earthen
mound or barrow, which has disappeared.  If it was a knoll,
there is only one with which it can be identified,---the `tertre
de Plettig'.  See the note on 48, \S 1 and {\it C.G.,} pp.~639--40, 642,
648--9.

\S 4 {\bf amplissime} is the reading of $\alpha$.  J.~H.~Schmalz ({\it
B.ph.W.,} 1912, col.~891--6) shows by many quotations that the Romans
often preferred an adverb where we should use an adjective.

\S 7.  Beware of translating {\it ut} by `that'.

{\bf omni tempore.} This was a diplomatic exaggeration on the
part of Caesar.  Towards the end of the second century {\sc B.C.}
Bituitus, King of the Arverni, and not long before Caesar's time
another Arvernian, Celtillus, the father of the great Vercingetorix
(vii, 4, \S 1), had exercised a loose supremacy over Gaul.

\S 8.  {\bf velit.}  Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~370) changes this into
{\it vellet,} on the grouud that if Caesar had once adopted a primary
tense after the preceding secondary tenses, he would in the
next sentence have written {\it possit.}  But, as Prof.~Postgate
remarks ({\it C.R.,} 1903, p.~443), `a recognized use of the Primary
Tenses is the one in General Maxims or Universal Statements.'

{\bf posset?} See the note on 40, \S 2.

\S 9.  {\bf in mandatis} does not mean `among his instructions', for
the instructions referred to were the only ones which Caesar
gave, but is equivalent to {\it mandatorum loco} (or {\it nomine}).

44, \S 2.  Notice that {\it sua sponte} does not mean the same here
as in 9, \S 2.

{\bf consuerint} instead of {\it consuessent} after {\it praedicavit} is
perhaps to be explained by the fact that a present infinitive, {\it capere,}
precedes ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~362, with which cf.~p.~360); or the
primary tense may have been used because the statement is general.  See
the notes on 31, \S 8 and 43, \S 8 ({\it velit}).

\S 3.  {\bf uno proelio,}---the battle of Magetobrlga.  Cf.~31, \S 12.

\S 4.  {\bf decertare.}  Caesar often uses {\it paratus} with an infinitive;
but, as in 5, \S 3 and 41, \S 2, he also uses it with {\it ad} and the
gerundive.

\S 5.  {\bf atque} is an emendation, proposed by R.~Menge, instead
of the {\sc MS.} reading, {\it idque.} Schneider explains {\it id} as
equivalent to {\it ut populi Romani amicus esset.}

\S 7.  {\bf finibus egressum} is the reading of $\alpha$: Klotz ({\it
C.S.,} p.~242) prefers that of $\beta$,--{\it fines ingressum.} He says
that it is not certain that a Roman army had never before crossed the
northern frontier of the Province, and that if one had, Ariovistus would
not have cared; for all that mattered to him was that Caesar should not
invade his province,---the territory which he had won from the Sequani.
Klotz accordingly deletes {\it prouinciae,} which he supposes, crept
into the text under the influence of the following {\it provinciam
suam;} and he remarks that when once {\it provinciae} had found its way
into the {\sc MSS.} it became necessary to alter {\it fines ingressum}
into {\it finibus egressum.} The argument is ingenious; but I should not
feel justified in following Klotz.  It is practically certain that no
Roman army had ever before marched beyond the Roman Province; and it
seems natural that Ariovistus should have complained that Caesar had
done so.  Besides, Caesar would hardly have used {\it Galliae} in this
context in the sense of Gaul {\it minus} the Province.

\S 8.  {\it Quid .~.~.  veniret?} Schneider punctuates thus,---{\it Quid
sibi vellet, cur .~.~.  ueniret?} (`What did Caesar mean by invading
his dominions?').

\S 9.  The reading of $\alpha$ is {\it quod fratres Haeduos appellatos
diceret,} while $\pi$ has {\it quod a se Haeduos amicos appellatos diceret,}
and $\rho$ has {\it quod a se Haeduos appellatos amicos diceret.}  All
editors are agreed that {\it a se,} which is here meaningless, is a
relic of {\it a senatu;} and the different positions of {\it amicos} in the
two families of 13 suggest that it is a gloss.  Klotz ({\it C.S.,}
pp.~242--3) supposes that in the archetype the text was {\it quod a se Haeduos
appellatos diceret,} something having dropped out after {\it se.}  He
proposes to fill up the gap thus,---{\it quod a se $\langle$natu fratres populi
Romani$\rangle$ Haeduos appellatos diceret;} for, as he says, {\it
fratres} alone was not the offlcial title.  But is it likely that
Ariovistus would have troubled himself about the official title ?

(tam) {\bf barbarum} might here be translated by (such) `a dolt'.

{\bf bello Allobrogum proximo.}  See 6, \S 3, and p.~lx.

\S 1.  {\bf quod.}  A.~S.~Wesenberg suggested {\it quem,} an emendation
which Meusel adopts.  Nothing, so far as I can see, is gained by
rejecting the {\sc MS.} reading.  Ariovistus meant that in keeping
an army at all in Gaul, outside the Province, Caesar was doing
wrong.  See \S 7.

\S 13.  {\bf decessisset,} compared with {\it interfecerit} (\S 12), is
noticeable.
Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1894, pp.~360--1) thinks that the change of tense
is due to {\it compertum habere} (\S 12).  I doubt this.  Prof.~Postgate
({\it C.R.,} 1903, p.~443) points out that `when Ariovistus is threatening Caesar .~.~. he uses the Primary tenses [which are more
vivid], when promising him rewards the Secondary '.

45, \S 2.  {\bf Bello .~.~. Fabio Maximo.}  This war occurred in
121 {\sc B.C.}  See p.~xli.

46, \S 1.  H.~J.~M\"uller ({\it W.kl.Ph.,} 1894, col.~566) is perhaps
right in inserting {\it et} after {\it adequitare.}

\S 3.  {\bf per fidem,}---namely, {\it a Caesare datam.}  The meaning is
that they had been surrounded `through'---that is, through
their trust in---`Caesar's pledged word'.  We might translate
thus,---`that he had pledged his word and then surrounded
them.'

\S 4.  fecissent.  Meusel adopts H.~Kleist's emendation, {\it fecisse.}

{\bf ut.}  See the first note on 43, \S 7.

47, \S 1.  Professor J.~C.~Rolfe of the University of Pennsylvania
has suggested to me that {\it Biduo post} means `On the next day'
and I believe that he is right.  For {\it triduo post} certainly means
{\it post tertium diem,} it is admitted that {\it post tertium diem}
(iv, 9, \S 1) is equivalent to {\it tertio die,} reckoning inclusively; and therefore
{\it biduo post} is surely equivalent to {\it altero die,} which is
substantially the same as {\it postero die.}

{\bf eos.}  See the first note on 5, \S 4.

{\bf neque} is evidently equivalent to {\it neque tamen,}---`but not'.

{\bf uti .~.~.  mitteret.}  I do not know any other instance in which
Caesar uses {\it uti} or {\it ut} to introduce an imperative or admonitory
clause.

\S 2.  {\bf pridie eius diei} is bracketed by Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910,
p.~45) on the ground that it contradicts {\it Biduo post} in the
preceding sentence; but (supposing that the common translation of {\it
biduo post} is right) is it not as likely that Caesar was careless as
that a reader wrote a misleading note in the margin? Cf.~Ph., 1863,
p.~499.

\S 3.  Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, pp.~55--6) deletes {\it ex suis,} on the
ground that, following {\it ex suis legatis aliquem ad se mitteret} in
\S 1, {\it legatum ex suis} could only mean {\it legatum ex suis legatis,}
which, he says, is impossible.  I think, however, that Caesar
wrote {\it ex suis} in contrast to C.~Valerium Procillum (who was not
a Roman, but a provincial) in \S 4; and I find that Klotz ({\it C.S.,}
p.~238, n.~1) agrees with me, though he would alter legatis in
\S 1 into legatum.

\S 4.  {\bf C.~Valerium.}  See the note on i, 19, \S 3 ({\it Valerium}).

{\bf esset.}  The subjunctive is used because Caesar was not stating
a fact, but expressing a thought which had passed through his
mind.  Thus {\it quod .~.~.  causa non esset} is equivalent to {\it quod, ut
Caesari videbatur .~.~.  causa non erat.}

{\bf hospitio.}  By the Roman institution called {\it hospitium privatum}
agreements were concluded between individual Roman citizens
and individual foreigners, under which the former were entitled
to receive hospitality from the latter.  It has been remarked
that this practice must have been very useful in places
where the accommodation of inns was not available ({\it D.S.,} iii,
298--9).  Provincials upon whom the members of a governor's staff were
billeted were also called {\it hospites} (Cocero, {\it Att.,} v, 1, \S 2).

C.~Valerius Flaccus was Governor of the Province in 83 {\sc B.C.}
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, after Roman citizenship had been conferred, as a result of the Social war, upon all
the free population of Italy, eminent men had been authorized
to confer the {\it civitas} upon deserving foreigners; and Caesar
exercised this privilege on his own responsibility.  See Cicero,
{\it Pro Archia,} 10, \S 26; {\it Pro Balbo,} 21, \S 48; {\it Fam.,}
xiii, 36, \S 1; and Dion Cassius, xli, 24, \S 1.

48, \S 1.  {\bf sub monte consedit.}  These words are very important
for, if they do not enable us to identify the site of the battle
between Caesar and Ariovistus (51--2), they greatly narrow the
choice and condemn nearly all the attempts that have been
made to dctermine the topography of the campaign.  The
great majority of these guesses are irreconcilable either with
Caesar's statement (41, \S 4) that the circuitous part of his march
from Besan{\c c}on was more than fifty Roman miles long, or with
the statement that his interview with Ariovistus took place in
a great plain (43, \S 1), or with the statement, on which this note
is written, that Ariovistlls halted, on the night before he marched
past Caesar's camp, at the foot of a mountain.  The only theories
which we need examine are those of Colonel Stoffel and M.~Jullian.

The words {\it sub monte consedit,} as Stoffel remarks, show why Caesar
did not attack Ariovistus while he was making the flank march which is
described in 48, \S 2.  They prove that he marched along high ground,
where the Romans could not attack him without heavy loss: for Caesar,
who was economical of words, would not have told us that Ariovistus
encamped at the foot of a mountain unless the statement had been
essential to his narrative; nor would it have been essential unless it
had implied that Ariovistus, after encamping there, ascended the slopes
in order to execute his march without the risk of being attacked.

According to Stoffel, Caesar marched from Vesontio (Besan{\c c}on)
at the rate of about sixteen miles a day, and encamped at the
end of his seven days' march (41, \S 5) on the left bank of the
Fecht, between Ostheim and Gemar: the {\it tumulus terrenus satis
grandis} (43, \S 1) was the `tertre de Plettig'; Ariovistus made
his flank march on the lower slopes of the Vosges between the
defiles of the Weiss and the Strengbach; and Caesar made the
smaller camp which he mentions in 49, \S\S 1--2 on a spur of
the Vosges between Bebelnheim and Mittelweier.  The `tertre
de Plettig' is the only knoll which answers to Caesar's description;
therefore, unless the {\it tumulus} was artificial (see the
note on 43, \S 1), this fact settles the question in favour of
Stoffel.  Stoffel also affirms that the only part of the Vosges
along which the flank march of Ariovistus would have been
practicable is the part between the two defiles which I have
mentioned; but I am not sure that it would not have been
equally practicable further southward, between Cernay and
Roderen, where M.~Jullian places it.  M.~Jullian thinks that
Caesar originally encamped about a mile and a half south-west
of Cernay; that Ariovistus encamped, in order to cut Caesar's
communication, at Roderen, near the `benchmark' fixed by
the engineers who mapped the country; and that Caesar pitched
his smaller camp on the plateau between Michelbach and Guerwenheim.  He
objects that Stoffel places the battle-field too far
north, but Caesar's words (41, \S 5) show that he marched rapidly
from Vesontio and therefore probably pushed as far northward
as Stoffel thinks, and, moreover, it seems not unlikely that
Ariovistus, after he had failed to seize Vesontio (38, \S\S 1--2, 7)
may have thought it wise to lure Caesar as far as possible from
his base.  Between Stoffel and Jullian excavation alone could
decide; but Stoffel could not excavate, as the site was covered
by vineyards ({\it C.G.,} pp.~636--52).

{\bf frumento .~.~.  supportaretur.}  Cf.~37, \S 5; 39, \S 1; and 40, \S 11.

Notice that Caesar does not say that Ariovistus expected to
cut his communication with the convoys which he expected from
the Leuci and the Lingones (see 40, \S 11).

\S 3.  {\bf pro castris .~.~.  habuit.}  Caesar did this in order to restore
the nerve of his soldiers, who had perhaps not quite shaken off
the effect of their recent panic (see 39--40).  We may infer from
{\it B.C.,} iii, 55, \S 1, 84, \S 2 that artillery (see p.~lxiv), of which
Ariovistus had none, were mounted, ready to protect them.
Ariovistus might attack if he liked: but if he attacked, it would
be at his peril, if he declined the challenge, the legionaries
would be assured that the Germans were not invincible.

{\bf ut .~.~.  non deesset.}  Though {\it ut} here expresses a purpose, and
the learner knows that in final sentences he must not write
{\it ut non,} but {\it ne,} he will not suppose that Caesar wrote bad Latin.
{\it Ne} here would be very weak, and {\it ut .~.~.  non deesset} is
justifiable, because {\it non deesset} is virtually equivalent to {\it
adesset.} Meusel, indeed ({\it L.C.,} iii, 2410), and other editors take it as
consecutive; but Schneider agrees with me.

49, \S 1.  {\bf castris .~.~. delegit.}  See the note on 48, \S 1.

\S 3.  {\it Hic locus .~.~. aberat.}  Meusel brackets these words on
the ground that it is incredible that Caesar would have repeated
the clear statement which he bad made three lines before.

\S 5.  {\it auxiliorum.}  These auxiliaries were archers and slingers.
See p.~lxiii.

50, \S 2.  {\bf meridiem.} H.~J.~M\"uller proposed {\it meridie,} an
emendation which Meusel adopts ({\it J.B.,} 1894, p.~289), on the ground
that in Caesar and all careful writers {\it circiter} is invariably an
adverb.  The emendation may be right, for in {\sc MSS.} {\it m} is
frequently added by mistake at the end of a word; but Cicero several
times used {\it circiter} as a preposition.  See {\it Att.,} ii.~17, \S
1 (circiter Id.~Maias), {\it Fam.,} iii, 5, \S 4, xv, 3, \S 2 (circiter
Idus Sextiles), and for other instances {\it Th.l.L.,} iii, 1100.

\S 4.  {\bf matres familiae.}  Cicero, in connexion with {\it pater, mater,}
and {\it filius,} uses the form {\it familias.}  See H.~Merguet, {\it
Handlexikon zu Cicero} 1905, pp.~500--1.

\S 5.  {\bf non esse fas}---`it was not fated'.  {\it Fas est} is here
equivalent to {\greek e<'imartai (me'iromai)}.

{\bf novam lunam.}  This, as we may infer from 40, \S 11 ({\it iamque
esse in agris frumenta matura}), was the new moon of September 18, 58
{\sc B.C.}

51, \S 1.  {\bf alarios} is another word for {\it auxilia.}  They were
so called because they were commonly posted on the wings of
the regular army.

52, \S 1.  {\bf guaestorem.} The provincial quaestor, as distinguished
from the quaestors who served at Rome, acted as Paymaster-General,
managed the details of the commissariat, and was responsible for all
financial business.  Caesar, however, employed quaestors, like {\it
legati,} as commanders of legions (iv, 22, \S 3; v 24, \S 3; 25, \S 5;
46, \S 1; 53, \S 6; vi, 6, \S 1).  In 58 {\sc B.C.} he had only one
quaestor; but in 54 at all events (v, 25, \S 5) he had two or more.

{\bf uti .~.~.  haberet.}  Several passages in the Gallic War, e.g.~ii.~25
\S 3, iii, 14, \S 8, and vi, 8, \S 4, show that the men fought better
when they knew that an officer of high rank would give them
credit for proved courage.

\S 4.  {\bf Relictis} is the reading of $\beta$: {\it a has reiectis,} which has been
condemned on the ground that it is equivalent to {\it post tergum
iactis,} and that the men could not have got rid of their javelins
in this way without the risk of killing their comrades.  But
might not {\it reiectis} be equivalent to {\it depositis,} as in Cicero,
{\it Pis.,}
23, \S 55,---(lictores) {\it sagula reiecerunt}? H.~J.~Muller proposed
{\it proiectis,} which Meusel adopts; but it will not do, for in three
of the four passages (vii, 40, \S 6; 89, \S 4; {\sc B.C.,} iii, 98, \S 1) in
which Caesar uses {\it proicere} with {\it arma} it means `to ground arms'
in token of surrender; and in the other ({\it B.C.,} iii, 13, \S 2) it
means `to throw away'.

{\bf phalange facta} only means that Ariovistus adopted the phalanx
formation (see the note on 24, \S 5), not that the phalanx was
one and undivided; for what would have been the use of forming up the
tribal groups `at equal intervals' (51, \S 2) if the
intervals were immediately afterwards to be suppressed? Moreover, as M.~Jullian observes, it may be inferred from Tacitus
({\it Ann.,} ii, 45; {\it Hist.,} iv, 20) that the Germans fought in divisions
and the Macedonian phalanx originally did the same ({\it C.G.,}
p.~654).

\S 5.  {\bf complures nostri} does not mean exactly the same as {\it
complures nostrorum,} but is equivalent to {\it complures, qui erant nostri.}
The sense is `{\it on our side} many', \&c.

{\bf manibus} is ablative.

\S 7.  {\bf adulescens} is generally understood in the sense of `the
younger'; and if this is the meaning, the word was intended to
distinguish P.~Crassus from his father (21, \S 4), who, with Caesar and
Pompey, formed the first triumvirate, and from his elder brother (v, 24,
\S 3), who was one of Caesar's quaestors in 54 {\sc B.C.} But would not
Caesar's contemporary readers have already been aware of the
distinction? M.~Jullian remarks that Caesar does not apply the word to
certain other [well-known] officers whose fathers were still living; and
accordingly he argues that Crassus was called adulescens because he had
not attained the age of 30,---the lowest at which a man was eligible for
the post of quaestor.  M.~Jullian may be right: but adulescens was a
word of elastic meaning, and Cicero ({\it Phil.,} ii, 46, \S 118) spoke
of himself as having been an {\it adulescens} when he was 43.  Cicero
generally expresses `the younger' by minor; but in {\it Att.,} ii, 18,
\S 1 {\it adulescens Curio} probably means `the younger Curio'.

53, \S 1.  omnes .~.~.  verterunt.  We have seen (51, \S 2) that
before the battle, the Germans closed their rear with a semicircle of wagons, `to do away with all hope of escape.' Yet
they now fled.  Frontinus (ii, 3, \S 6) explains this apparent
inconsistency, but we cannot tell on what authority.  `As the
Germans,' he says, `being hemmed in, were fighting with the
courage of despair, Caesar ordered that they should be allowed
an exit, and fell upon them when they were fleeing' ({\it Caesar
Germanos inclusos, ex desperatione fortius pugnates, emitti
iussit fugientesque aggressus est}).

{\bf L.}  The {\sc MS.} readings are {\it quinque} and {\it V;} but Plutarch
({\it Caesar,} 19) writes {\greek stad'ious tetrarkos'ious} (50 Roman
miles), and
Orosius (vi, 7, \S 10) and Eutropius (vi, 17) {\it quinquaginta milia
passuum.}  We may infer that {\sc MSS.} of Caesar, several centuries
older than any which are now extant, had the reading {\it L}; and
as the battle-field was certainly much more than five miles
from the Rhine, I adopt that reading,---very doubtfully.  Doubtfully, because it is hardly credible that the Germans, after
a desperate battle, fled 50 miles in one heat (even the exhausting retreat from Waterloo to Charleroi was not more than 25
miles), still less that some of them then swam the Rhine; and,
moreover, I cannot see why they should have fled 50 miles when
the Rhine was not more than 12 to 15 miles away.  I have
suggested elsewhere ({\it C.G.,} p.~657 ) that Caesar may have written
{\it XV;} and Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1912, p.~88) thinks that this emendation
is admissible.  It has also been suggested that the Ill was then
regarded as an arm of the Rhine; but this is unlikely, for
when Caesar spoke of the {\it Rhenus} in 54, \S 1 he certainly meant
the main stream of the Rhine.  May we suppose that some of
the Germans fled across the Ill to the nearest point of the
Rhine, and others, who escaped pursuit, towards Strasburg? If
all fled 50 miles, fugitives and pursuers must both have rested
in the night, of whlch Caesar says nothing ({\it C.G.,} pp.~655--7).

\S 5.  {\bf trinis.}  The distributive is necessary, because Caesar only
uses {\it catenae} in the plural.

\S 6.  {\bf hospitem.}  See the note on 47, \S 4 ({\it hospitio}).

\S 7.  {\bf ter.}  Three, as students of folk-lore know, has among all
peoples been regarded as a sacred number.

54, \S 2.  {\bf in hiberna .~.~.  deduxit.}  The battle-field, from which
Caesar led his army {\it in Sequanos,} was itself in territory which
had belonged to the Seqnani, bnt which Ariovistus had wrested
fiom them (31, \S 10).  Presumably Caesar now restored it to
the Sequani.  By quartering his legions in the country of the
Sequani instead of withdrawing them into the Province he
made it evident that his purpose was nothing less than to
conquer Gaul.

\S 3.  {\bf ad conventus agendos.}  The word {\it conventus} is used by
Caesar in the sense of an assembly or meeting (18, \S 2), of the
community of Roman citizens living in a provincial town ({\it B.G.}
iii.  29, \S 1, \&c.), and, as in this passage, v, 1, \S 5, 2, \S 1, vi, 44,
\S 3, and vii 1, \S 1, of judicial or administrative busiuess performed
by himself, as Governor, in an assembly of Roman citizens or
provincials.  As he went on circuit, like a judge through Cisalpine Gaul
and Illyricum to discharge these duties, we may translate {\it ad
conventus agendos} by `to hold the assizes'.  He used to go to North
Italy for the winter, partly with this object, partly to keep in touch
with Italian politics, and to look after his own interests.
\bye

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.quux.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.