% tex2asc-version: 1.0
%
%    T. Rice Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    Book I.
%
%    Contributor:   Konrad Schroder <perseant@u.washington.edu>
%
%    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