% tex2asc-version: 1.0 % % T. Rice Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico. % Book I. % % Contributor: Konrad Schroder % % 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), 18 Apr 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 langoage 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 spolce 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 (C.~G., p.~344). \S 3. {\bf provinciae.} See p.~xlii. \S 5-7. H. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp. 20-3) and A. Klotz (C. 5., 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 renuarks (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 conpciendas} 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 conpciendas} 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} (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 (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 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. (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 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 vvas at this tilue (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 C. G., pp. 555-6). \S 7. {\bf totius Galliae} is equivalent to {\it totius Galliae civitatum} (or {\it populorum}). \S 8. Hac .~.~. sperant. The meaning is clear, but the expres- sion 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 {\it 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 nunnber 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. 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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 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 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 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. 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 Rhone 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 a$\pi$, 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, 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. {\it 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 Uelvetii 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 Mac\^on, they doubtless followed the route which passes through Ch\^atillon, Nantua, and Bourg. Macon is on the direct road from the Pas de l'Ecluse to Toulon-sur-Arroux, ncar which, as we shall see in the note to 24, \S 1, the decisive battle of the campaign was fought; and M.~Juilian 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 Macon, 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 (15i3), 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 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>utos >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. 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 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 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 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 (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. 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 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 ang Gauls except Aedui. If, he says, we omit {\it Gallorum,} the meaning is umnistakable, 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. \bye