% tex2asc-version: 1.0
%
%    Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    Prefatory material.
%
%    Contributor: Konrad Schroder  <perseant@u.washington.edu>
%
%    Original publication data:
%         Holmes, T. Rice.  _C._Iuli_Caesaris_Comantarii_Rerum_in_
%                   _Gallia_Gestarum_VII_A._Hirti_Commentarius_VIII._
%                             Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914.
%
%    Version: 0.02 (Beta), 22 July 1993
%
%    This file is in the Public Domain.
%
\input ks_macros.tex
\raggedbottom
\greekfollows
\centerline{PREFACE}
\bigskip
T{\sc HIS} edition is intended not only for teachers and pupils, but also
for general readers who may wish to become acquainted with Caesar's
masterpiece and for scholars who have not time or inclination to read my
larger books. The critical notes are printed along with the others at the
foot of the text, where they will be more easily understood than if they
were relegated to a critical appendix; and the references which they
contain will enable any one who may wish to specialize to pursue his
researches further. I have taken account of all the relevant works that
have appeared in England and America and on the Continent since the
completion of the second edition of my {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul;} and
in a few cases I have modified or supplemented statements which I made
there.

There is no more interesting Latin book for boys than Caesar's account of
the Gallic war, provided that they will give their minds to it and that
they have the help of a good teacher, who realizes the obligation of
keeping far ahead of his class. Young pupils, it is true, can read so
little at one time that interest in the story, as such, can hardly,
unaided, be sustained. Even Macaulay's {\it Essays} might be dull if they
were read by a foreigner, with a dictionary, at the rate of a single
paragraph a day. But the difficulty is only apparent. Before the study of
this book, or of any of the separate editions which I have prepared of each
{\it Commentary,} is begun, I would recommend teachers to make their pupils
read Part~I of my {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul} and the Sixth and Seventh
Chapters of my {\it Ancient Britain,} or, if this should be impracticable,
to read them aloud themselves. I feel less diffidence in making this
suggestion because it has been made already by well-known critics as well
as by the Curricula Committee of the Classical Association, and because the
books which I have named have been in part translated into German for the
use of schools. If, before a boy begins to grapple with Caesar's Latin, he
has got a general notion of the whole story, he will work with far more
heart.

The principle to which I have adhered in writing my notes has been to avoid
giving any information which the learner can easily acquire for himself
through the medium of grammar, dictionary, or such other books as he may
fairly be supposed to have. My aim has been not to save him the labour---if
I had done so he would only have been bored---but to let him feel the
pleasure of thinking; and I have therefore tried, as far as was possible
with due regard to space, to appeal to his reason,---not only to state
results, but to enable him to follow the steps by which they were attained.
Merely inform a pupil that Alesia was situated on Mont Auxois, and you will
profit him little, for cut-and-dried information is indigestible; but make
him understand that it was there and that to suppose that it was anywhere
else involves absurdities, and you will set his intellect to work. I desire
indeed to appeal not only to the learner's reason but also to his
scepticism and his latent critical acumen. I should be glad to hear that he
had tried to pick holes in my arguments; for I do not wish him to accept
them until he is convinced that they are sound. For the benefit of any one
who may be disposed to test them, I have given at the end of various notes
references to my larger books; and I hope that some readers may feel moved
to gain such a mastery of the subject as is unattainable with a succinct
commentary. The High Master of St.~Paul's School, to whom I am grateful,
has lead nearly all my manuscript; and, after considering his suggestions,
I wrote some additional notes, struck out one or two, and modified a few
others; but he is not responsible for anything which this book contains.

I have thought it right to confine myself in the notes to explaining
Caesar's text. Various historical comments and other remarks which may be
helpful, but which would have been out of place in an edition of the
Commentaries, are to be found in Part I of my {\it Caesar's Conquest of
Gaul} (second edition) and of {\it Ancient Britain.}

Some readers may perhaps find opportunities of exploring the scenes of
Caesar's more important operations; for when one finds oneself, say, at
Martigny or upon the plateau of Alesia, the chapters in which Caesar
describes what happened there become more vivid than even the best maps and
plans can make them. I have given on pages 447--8 directions as to the best
way of reaching the various places which I have in mind.

It is now usual in English schools to read the classics in snippets,
partly, I suppose, in order that boys may become acquainted with many
authors before they leave school. But by following this plan they cannot
become intimate with any. One may read Macaulay's essay on Clive with
profit even if one ignores all the others; but to read the ninth chapter
only of his {\it History of England} would not be wise. Moreover, there is
no reason, apart from the consideration of what subjects are most
remunerative, why Caesar should only be used as an elementary text-book. It
cannot be read with the maximum of profit by a young boy, and it ought to
be read rapidly through, at least once, by the highest form in the school.
In saying this I have the support of the late High Master of St. Paul's,
who told me that when he was High Master of Manchester Grammar School he
read the whole work with his best pupils. Apart from the mere
interpretation of the Latin, which requires far more scholarship than is
commonly supposed, the book demands, for its full comprehension, at least
such an elementary knowledge of Roman history as may be acquired from the
late Professor Pelham's masterly {\it Outlines.} Furthermore, it demands
intelligence sufficiently developed to understand the exposition of
ethnological, social, religious, and political questions; and this demand
can hardly be satisfied by the Fourth Form.

In conclusion let me translate an extract from a letter relating to Caesar,
which Mommsen wrote in 1894 to Dr.~Heinrich Meusel:--- `The noble work
deserves all the labour that can be spent upon it. The enormous difference
between these Commentaries and everything else that is called Roman History
cannot he adequately realized.'
\bigskip
{\obeylines
11 D{\sc OURO} P{\sc LACE},
\quad K{\sc ENSINGTON}, W.
\quad\quad {\it November} 13, 1913.}
\vfill\eject

\centerline{LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS}
\bigskip

{\it A.~B.} = Rice Holmes's {\it Ancient Britain and the Invasions of
Julius Caesar,} 1907.

{\it A.~C.~S.} = A. Holder's {\it Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz.}

{\it A.~J.} = {\it Archaeological Journal.}

{\it B.~ph.~W.} = {\it Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift.}

{\it C.~G.} = Rice Holmes's {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul} 2nd ed., 1911.

{\it C.~I.~L.} = {\it Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.}

{\it C.~J.} = {\it Classical Journal} (Chicago).

{\it Cl.~Ph.} = {\it Classical Philology} (Chicago).

{\it C.~Q.} = {\it Classical Quarterly.}

{\it C.~R.} = {\it Classical Review.}

{\it C.~S.} = A. Klotz's {\it C\"asarstudien.}

{\it D.~R.~R.} = G. Long's {\it Decline of the Roman Republic.}

{\it D.~S.} = Daremberg and Saglio's {\it Dictionniaire des antiquit\'es
grecques et romaines.}

{\it G.~C.} = Stoffel's {\it Histoire de Jules C\'esar,---Guerre civile.}

{\it G.~K.} = A. von G\"oler's {\it Caesars Gallischer Krieg,} 2nd ed.,
1880.

{\it H.~G.} = C. Jullian's {\it Histoire de la Gaule.}

{\it H.~R.} = Th. Mommsen's {\it History of Rome.}

{\it J.~B.} = {\it Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin.}

{\it L.~C.} = H. Meusel's {\it Lexicon Caesarianum.}

{\it N.~J.} = {\it Neue Jahrb\"ucher f\"ur Philologie,} \&c.

{\it N.~Ph.~R.} = {\it Neue philologische Runschau.}

{\it Ph. } = {\it Philologus.}

{\it Ph.~Suppl.} = {\it Philologus, Supplementband.}

{\it P.~S.~A.} = {\it Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London.}

{\it R.~E.~A.} = {\it Revue des  \'etudes anciennes.}

{\it Rh.~M.} = {\it Rheinisches Museum.}

{\it S.~P.~A.} = {\it Sitzungsberichte der k\"oniglich preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.}

{\it Th.~l.~L} = {\it Thesaurus linguae Latinae.}

{\it Tr.} = Rice Holmes's {\it Caesar's Commentaries .~.~. translated into
English.}

{\it W. kl. Ph.} = {\it Wochenschrift f\"ur klassiche Philologie.}

{\it Z.G.} = {\it Zeitschrift f\"ur das Gymnasailwesen.}

{\it Z.~\"o.~Gy.} = {\it Zeitschrift f\"ur die \"osterreichischen
Gymnasien.}
\vfill\eject

\centerline{HOW AND WHEN CAESAR WROTE}
\centerline{THE \it COMMENTARIES}
\bigskip
T{\sc HE} {\it Commentaries on the Gallic War} were published not later
that 46 {\sc B.C.}, for Cicero notices them with admiration in his {\it
Brutus} (75, \S 262), which appeared in that year.  Most probably indeed
they were both written and published several years earlier; for it is more
than unlikely that Caesar would have had time for literary composition
during the intense labour of the civil war, and moreover, as Mommsen says
({\it Hist. of Rome,} v, 1894, p.~499), the book was doubtless intended [at
least in part] to justify before the Roman public what Caesar had done in
Gaul.  I will explain this in discussing the trustworthiness of the
narrative.

There are two main theories about the way in which Caesar composed his
book.  Some critics believe that he wrote each commentary year by year,
after the campaign which it described: others that he wrote the whole
seven---for it must be remembered that the eighth was written by his
friend, Aulus Hirtius---in the winter of 52--51 {\sc B.C.} or in the year
50.  The latter view is supported by Hirtius, who says (Praef., \S 6), {\it
ceteri enim quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam quam facile atque celeriter
eos perfecerit scimus} (`others know the flawless excellence of his work; I
know more---how easily and rapidly it was done').  If this remark is no
absolutely inconsistent with the position that each commentary was written
in the winter that followed the campaign which it described, the natural
meaning is that the whole was the result of one continuous effort.  The
statement of Hirtius, who was one of Caesar's most intimate friends, and
probably also his literary secretary, is the only original testimony that
we have, and must be accepted unless it can be shown to be inconsistent
with facts.  Some critics think that it is.  In ii, 28, \S 1 we read that
`the Nervian people .~.~. was brought to the verge of extinction', whereas
in v, 39--42 we are told that they vigorously attacked Quintus Cicero and
in vii, 75, \S 3 Caesar says that they were called upon to contribute 6,000
men to the army which attempted to relieve Vercingetorix. Again, in vi, 2,
\S 3 Caesar affirms that `all the Cisrhenane Germans, who included the
Segni and Condrusi, were in arms against him: in vi, 31, \S\S 1--2 he
implies that these two tribes proved their innocence. But many of the
Nervians who fought against Cicero had doubtless been too young to fight
three years before; the statement that the tribe was wellnigh exterminated
may have been only a rhetorical flourish, based upon misleading reports,
which Caesar or his secretary had not had time or inclination to sift; and
the inconsistency between vi, 2 and vi, 31 only proves that he did not
thoroughly revise his work. Even real inconsistencies, which are very few,
can be accounted for by hasty use of discordant materials, lapse of memory,
or mere carelessness.

It may be regarded, then, as certain that Caesar wrote the Commentaries
after the campaign of 52 {\sc B.C.}; and the only question is whether he
wrote them in the winter following that campaign or later. I am not sure
that he would have had time to write them in the winter; for from the very
beginning of 51 he was hard at work, campaigning against the Bituriges and
other tribes. Mommsen, indeed, argues (Hist. of Rome, v, 1895, p.~499,
n.~1) that the book must have been not only written but published before
the end of 51, because in vii, 6, \S 1 Caesar `approves the exceptional
laws [passed under the influence of Pompey] of 702' (52 {\sc B.C.}), and he
could not have done this after his rupture with Pompey, when he reversed
certain judgements which were based upon those laws. But why should not the
publication have taken place in 50 {\sc B.C.},---the year before that in
which the civil war began? It seems to me most probable that it did, for
this was the only year between Caesar's first consulship and the last year
of his life in which he was not fighting; and, as far as we know, he was
then comparatively at leisure (Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, pp.~202--10). See
p.~436.
\vfill\eject

\centerline{THE TEXT OF THE COMMENTARIES}
\bigskip
E{\sc VERY} one who can read the Commentaries with interest will want to
know how far the manuscripts in which they have been handed down to us
correspond with what Caesar wrote; for if he will think, he will see that
none of them correspond with it exactly, and that although scholars have
been trying ever since 1469, when the first printed edition was published,
to remove the errors, many must still and always will remain. The oldest of
the extant manuscripts was written fully 900 years after the book was first
put into circulation. Now, however careful a scribe may be, he can hardly
avoid making some mistakes in copying out a written book; the scribe who
copies his copy will make more; and so on. Even contemporary copies of
Caesar's original manuscript doubtless contained mistakes.
Cicero\footnote{$^1$}
     {Q., fr.,  iii, 5--6, \S 6.}
complains that books sold by the booksellers of Rome had been carelessly
copied; and, notwithstanding all the care of proofreaders, few modern books
are entirely free from printers' errors. Besides, a manuscript might pass
into the hands of a reader who would make notes on the margin; and if
another copy were to be made from the one which contained these notes, the
copyist might be misled into incorporating them in the text. Thus two kinds
of mistakes would gradually find their way in. An example of the latter
kind---{\it nocte intermissa}---will be found in i. 27, \S 4. An example of
the other shows how even a very careful copyist might go astray. In viii,
32, \S 2 the famous stronghold, Uxellodunum, is mentioned for the first
time. {\it Uxellodunum} was only written by the copyist in two of the good
manuscripts: the rest have {\it auxilio dunum,} which, as every one will
see, is nonsense. Can you imagine how this curious blunder was made? In
this way. In some manuscript a reader wrote either in the margin or above
{\it uxellodunum} (not {\it Uxellodunum,} for even proper names were
written with small initial letters) the words {\it a.~uxillodunum,} and by
{\it a.,} which was an abbreviation, he meant {\it aliter,} `otherwise'. He
wished to show that besides {\it uxellodunum} there was another spelling
{\it uxillodunum.} This manuscript passed into the hands of a copyist who
misunderstood the abbreviation {\it a.} and wrote {\it auxillo dunum,} and
as {\it l} might easily be mistaken for {\it i}, somebody else wrote {\it
auxilio dunum}.

A great many manuscripts of Caesar exist; but only nine or ten of them are
now considered good. They are divided into two groups, known as $\alpha$
and $\beta$, and generally believed to be derived from a common original,
or archetype, which is called {\it X.} Each manuscript is called by a
letter, which is here prefixed to the full name:---

{\it A} = codex Bongarsianus (or Amstelodamensis 81) of the ninth or tenth
century.

{\it B} = Parisinus I (Paris, Biblioth\`eque nationale, 5763, ninth or
tenth century).

{\it M} = Vaticanus (Vatican, 3864, tenth century).

{\it Q} = Moysiacensis (Paris, Bibl. nat., 5056, twelfth century) 

{\it S} = Ashburnhamianus (Bibl. Lau