% tex2asc-version: 1.0 % % Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico. % Prefatory material. % % Contributor: Konrad Schroder % % 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. Laurent. R. 33, tenth century). {\it a} = Parisinus II or Thuaneus (Paris, Bibl. nat., 5764, eleventh century). {\it f} = Vindobonensis I (Bibl. Vindob. [Vienna], 95, twelfth century). {\it h} = Ursinianus (Vatican, 3324, eleventh century). {\it l} = Riccardianus (Bibl. Riccard. [Florence], 541, eleventh or twelfth century). H. Meusel traces the pedigree of these MSS. as follows: \centerline{[figure: page xii]} To $\phi$ may be added the best manuscript in the British Museum (Add. {\sc MSS.} 10,084), which is known as Lovaniensis and referred to as {\it L.} I have published a collation of this manuscript in the Classical Quarterly of July, 1911, and Meusel has estimated its value in {\it Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin,} 1912, pp. 15--18. Professor A. Klotz ({\it Rhenisches Museum,} 1910, pp. 224--34) thinks that the foregoing pedigree, which has been generally accepted, is incorrect. He believes, with Professor B. K\"ubler, that the archetype of all the extant {\sc MSS}. was a copy belonging to $\beta$, and that $\alpha$ is descended from a copy belonging to the same group, in which readings from a manuscript of the sixth century, published by two editors---Julius Celsus Constantinus and Flavius Licerius Firminus Lupicinus---were inserted. Accordingly Klotz has constructed this pedigree, which, in the Opinion of Meusel ({\it Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin,} 1912, pp. 18--21), may possibly be right:--- \centerline{[figure: page xiii]} The two groups, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, differ from each other about 1,500 times; and an editor cannot do without either. But when they differ and neither is obviously wrong, how is he to decide between them? Simply, in most cases, by considering the context or by carefully noting Caesar's use of language in passages in which the two groups agree. This laborious task has been performed by various critics, notably by three German scholars, Rudolf Schneider, Meusel, and Alfred Klotz. Let me give one or two examples. In v, 35, \S 5 $\alpha$ has (cum a prima luce ad horam octavam) {\it pugnaretur;} $\beta$ has {\it pugnassent.} The former is preferable because Caesar in describing the duration of a battle almost always uses the passive. In vii, 64, \S 2 $\alpha$ {\it h} have (peditatu quem ante) habuerat (se fore contentum dicit); while the rest of the $\beta$ {\sc MSS}. have {\it habuerit,} which is certainly right, because the relative clause is part of what Vercingetorix said, and therefore the subjunctive is necessary. But in some cases the claims of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ appear to be equally balanced; and here, for reasons which I have given in the {\it Classical Review} of 1901 (p.~175), I follow with Meusel the reading of $\alpha$. There is also a considerable number of passages in which, though all the manuscripts agree, the text is obviously wrong, and has been corrected with more or less success. Some of these emendations are certainly right. For instance, in i, 40, \S 9 the {\sc MS}. reading is (cui rationi contra homines barbaros .~.~. locus fuisset) {\it ac} (ne ipsum quidem sperare nostros exercitus capi posse); and the obvious correction, {\it hac,} appeared just four centuries ago in the Aldine edition. Again, in vii, 3, \S 2 the {\sc MSS}. have (Nam) ubique (maior atque inlustrior incidit res, clamore .~.~. significant): the emendation {\it ubi quae} is self-evident. Other emendations are highly probable; and fortunately those doubtful or corrupt passages which are important for history are very few. In this book it would be useless to give a list of the various readings of the manuscripts, or to explain in all cases the reasons that have led me to adopt one reading\footnote{$^2$} {Teachers and other readers who may be interested in textual questions will find a full {\it apparatus criticus} in H. Meusel's edition of 1894, which is supplemented by an article contributed by the present editor to the Classical Quarterly of July, 1911. A list of articles which may be consulted with profit will be found in {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul,} p.~202; and others will be referred to in my foot-notes. Every one who wishes to make a special study of the Commentaries from the linguistic point of view should read Meusel's paper in {\it Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin,} 1894, pp, 214--398, and Professor Postgate's in the {\it Classical Review,} 1903, pp. 441--6.} in preference to another. I have briefly discussed in foot-notes all the more important passages in which the text is uncertain; but in regard to comparatively unimportant variations, where I have either been convinced by Meusel's arguments or those of other scholars, or have independently come to the same conclusion, I have not here stated the reasons: they are to be found in articles to which I refer below.\footnote{$^3$} {See the preceding note. In the {\it Classical Review} 1901, p.~176, I have given reasons for preferring in many places the reading of $\beta$. Nipperdey rated this group very low, partly perhaps because he was ignorant of {\it h} and {\it l} and in his time $\alpha$ had not been accurately collated; but even he was often obliged to have recourse to $\beta$. It must not, however, be imagined that those scholars who have vindicated the independent worth of $\beta$ undervalue $\alpha$.} Readers of the critical notes will see that when I enclose a word or a passage in the text in square brackets, I do not necessarily mean more than that I regard it as open to suspicion, though some bracketed words are certainly spurious. The obvious emendations, of which I have already given two examples, and which, as a rule, I have adopted silently, will be found in Meusel's critical edition. The principle to which I have adhered is never to incorporate an emendation in the text, even when I am inclined to believe that it represents what Caesar wrote, unless the {\sc MS}. reading or readings seem indefensible. When, for instance, one finds that in vii, 10, \S 1 {\it expugnatis} is used in a sense which the verb has nowhere else in Caesar, and never in Cicero or in Sallust, one feels the necessity of caution. \medskip N{\sc OTE}.---When I quote readings adopted by Meusel which are not in his text of 1894, they are to be found in the reissue of his school edition (1908) unless I state that he has adopted them since. \vfill\eject \centerline{THE CREDIBILITY OF CAESAR'S} \centerline{NARRATIVE} \bigskip F{\sc OR} the history of the first seven years of Caesar's conquest of Gaul our principal authority is Caesar himself. It is, indeed, impossible to grasp the full meaning of his narrative without the help of the modern scholars who have contributed so much to the task of solving the problems which the Commentaries present. It is true, moreover, that Cicero's writings illustrate certain phases of the war, and that later writers, such as Suetonius, Plutarch, and Dion Cassius, make certain statements, true or false, which are not to be found in Caesar. But Caesar is the authority; and thoughtful readers will want to know how far his narrative is trustworthy According to Suetonius,\footnote{$^1$} {{\it Diuus Iulius,} 56.} Pollio, who served under Caesar in the civil war, thought that the Commentaries were written carelessly and with little regard for truth; that Caesar had accepted without due inquiry the reports of his officers; and that, either intentionally or from failure of memory, he was inaccurate in describing what he had done himself. Now it is almost certain that Pollio was referring to Caesar's Commentaries on the Civil War, with which we are not here concerned;\footnote{$^2$} {According to Suetonius, Pollio thought that Caesar would have rewritten and corrected his narrative if he had had an opportunity ({\it existimatque rescriptorum et correcturum fuisse}). A.~Klotz ({\it Rh.~M.,} 1911, p.~81) remarks that Pollio could hardly have said this in regard to the {\it Commentaries on the Gallic War,} which were published by Caesar himself.} but suppose that he had the same opinion of the Gallic War. If so, as he did not serve in Gaul, he could only have repeated what he had heard from others; and their opinions would have been of no value except about what they had seen themselves. As I have learned from conversation with men who had taken part in Sir Charles Napier's conquest of Sind and in the Indian Mutiny, and from letters which they wrote to me, how mistakes in military histories arise, I believe that I can form a tolerably just idea of the meaning of Pollio's criticism. Caesar inevitably made mistakes; and Pollio may have conversed with eyewitnesses who pointed out these mistakes, who were perhaps aggrieved by them, and who, exaggerating their importance, as men who have no sense of historical proportion will always do, shrugged their shoulders and exclaimed, `Such is history.' Caesar's accuracy has been confirmed, on various points, by modern investigations. Every one who has seen the places which he described will admit that he was gifted with the faculty of observation. Most of the operations which are pictured in his narrative were performed under his own eye: he had opportunities for observing what happened in a battle or a siege which a modern general, whose operations extend over a vast area, cannot have; and he very rarely indulges in that sort of detailed description which gives rise to most of the mistakes that are made in modern military histories. This is a point which I could not make perfectly clear to a `general reader' unless he would listen attentively while I explained to him the labour which I have myself undergone in writing an account of a modern battle and the process by which I have been enabled to correct mistakes which had crept into my original draft. But all who have tried to write military history from original sources will understand what I mean. As a rule Caesar gives us only the outline of a battle,---he tells us just so much as may enable us to understand the moves, and no more. He sent dispatches to the Senate, and it may be assumed that he kept copies of them: his generals sent reports to him; and he finished his book within a year after the close of the war. His account, therefore, was a contemporary account by the eyewitness who had the best eyes, the most favourable point of view, and the most trustworthy information. As for the speeches which he puts into the mouths of Vercingetorix and others, nearly all are very short and written, like many reports in newspapers of speeches, in {\it Oratio Obliqua,} which shows that he only professed to give the gist of what was said. Almost the only one which is at all open to suspicion is the comparatively long speech in the seventy-seventh chapter of the {\it Seventh Commentary,} which he attributes to Critognatus. Departing from his custom, he wrote this speech in the form of {\it Oratio Recta;} and as there was certainly no shorthand writer present when Critognatus was speaking, the words were of course Caesar's own. But we may reasonably suppose that he was informed of the drift of Critognatus's arguments by some one who had listened to them---perhaps by Vercingetorix himself---for he made at least 60,000 prisoners after the fall of Alesia.\footnote{$^3$} {Cf. vii, 71, \S 3 with 89, \S 5 and 90, \S 3, and see the note on the first of these passages.} Serious charges have, however, been brought against the general tone of Caesar's narrative. They may be grouped in two classes, according to the motives which his accusers have imputed to him. These motives are, first, a desire to justify unconstitutional, illegal, or unrighteous acts, and secondly, a desire to magnify his own exploits, to obtain for himself the credit of certain exploits of his officers, and to conceal everything that might damage his reputation as a general. I shall examine in foot-notes those of his statements which I believe to be either inaccurate or misleading; but in this little book it would of course be out of place to notice all the charges---or even all that are worth noticing---which have been brought against him; and I have done so already in two other works.\footnote{$^4$} {{\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul,} 1899, pp. 173--244, and the second edition of the same, 1911, pp. 211--56; {\it Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar,} 1907, pp. 666--72.} Good judges have accepted the conclusion which I reached,---that under close scrutiny nearly all the charges break down. As an acute critic has remarked, Caesar took pains to justify his first two campaigns---those which he conducted against the Helvetii and Ariovistus---because in crossing the frontier of the Roman Province he had acted without the sanction of the Senate; but he knew that if he could convince his readers that he had done right in 58 {\sc B.C.} all would be well, for the other campaigns followed as a matter of course. And his self-justification was sound. Naturally he made out the best case that he could, but he did not falsify facts: he only emphasized, as he had a right to do, the fact that he had acted for his country's good. So far as I am aware, no great writer, no great historian, no great statesman or general has ever thrown serious discredit upon the Commentaries. Of course they are not absolutely true: no history is. Caesar was sometimes either uncritical or careless in using the reports of his generals: he may have thought it discreet to withhold some valuable information: he doubtless sometimes exaggerated, probably because he was misinformed, the numbers of his enemies and the losses which he or his officers had inflicted upon them; he may have concocted an excuse for the one defeat---the defeat at Gergovia---which he himself suffered; and I am willing to believe that his memoirs leave upon the mind an impression of his prowess, if not of his character, more favourable than would have been produced by the narrative of an impartial historian. But on the whole he could afford to tell the truth. He did full justice to his lieutenants; he wrote most generously of his enemies;\footnote{$^5$} {See ii, 27, \S 5 and vii, 30, \S 3.} and I see no reason for believing that he was ashamed of anything that he had done. `On ne peut contester', says the Duc d'Aumale, `que ses r\'ecits respirent la sinc\'erit\'e';\footnote{$^6$} {{\it Rev. des Deux Mondes,} 2$^e$ p\'er., xv, 1858, p.~119.} and Montaigne, in a note written on the margin of his copy of the Commentaries, called the author `le plus net, le plus disert, et le plus sinc\`ere historien qui fut jamais.'\footnote{$^7$} {{\it Ib.,} p.~118.} Perhaps we shall hit the exact truth if we add the comment of the Duc d'Aumale,---`le plus sinc\`ere de ceux qui ont \'ecrit leur propre histoire.'\footnote{$^8$} {\it Ib.} \vfill\eject \centerline{THE ETHNOLOGY OF GAUL} \bigskip E{\sc VERYBODY} knows the three sentences with which Caesar's narrative of the Gallic war begins: `Gaul, taken as a whole, is divided into three parts, one of which is inhabited by the Belgae, another by the Aquitani, and the third by a people who call themselves Celts and whom we call Gauls. These peoples differ from one another in language, institutions, and laws. The Gauls are separated from the Aquitani by the Garonne, from the Belgae by the Marne and the Seine.' This information was enough for Caesar's Italian readers: he did not trouble himself or them about the races which had inhabited Gaul long before Gauls and Belgae arrived, and whose descendants lived there still; and if we had to depend upon him alone, we should know no more about the ethnology of Gaul than the man in the street knows about the ethnology of Britain, where the descendants of Huguenots, Flemings, Jews, Normans, Danes, Saxons, Celts, and aborigines are living now under the common name of Englishmen. A century ago the most learned men knew very little more than what Caesar told them. But within the last generation or two a great deal more has been ascertained,---mostly from evidence which was not to be found in books. Here I need only give a short explanation of the way in which the information has been acquired and a short statement of the results. The information has been derived from four different sources,---the evidence of Caesar and other ancient writers and the three sciences, which are steadily growing, called physical anthropology, archaeology, and philology. The anthropologists have worked in two different ways: they have carefully measured skeletons or skulls found in caverns, in ancient graves, and elsewhere, and belonging to men who were living in Gaul not only after the Celtic invasion (see p. xlvii) but many hundreds or thousands of years before Caesar set foot in the country, and have classified them in various groups, not forgetting to note the surroundings in which they ~ ere found; they have also taken very numerous observation.s of the height, hair, eyes and complexion, and skull-form of living Frenchmen, Belgians, and others, in the hope that the results would help them to give a true account of the population of ancient Gaul. The archaeologists have collected, arranged, and described the tools, weapons, and ornaments which were found with or apart from the skeletons, and have thereby been able to fix the period of Gallic history or the prehistoric period to which this or that skeleton or group of skeletons belonged. Thus some skeletons have been found interred with stone knives, others with bronze daggers, others with iron swords, bronze brooches, chariot-wheels, and horse-trappings of various kinds. The philologists have endeavoured to learn from names of tribes and places and from the scanty remains of the Iberian and Ligurian languages whether the Iberians and Ligurians, whom Caesar ignored, inhabited other parts of Gaul besides those which ancient writers assigned to them, and have also used the remains of the old Celtic languages in order to find out whether the Celtae all spoke the same language or formed two groups which spoke two dialects, how they were related to the Belgae, and how both were related to the Germans. Before I proceed let me ask the reader to bear in mind two things. First, Caesar uses the words `Celts' (Celtae) and `Gauls' (Galli) in a restricted sense. As we shall see presently, the Belgae were Gauls and Celts as well as the Celtae: there had been Celts in Germany before he came to Gaul; there were Celts in Britain and in Spain; the Gauls who beat the Romans in the battle of the Allia\footnote{$^1$} {{See p. xxxix.}} were Celts. Secondly, Belgae, Celtae, and Aquitani were all, more or less, mixed. No pure race exists. Let us begin at the beginning. The oldest human fossils that have been found in Gaul belong to the Palaeolithic Age. Not only Gaul, but also Belgium and Central Europe as far east as Croatia were then inhabited by hunters belonging to what is generally called the Neanderthal race, after a skull which was found about fifty years ago in the valley of the Neander in Rhenish Prussia As far as we can tell from the bones that have been discovered, they were short, sturdy men, with very low receding foreheads, huge projecting brow ridges, and certain ape-like features,---for instance, extremely defective chins These people, although they manufactured flint tools with considerable skill, were certainly much inferior in mental power to others of a different type who were their contemporaries; and towards the end of the Palaeolithic Age there dwelt in South-Western Gaul a people who, as we may infer not only from their beautifully formed heads, but from the wonderful works of art which I have mentioned in the Introduction, were as intelligent as modern Europeans Skulls of this type were discovered at Laugerie-Basse and Chancelade in the valley of the Loz\`ere; and nearly related to the race which they represent were people remarkable for great stature, some of whose skeletons have been unearthed from caves near Mentone, and who are generally called after a specimen that was found beneath the rock-shelter of Cro-Magnon in P\'erigord. Thus even in the Old Stone Age the inhabitants of Gaul belonged to several different types Some ethnologists believe that the Neanderthal race became extinct; but descendants of the other groups were living in Caesar's time; and their descendants are living now. So much for the Palaeolithic Age. Of the Neolithic Age, which followed it, we of course know much more The skeletons that have been found belong for the most part to two groups Both were short or of middle height, and both, as we may infer from the complexion of their modern descendants, were dark; but the shorter, who are called after Grenelle, near Paris, where six typical specimens were discovered, were sturdily built and had short round heads; while the others, the most famous representatives of whom belonged to the caverns of l'Homme Mort and Baumes-Chaudes in the department of the Loz\`ere, were generally slender and had well-formed oval heads. Probably the latter were descended from the palaeolithic race which is represented by the skeletons of Chancelade and Laugerie-Basse; but the round-headed people, as would appear from the places in which their remains were most numerous, migrated into Gaul by two routes,---through Belgium and Savoy. People who resembled the long-heads of the Loz\`ere dwelt in the Neolithic Age in our own island and in various parts of Central and Southern Europe: the round-heads were rare in Britain, but numerous on the Continent, as they are still. It must not, however, be supposed that all the neolithic inhabitants of Gaul belonged to one or the other of these two main types. Here and there long-headed individuals were tall; and in some places skeletons of divers kinds have been found jumbled together. But although the two principal groups gradually intermingled, they were certainly at first distinct; for of 140 interments 55 contained only long skulls, and 20 only short ones; while every one of the skulls---64 in all---that were taken from the caverns of l'Homme Mort and Baumes-Chaudes were long. Invaders different from the people who have just been described may have settled in Gaul in the Bronze Age; but we cannot be sure, for in that period the dead were more often cremated than interred. At a later time, when iron weapons were beginning to be used instead of bronze, a tall race, which, as far as we can judge from skeletons, resembled the Celts, occupied the eastern departments of the Jura and the Doubs; and they were most probably new-comers. In Switzerland---the original home of the Helvetii---the long-headed and the round-headed group were both represented. I must now say a few words about the Ligurians and the Iberians, who inhabited Gaul before the Celts arrived. Before 500 {\sc B.C.} the Ligurians possessed South-Eastern Gaul, east of the Rh\^one and at least as far north as Bellegarde in the department of the Ain; and at that time or not long afterwards they were mingled, west of the Rh\^one, with Iberians. So much w e learn from historians and geographers: but there is some reason to believe that Ligurians occupied the whole eastern region of Gaul as far north as the Marne; for certain suffixes, or endings of place-names, namely -asca, -asco, -osca, -osco, -usca and -usco, which are found very frequently in Piedmont, where Ligurians were the primitive inhabitants, also occur in twenty-five of the eastern departments\footnote{$^2$} {Alpes-Mar\-i\-times, Var, Bouches-du-Rh\^one, Gard, Herault, Basses-Alpes, Vaucluse, Hautes-Alpes, Dr\^ome, Ard\`eche, Savoie, Is\`ere, Ain, Rh\^one, Jura, Sa\^one-et-Loire, C\^ote-d'Or, Doubs, Haute-Sa\^one, Yonne, Aube, Marne, Haute-Loire, Aveyron, and Ari\`ege.} of France, and these departments form one unbroken tract. Indeed it is not improbable that Ligurians, even in Caesar's time, inhabited Aquitania; for there were five tribes in Liguria proper\footnote{$^3$} {The Deciates, Desuviates, Ednates, Nantuates, and Quariates.} and sixteen or seventeen in Aquitania\footnote{$^4$} {The Cocosates, Elusates, Glatcs, Sibusates, Sotiates, Tarusates, and ten or eleven others mentioned by Pliny ({\it N.H.,} iv, 19, \S 108).} whose names ended in -ates; and such names are to be found nowhere else in Gaul.\footnote{$^5$} {The Belgic Atrebates are perhaps only an apparent exception. It must, however, be admitted that no Aquitanian names in -asca, \&c., have been cited.} The Iberians probably migrated into Southern Gaul from Spain; for Iberians occupied the whole eastern region of the Spanish peninsula, though the name `Iberian' was perhaps applied originally only to a people who dwelt between the river Ebro and the Pyrenees. It is generally believed, though some scholars are of a different opinion, that Basque, which is still spoken in the south-western corner of France and the adjacent part of Spain, is closely related to the language, of which there were doubtless several dialects, that was spoken by the Iberians. Several place-names are quoted to prove this, especially Iliberris, which occurs, in various forms, both in Spain and in Southern Gaul. There was an Illiberris in Roussillon, an Elimberri in Auch, and an Illiberri in Granada. The word iri in Basque means `town' and berri means `new'; so that Iliberris, like the Celtic Noviodunum,\footnote{$^6$} {{\it B. G.,} ii, 12, \S 1; vii, 12, \S 2; 55, \S 1} would have meant `New Town'. This word, however, has given rise to a great deal of discussion, about which I can say nothing here, but of which I have given a short account in {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul} (pages 290--8) There is another fact which makes the Iberian question complicated and difficult. Certain inscriptions, called Iberian, have been found in Spain. Some of them are written in Roman letters; other in letters adapted from the Phoenician alphabet, from right to left; others again in the same letters from left to right. Nobody has yet been able to translate them; but a French scholar who has devoted his life to the study of Basque denies that any trace of Basque is to be found in them. Moreover, the great majority of the place-names in the Spanish peninsula and in Southern Gaul which we find in the ancient roadbooks\footnote{$^7$} {See p.~403.} and in the writings of the ancient geographers cannot be explained from Basque. Perhaps the problem may be solved by supposing that Basques inhabited Spain before the Iberians invaded it; that they were the founders of Iliberris, of Elimberri, and of Illiberri; and that before the time of Caesar they had been driven by the Iberians, who probably spoke the languages of the inscriptions, into the region where Basque is still spoken. The Greek geographer, Strabo, says that the Aquitanians resembled the Iberians (by whom he means the mass of the inhabitants of the entire Spanish peninsula, not merely of the part which belonged to Iberians properly so called) rather than the Gauls, and spoke a language akin to that of the former. What is certain is that, except Aquitania, the region inhabited by Iberians and Ligurians was subdued, long before the time of Caesar, by Celts. It is now time to speak of the Galli, or, as they called themselves, Celtae, and of the Belgae. I have said enough to show that each of these two groups was a mixture of various races,---that the Celtic and Belgic invaders had given their names to a population which comprised descendants of palaeolithic and neolithic races, and of later invaders. Several questions have to be answered. When did the invaders who gave their name to the mixed population called Celtae first enter Gaul? Did they introduce the language which we call Celtic, or was it spoken in Gaul before they arrived? Did they all speak the same language? Were they kinsmen of the Belgae, and did the Celtae and the Belgae speak the same language? Were any of the Belgic tribes German? Were the Celtae and the Belgae, when they invaded Gaul, nearly related to the Germans? Before I attempt to answer these questions I will ask the reader to bear in mind that Caesar uses the word Galli in two senses: sometimes he means the people between the Seine or the Marne and the Garonne, sometimes he means both them and the Belgae. According to the historical evidence, the first Celtic invasion of Gaul cannot be dated earlier than the seventh century before Christ; but, as we have already seen, the tall men whose skeletons have been found in Eastern France in graves of a somewhat older period may have belonged to the first group of Celtic invaders. If we may trust Caesar, the Gauls in general, including the Belgae, were conspicuously tall: `the Gauls,' he says, `as a rule, despise our short stature, contrasting it with their own great height';\footnote{$^8$} {B. G., ii, 30, \S 4.} and all the ancient writers who describe the Gauls say much the same, most of them adding that the Gauls were fair. Now any observant person who has travelled much in France must have noticed that tall blonde people are rare, and that, with comparatively few exceptions, they are only to be seen in the north eastern departments, where many of the inhabitants are descended from German invaders. How are we to account for the contrast between modern Frenchmen and the Gauls whom Caesar and other ancient writers described? To begin with, we may be sure that even in Caesar's day tall fair men formed only a minority of the population; for, as we have seen, the people who were in possession when the Celts arrived were for the most part short and dark, and we may be sure that even the Celtic invaders were not all of the same type when untrained observers enter a strange country they notice the individuals whose physical features are unfamiliar and ignore the rest. Thus a modern English traveller hastily remarks that Scotsmen have red hair and red beards; while a trained obselver, having entered in his note-book all the observations that he has been able to make, reports that in certain districts most Scotsmen are dark, while in that part of Scotland in which fairness is most conspicuous, not more than eleven per cent of the people have red hair. Still, the proportion of blonde people in Gaul was certainly much greater than in modern France; and we have to account for the difference. First, it must be remembered that a great many Gauls perished in Caesar's wars or were sold into slavery; and of those who were thus lost to the country a number disproportionately large probably belonged to the dominant race, by whose great stature he was so impressed. Secondly, except in comparatively cold climates, the tall fair type is less successful in the struggle for existence than the dark. Thirdly, there is reason to believe that the fair type is less able than the dark to resist the unhealthy conditions of the slums in crowded cities. Fourthly, in families of which one parent is fair and the other dark, the proportion of dark children is generally greater than the proportion of fair. Lastly, a mixed population tends to revert to the type which was at the beginning that of the majority. There is little doubt, then, that since the time of Caesar, although France has been invaded by Franks, Visigoths, Alani, Saxons, Burgundians, and Normans, among all of whom fairness and tall stature were conspicuous, the dark type has been gaining ground upon the fair. No observant person who knows the outlines of English history will be surprised at this. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes who conquered Britain were at least as fair as the Celts; they settled among a people of whom the dominant element in Caesar's time had been, as it was in Gaul, Celtic; and they killed a good many of them. Afterwards they were themselves conquered by Danes and Normans, among whom fairness was also common. But the dark element, which had existed in prehistoric Britain as in prehistoric Gaul, reasserted itself. Except in certain parts of Scotland, where the descendants of Scandinavians are numerous, and in certain rural districts where the population has remained comparatively pure, fair people are more or less rare; and darkness is gradually increasing. It is generally taken for granted that the Celts hrought the language which is called Celtic into Gaul, and that it gradually became universal except in Aquitania. One or two well-known writers, however, believe that the Celtic invaders, when they entered Gaul, spoke German, and learned Celtic from the people among whom they settled. Thus Professor Ridgeway, speaking of the British Isles, but perhaps thinking also of Gaul, argues that even when `conquerors bring with them some women of their own race', they are generally `liable to drop their own language and practically adopt that of the natives'; and, remarking that both Gaelic and Welsh are still spoken in the British Isles, he says that it is absurd to suppose that the earlier inhabitants of Britain became `completely Celticized' in speech in the few centuries that elapsed between the Celtic invasions and the time of Caesar. Now it is quite true that in many instances conquerors have adopted the language of the people whom they conquered; but in these cases the conquerors, besides being far inferior in number, were also either less civilized or not much more civilized than the conquered. The Celtic conquerors of Gaul and Britain did bring with them not only `some women' but all their women; for this was the regular practice both of the Celts and of the Germans.\footnote{$^9$} {See {\it B.~G.,} i, 29, \S 1; 51, \S 3; iv, 14, \S 5.} The time in which, according to Professor Ridgeway, it is incredible that the Celtic language became dominant in Britain and in Gaul was considerably longer than that in which, as he admits, the language of a small minority of English settlers became dominant in Ireland. Remember how quickly the language of Rome took root in Britain,\footnote{$^{10}$} {See Prof. F. J Haverfield's {\it The Romanization of Roman Britain,} 2nd ed., 1912, pp. 24--9.} Gaul, and Spain. If we were to suppose that the Celtic conquerers of Gaul learned Celtic from the natives whom they conquered, we should have to admit first, that the language which the Celts found spoken not only in Gaul and Britain, but also in Switzerland and Spain, was Celtic; secondly, that Celtic was spoken by the aborigines of the Stone Age in Gaul and Britain, Switzerland and Spain, for if it was not, some invaders must have imposed it; and, lastly, that if the aborigines of the British Isles and of Gaul spoke Celtic, Celtic must have branched off from the primitive `Indo-European' language, from which the languages of Persia, Afghanistan, and Northern Hindostan, as well as most of the languages of Europe, are descended, in the Palaeolithic Age! Besides, if the aborigines of the British Isles spoke Gaelic, why did not the Brythons, who conquered them, and whose language was the ancestor of Welsh, learn Gaelic from them? If the Celts did not speak Celtic when they invaded Gaul and Britain, how are the numerous Celtic place-names in Germany to be accounted for? Do they not prove that the Celts spoke Celtic before they crossed the Rhine ? Every one admits that the language of the Belgae was Celtic: they certainly did not learn it from the Gauls whom they found in possession, for Caesar says that they expelled them;\footnote{$^{11}$} {{\it B.~G.,} ii, 4, \S 1. No doubt Caesar's words are not to be taken literally; but, admitting this, all analogy is opposed to the assumption that the Belgae did not speak Celtic before they crossed the Rhine.} therefore they must have spoken it when they invaded Gaul. Surely we may infer that the Celts who had already conquered the rest of Gaul did the same. Celtic was spoken in two of the three divisions of Gaul,---those which were inhabited by the Celtae and the Belgae respectively. But was the language everywhere the same, or were there two dialects, as there are in the Celtic regions of Great Britain,---Wales and the Scottish Highlands? It is certain that in Caesar's time the Belgae and most of the Celtae, as well as the bulk of the Britons who dwelt south of the Cheviot Hills, spoke the language which is called Brythonic, and from which are descended the languages which are now spoken in Wales and part of Brittany. The people who spoke this language are called `P~Celts', because they had changed the original souns {\it qu} into {\it p.} Thus the original form of {\it Parisii} would have been {\it Qarisii.} The same change took place in other languages; for instance, the Greek equivalent of equus is {\greek <'ippos}. But there is some reason to believe that in certain parts of Gaul a Celtic dialect was spoken in which the sound {\it qu} was retained. This dialect is called Goidelic, and it was the ancestor of Gaelic, which is still spoken in the western parts of Ireland and in the highlands of Scotland. Those who believe that it was spoken in Gaul in Caesar's time point to the words {\it Sequana} and {\it Sequani,} the ancient name of the river Seine and the name of the tribe whose chief town was Vesontio (Besan\c{c}on). But some Celtic scholars believe that these names were not Celtic, but Ligurian,---a language of which we know hardly anything. All that we can be sure of is that if a Goidelic dialect had been spoken by the earlier Celtic invaders, it had been superseded, except perhaps in certain districts, by Gallo-Brythonic. The Belgae, then, and the Celtae spoke the same language; their physical features are described by ancient writers in terms which are virtually identical; and they were closely related in blood and had a common civilization. But we must not forget that Caesar says that, according to the ambassadors who came to him from the Remi, `most of the Belgae were of German origin' ({\it plerosque Belgas esse ortos a Germanis}).\footnote{$^{12}$} {{\it B.~G.,} ii, 4, \S\S 1--2.} He does not, however, endorse the statement of the ambassadors; and the fact that he himself, rightly or wrongly, specifies five Belgic tribes---the Eburones, Caerosi, Paemani, Segni, and Condrusi---as German,\footnote{$^{13}$} {{\it Ib.,} \S 10; vi, 32, \S 1.} perhaps implies that he had reason to believe that the rest of the Belgae were not. Tacitus\footnote{$^{14}$} {{\it Germania,} 28.} regards only the Triboci, the Nemetes, and the Vangiones as `undoubtedly German tribes' ({\it haud dubie Germanorum populi}); and none of the three were Belgae at all. The Treveri (who were Celtae, not Belgae) and the Nervii, according to Tacitus, wished to be considered Germans; but, if he was rightly informed, this very fact would appear to show that they were not what they professed to be. Strabo says that the Nelvii were Germans; but the nannes of Nervian and Treveran individuals, as well as the geographical names of both tribes, were Celtic. So also were the names of the Ebulones and their two kings,---Ambiorix and Catuvolcus. Hirtius, the author of the {\it Eighth Commentary,} while he notes the resemblance of the Treveri to the Germans in manners and customs, says that it was due to the fact that the Treveri were neighbours of the Germans.\footnote{$^{15}$} {{\it B.~G.,} viii, 25, \S 2.} Perhaps there were Ceiticized Germans among the Nervii and the Treveri; but unless we know what the Roman ambassadors meant by the word Germani, their statement that the Belgae `were of German origin' proves nothing; and it would be very rash to assume that they meant a Teutonic people who spoke a Teutonic language. My own belief is that they only meant that the Belgae were descendants of a people who had once dwelt on the east of the Rhine. But what of the five tribes---the Eburones, Caerosi, Paemani, Segni, and Condrusi---whom Caesar himself calls Germans? A famous scholar, Karl M\"ullenhoff, argues that they too were Celts; for, he observes, their tribal names, the names of individuals among them---Ambiorix and Catuvolcus---and the ancient names of rivers and places within their territory are Celtic. This is true; but it does not settle the question. The prevalence of Celtic names might be accounted for by supposing that German invaders had mingled with an older Celtic population Celtic place-names existed in Germany long after the time of Caesar, and this proves that people who spoke Celtic once lived in Germany; but at the time of the conquest of Gaul, if any Celts remained in Germany; they had been absorbed in the German population. {\it Kent} is a Celtic name; but that does not prove that the present inhabitants of Kent are Celts. Still, I believe that in the main M\"ullenhoff was right. Probably the Roman ambassadors or Caesar's informants, whoever they were, only meant that these five tribes, like the other Belgae, were descended from people who had dwelt east of the Rhine; and if Caesar called them {\it Germani} in a special sense, as distinct from the rest of the Belgle, the explanation may be that they were the latest immigrants. It seems unlikely that they, alone among the Belgic tribes, learned Celtic in Gaul. If they did, they must have learned it from Celts whom they conquered or among whom they settled; and if so, they must have been unaccompanied by women (see p.~xxviii) and inferior in numbers to the Celtic peoples whom they subdued, and who, with them, formed the `Cisrhenane Germans'.\footnote{$^{16}$} {{\it B.~G.,} vi, 2, \S 3.} The Atuatuci, indeed, were really of German origin if, as is generally believed, the Cimbri and Teutoni, from whom they were descended,\footnote{$^{17}$} {{\it Ib.,} ii, 29, \S 4.} were Germans; but their ancestors were apparently left in Gaul without women. And now we have come to our final question,---the relationship between the Celts and the Germans. The reader will understand that by `the Celts' I mean not only the invaders who had conquered the country between the Seine and the Garonne but also the Belgae. We have seen that when the Celts invaded Gaul they already spoke Celtic; but there is good reason to believe that their predominant physical type differed little, if at all, from that of the Germans. The ancient writers unanimously describe the two peoples in terms which are virtually the same. The Germans, like the Gauls, were tall and fair: that is the sum and substance of their evidence. The Germans whom they described were, moreover, like the Celts, a long-headed race. I am, indeed, inclined to believe that in the time of Caesar the purest Celts and the purest Germans, although both were tall and fair and long-headed, differed from one another; and my reasons are these. Among our Celtic-speaking fellow citizens are to be found numerous specimens of a type which also exists in those parts of Brittany that were colonized by invaders from Britain and in those parts of Gaul in which the Celtic invaders appear to have settled most thickly, as well as in Northern Italy, which was once occupied by Gauls; and this type, even among the most blonde representatives of it, is strikingly different from that of the purest representatives of the ancient Germans. Put a Perthshire Highlander side by side with a Sussex farmer. Both will be fair: but the red hair and beard of the Scotsman will be in marked contrast with the fair hair of the Englishman; and their features will differ still more. I remember seeing two gamekeepers in a railway carriage running from Inverness to Lairg. They were tall, athletic, fair men, evidently belonging to the Scandinavian type which is so common in the extreme north of Scotland; but they were utterly different from the tall fair Highlanders whom I had seen in Perthshire. There was not a trace of red in their hair, their long beards being absolutely yellow. The prevalence of red among the Celtic-speaking peoples is most remarkable. Not only do we find in Perthshire 11 men in every 100 whose hair is absolutely red, but underlying the blacks and the dark browns the same tint is everywhere to be discerned. In France, again, the proportion of red-haired individuals is greatest not in Normandy or the north-eastern departments, where the proportion of German immigrants was greatest, but in Finist\`ere, where many of the Celtic invaders from Britain landed. I think that what I have said is enough to establish at least a probability that the Celts and the Germans, notwithstanding their general resemblance, differed from one another; and some years ago the late Dr.~Beddoe, a renowned anthropologist, told me that he was strongly inclined to adhere to my view. But after all the most that I have succeeded in proving is that the Celts had become different from the Germans some centuries after they had parted from them; and what we want to learn is whether any difference had arisen when they first entered Gaul. The tall Gaul and the tall German were undoubtedly descended from a common fair-haired stock; and it is very likely that in so far as the Celts of Gaul differed in Caesar's time from the Germans, the difference was due to intermarriage with Ligurians and dark descendants of the prehistoric races. I must not forget the Britons; for Caesar invaded Britain as well as Gaul. As we have seen, the latest pre-Roman invaders were Celts. Towards the close of the Palaeolithic Age the earlier inhabitants were perhaps joined by immigrants akin to the people of Chancelade and Laugerie-Basse; at all events in Derbyshire there has been found a bone engraved with the figure of a horse's head, which reminds one of the spirited designs of the artists of the Dordogne. The neolithic inhabitants of Britain, so far as we know, belonged for the most part to the same stock as the long-headed neolithic people of Gaul; but towards the end of the Neolithic Age immigrants, of whom I have already spoken, like the roundheads of the Grenelle type, began to appear, some probably coming from Gaul, others, as we may infer from the pottery which they brought with them, from the Netherlands and the valley of the Rhine. During the earlier part of the Bronze Age invaders of a very different kind came in successive hordes. They too were broad-headed, but in a less degree; they had rugged features and overhanging brows; and they were taller and more powerfully built than the older population. Probably they came from Denmark or Danish islands, where skeletons like theirs have been unearthed; and possibly also from the Scandinavian peninsula. The first Brythonic settlers apparently inaugurated the Iron Age in this country, and they were succeeded by the Belgae, who began to appear in the third century before Christ. Enough has been said to enable the general reader to understand Caesar's narrative; but any one who may wish to study the subject more closely will find abundant information in {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul,} pages 257--340, and {\it Ancient Britain,} pages 375--461. See also in regard to the people of the Neolithic Age in France {\it L'Anthropologie,} 1912, pages 53--91. \vfill\eject \centerline{HOW SOME OF CAESAR'S CAMPS AND} \centerline{OTHER EARTHWORKS HAVE} \centerline{BEEN DISCOVERED} \bigskip T{\sc HE} late Colonel Stoffel contributed much to our knowledge of the history of the Gallic war by excavations, which he carried out on behalf of Napoleon~III. In 1899 he described to me his method in a letter which I have printed in {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul} (1899, pages xvi--xxx; 1911, pages xxiv--xxvii), and of part of which I here give a free translation. This method was identical with that which is followed by Professor Haverfield and other well-known investigators. The colonel begins by remarking that land on which an entrenched camp can be constructed always has an upper layer of productive soil ({\it terre v\'eg\'etale}), varying from one or two to five feet thick, below which lies the subsoil ({\it sous-sol} or {\it sol vierge}),---marl, limestone, or other, according to the locality. `When,' he continues, `after a battle or a siege, the Roman army quitted its camp, the people of the country would demolish the entrenchments, in order to be able to resume cultivation; and they shovelled the earth of which the rampart was composed into the ditch ({\it fosse}). The ditch was thus filled with mixed soil, composed partly of productive soil, partly of subsoil, and often containing objects which the soldiers bad left on the rampart, such as broken weapons, sling-bullets, coins, bones, \&c. For some time the upper part of the ditch which had been so filled up presented the [slightly convex] form {\sc A~B} because the earth which had been thrown in did not pack closely; but in course of time and owing to yearly cultivation, the ground settled down to the level of the surrounding land; and thus all apparent traces of Caesar's camps have disappeared. The earth with which the ditches are filled is loose and never recovers the consistency of virgin soil, so that even now, after the lapse of 2,000 years, it easily breaks under the blows of the pick. This is what enables one to discover the ditches, when one knows how to determine the probable position of a camp. That, as you very truly say, is the essential condition. First of all, then, one must study the country where one supposes the camp to have been situated; and to do this requires a thorough knowledge of Caesar's Commentaries and also special military knowledge.' I may remark that the camp would be constructed, if possible, on an easily accessible and yet defensible position, that is, on gently sloping ground: it would have to be near pasturage for the horses, running water, and timber, which was needed both for fortification and for firewood. `The following', continues Colonel Stoffel, `is the method which I have always adopted in order to discover the ditches of a camp. Let {\sc A~B~C~D} represent an area within which I believed that the camp of which I was in search was to be found; and let us assume that the layer of productive soil is 70 centimetres [about 2 feet 3$ 1\over 2$ inches] thick. I placed the workmen, with their picks and shovels, in several rows {\it fff~.~.~.}, at right angles to one of the supposed sides of the camp. Each of them had to turn up the layer of productive soil along a space two feet wide. If, after turning up the layer to a depth of 70 centimetres, they felt their picks strike unyielding ground, that showed that the ground had never been disturbed and that they were not on the Roman ditch. The workmen then continued to move forward. But when they unmistakably reached the ditch at {\it x~y}, the case was different. Then, after turning up the soil to the depth of 70 centimetres, they no longer found themselves, as before, on unyielding ground: on the contrary, they met with loose soil, which broke easily,---a sign that it had formerly been disturbed. I then enlarged the ``trench'' ({\it tranch\'ee})--the space that was to be excavated---giving it a width of six feet ({\it c~d\/}) instead of two ({\it x~y\/}), to enable the men to work more easily; and they dug out the ``trench'' till they came to the bedrock. One could soon tell, for another reason, whether one was on the Roman ditch or not; for, if one was really there, one could make out without difficulty on the two edges, {\it e~c} and {\it f~d}, of the ``trench'' the outline of the ditch, which was recognizable by the colour of the mixed earth---that of the old rampart---contrasted with the colour of the virgin soil that surrounded it. `I have never seen anything more curious than the outlines of the little ditches of the small camp which I discovered on the hill of the Roche-Blanche [at Gergovia (see p.~305)]. There the layer of productive soil, at the most 50 or 60 centimetres thick (if my memory is good), lies upon a calcareous subsoil as hard and white as chalk: the ditches of the camp, filled with a mixture of productive soil and chalk, presented outlines which stood out against the earth by which they were surrounded, as sharply as the annexed triangle {\sc A~B~C}, on the white paper.' \vfill\eject \centerline{INTRODUCTION} \bigskip T{\sc HREE} centuries before the birth of Caesar, while patrician was still struggling with plebeian, while both were still contending with rival peoples for supremacy, the Gauls first encountered their destined conquerors. For a generation or more, the Celtic wanderers, whose kinsmen had already overflowed Gaul, crossed the Pyrenees, and passed into Britain and into Ireland, had been pouring, in a resistless stream, down the passes of the Alps. They spread over Lombardy. They drove the Etruscans from their strongholds in the north. They crossed the Po, and pushed further and further southward into Etruria itself. At length they overthrew a Roman army in the battle of the Allia, and marched unopposed through the Colline Gate. The story of the sack and burning of the city was noised throughout the civilized world; yet the disaster itself, though it was never forgotten, hardly affected the history of Rome. It probably tended to rivet the bonds of union between her and the other cities of Latium, and to strengthen her claim to supremacy in Italy. From time to time during the next century the Gauls returned to plunder: but their incursions were repelled; and the champion of Italian civilization was Rome. But the Roman dread of the Gauls long remained; and more than once Rome's enemies enlisted their services against her. In the last Samnite war Samnites, Etruscans, and Gauls made a desperate effort to crush the rising power; and after this attempt had been frustrated, the Etruscans once again rose in revolt, and their Gallic mercenaries destroyed a Roman army under the walls of Arretium. It was not until the Senones had in their turn been defeated and expelled from Italy, and the Boi, who hastened to avenge them, had been crushed near the Lake of Vadimo, that the republic was finally released from the fear of Gallic invasion. Years passed away. Rome became mistress of the peninsula, and determined to vindicate her natural right to the rich plain on her own side of the Alpine barrier The Gauls offered a strenuous resistance, and even assumed the offensive. Reinforced by a swarm of freelances from the valley of the upper Rh\^one, they boldly crossed the Apennines and plundered Etruria. The Romans were taken by surprise: but in the great battle of Telamon they checked the invasion; and within two years they fought their way to the right bank of the Po. The Insubres on the northern side still held out: but before the outbreak of the second Punic war Mediolanum, or Milan, their chief stronghold, was captured; and the fortresses of Placentia and Cremona were founded. But the work of conquest was only half completed when Hannibal descended into the plain, and the exasperated Gauls rallied round him. When Rome emerged, victorious, from her great struggle, they knew what was in store for them, and made a last attempt to win back their liberty. Placentia was sacked, and Cremona was invested. The Roman army which marched to its relief gained a victory, but was in its turn almost annihilated by the Insubres. The Gauls, however, could never long act together: their countrymen beyond the Alps gave them no help: the league of the northern tribes was rent by discord and treachery; and the Insubres and Cenomani were compelled to accept a peace, which allowed them indeed to retain their constitution, but forbade them to acquire the Roman citizenship. South of the Po the Boi strove frantically to hold their own: but in a series of battles their fighting men were wellnigh exterminated: the Romans insisted upon the cession of half their territory; and on both sides of the river the survivors were gradually lost among Italian settlers. Eastward and southward and westward the empire of the Romans spread. They conquered Greece. They conquered Carthage. They conquered Spain. But between the central and the western peninsula they had no means of communication by land save what was afforded by the Greek colony of Massilia. It was an entreaty from the Massiliots for protection that gave occasion to the wars which resulted in the formation of the Province of Transalpine Gaul; and the natural willingness of the Senate to support their most faithful allies was doubtless stimulated by the desire to secure possession of the indispensable strip of coast between the Alps and the Pyrenees, partly also perhaps by the idea of creating a Greater Italy for the growing Italian population. In 155 {\sc B.C.} the Romans stepped forward as the champions of Massilia against the Ligurian tribes between the Maritime Alps and the Rh\^one. The highlanders who inhabited the mountains above the Riviera were crushed in a single campaign; after an interval of thirty years their western neighbours, the Salyes, were forced to submit; and their Seaboard, like that of the other tribes, was given to the Massiliots. But the Romans had come to stay. The Aedui, who dwelt in the Nivernais and western Burgundy, calculated that the support of the republic would help them to secure ascendancy over their rivals; and by a treaty, fraught with unforeseen issues, they were recognized as Friends and Allies of the Roman people. The Allobroges, on the other hand, whose home was between the Lake of Geneva, the Rh\^one, and the Is\`ere, refused to surrender the king of the Salyes, who had claimed their protection; and Bituitus, King of the Arverni, with all the hosts of his dependent tribes, marched to support them. Just twenty years before the birth of Caesar a great battle was fought at the confluence of the Rh\^one and the Is\`ere.\footnote{$^1$} {M.~Jullian (H.~G., iii, 17, n.~4), rejecting the tradition, argues that the battle took place on the Rh\^one at Pont-St. Esprit.} The Gauls were beaten; and the bridges over the Rh\^one broke down beneath the multitude of the fugitives. This victory was, in the strictest sense, decisive. The Romans were now masters of the lower Rh\^one; and if they were ever to penetrate into Further Gaul, their base could be advanced some hundreds of miles. The Arverni, whose power had extended to the Rhine and the Mediterranean, had received a blow from which they never recovered. The Province which was now formed stretched from the Maritime Alps to the Rh\^one; but the frontier was rapidly extended until it ran along the Cevennes and the river Tarn down into the centre of the Pyrenees. The Gallic tribes were obliged to pay tribute and to furnish troops; and, although, in accordance with Roman principles, they were permitted to retain their own forms of government, their subjection was assured by the construction of roads and fortresses. The heavy exactions of the conquerors provoked frequent insurrections; but year by year the Provincials became steadily Romanized. Roman nobles acquired estates in the Province, and sent their stewards to manage them. Roman merchants built warehouses and counting-houses in the towns; and the language and civilization of Rome began to take root. Narbo with its spacious harbour was not only a powerful military station, but in commerce the rival of Massilia. Nor was the activity of the Romans confined to the Province itself. Catamantaloedis, King of the Sequani, whose territory lay north of the Allobroges, received from the Senate the title of Friend; and the same honour was bestowed upon an Aquitanian noble and upon Ollovico, King of the Nitiobroges, who ruled the upper valley of the Garonne. These distinctions were doubtless prized as much by the Gallic chieftains as the title of Knight Commander of the Star of India by an Indian prince of our own time. For what services they were conferred, we do not know; but events were already paving the way for the conquest of the great country that stretched beyond the Rh\^one and the Cevennes to the Rhine and the Atlantic Ocean. The aspect of the region was, of course, very different from that of the beautiful France with which we are familiar. The land of gay cities, of picturesque old towns dominated by awful cathedrals, of cornfields and vineyards and sunny hamlets and smiling chateaux, was then covered in many places by dreary swamps and darkened by huge forests. Gaul extended far beyond the limits of modern France, including a large part of Switzerland, Alsace, Lorraine, and the Rhenish Provinces, Belgium, and Southern Holland. The people were divided into three groups, differing, so Caesar tells us, in race, language, manners, and institutions. Between the Garonne and the Pyrenees were the Aquitani. Northeast of the Seine and the Marne, in the plains of Picardy, Artois, and Champagne, on the mist-laden flats of the Scheldt and the lower Rhine and in the vast forest of the Ardennes, dwelt the Belgae, who may have partially mixed and were continually at war with their German neighbors. The lowlands of Switzerland, Alsace, Lorraine, and part of the Rhenish Provinces, the great plains and the uplands of central France, and the Atlantic seaboard, were occupied by the Celtae. Modern science, however, has established a more precise classification. During the last fifty years the classical texts, which were once the only source of knowledge, have been supplemented by geological, archaeological, and anthropological research; and it has become possible to reconstruct the prehistory, the very existence of which had hardly been suspected, of every European land. Skeletons have yielded information about the physical characters of the people: their implements and weapons, their clothing and ornaments, their art, and even their religion, have been revealed by relics extracted from the hill-forts, and buried hoards. The Celts were but the latest invaders of Gaul; and their life was profoundly influences by the Ligurians, the Iberians, and the nameless tribes who, during countless millenniums, had dwelt in Gaul before them. The earliest belonged to the Quaternary Period, which included the Great Ice Age; and the time, incalculably long, during which they and their fellows in Britain and on the Continent existed, is known as the Palaeolithic, or Old Stone, Age. They saw the volcanoes of Auvergne, which during countless centuries have slumbered, belching forth flame and discharging lava; mammoths and rhinoceroses, lions, bears, and hyenas, bisons, gluttons, wolves were their fellows; and over the vast expanse of the forest-cumbered land, where they roamed in quest of food, there was no sign, save their rude handiwork, that they would rise superior to the beasts which the primitive savage regards with mingled fear and veneration. Yet they buried their dead with scrupulous care, sometimes placing tools beside them; and we may perhaps infer that they fancied that the soul would still endure. These ancient hunters were not all of one type. Men with low brutish foreheads and huge beetling brows ranged over the whole country between Croatia and the river Dordogne; gigantic skeletons have been found in the department of the Dordogne and in the caves of Mentone; and before the end of the Quaternary Period there were living in the caves of Laugerie-Basse and Chancelade a people who, if we may judge from their well-formed and capacious skulls, possessed an intellectual capacity not inferior to that of their modern descendants. They have indeed left evidence of their powers; for late in the Palaeolithic Age appeared the dawn of pictorial art. From the caves of the Tarn-et-Garonne and the Dordogne have been recovered bones and antlers, engraved or carved with likenesses of mammoths, reindeer, and other animals, of fishes, and of men. Specimens of their work, which are recognized by modern artists as true works of art, are preserved in the museums of France; and reproductions have been published of frescoes with which, by the dim light of their rude lamps, they covered the walls of Pyrenean caves. The palaeolithic races had one feature in common: their heads were long in proportion to their breadth; and the same characteristic is found in the skulls of the slender stunted people of l'Homme Mort and Baumes-Chaudes in the department of the Loz\`ere, who, though they were descended from the older inhabitants, belonged to the Neolithic Age. These peoples, who are called after the caverns in which the first specimens were found, appear to have been diffused over the length and breadth of Gaul. But as the new epoch advanced, new races began to appear; and the invaders, who came from the east, and gradually mingled with the aborigines, were a short but sturdy folk, characterized by great breadth of skull. The palaeolithic hunters had been forced to wander in search of game: their successors domesticated cattle and ultimately learned to till the soil. Among them were some whose chiefs erected dolmens, or vast structures of stone, to cover the sepulchres of their dead. Some are of enormous size, and could only have been erected by the toil of multitudes, controlled and organized by chiefs whose motive was to propitiate the spirits that they believed to survive. At P\'erotte, in the department of the Charente, a stone was set up which weighed forty tons and had been quarried twenty miles away: the tumulus of Mont St.~Michel in the Morbihan is a veritable hill, and contains more than forty thousand cubic yards of stone. The era in which these monuments were constructed was marked by considerable commercial activity; for some of them have yielded ornaments of a mineral resembling turquoise, which must have been imported; amber beads had already been conveyed from the Baltic by way of the Elbe, the Moldau, and the Danube; and flint from the factory of the Grand-Pressigny in the Indre-et-Loire was diffused as far as Switzerland. Slowly, insensibly, civilization moved onward. There is evidence to show that the Neolithic Age set in nearly ten millenniums before our era; the Bronze Age, which succeeded it, began about 2000 {\sc B.~C.}; and it was not until more than a thousand years had passed that the culture which derives its name from the Tyrolese settlement of Hallstatt, and in which bronze, as material for tools and weapons, gradually gave place to iron, spread westward across the Rhine. The knowledge of metals penetrated into Gaul by two routes, of which the starting-point was in the Aegean. South-Eastern Gaul was served by a route that led through Central Europe; Western Gaul borrowed from Spain. Although the memory of intertribal war is preserved by earthworks and stone forts which, even in the Neolithic Age, had been erected upon the hills, commerce, internal and external, advanced with rapid strides. Forests were gradually cleared; and trackways were laid out from village to village. Caravans began to cross the Alps from the valley of the Po. Gold crescent-shaped ornaments, intended to be worn round the neck, and fancifully decorated with geometrical figures, were brought from Ireland; comparison of the types of pottery, of knives and axes, razors and swords, of bracelets, pins, and brooches, shows that many were derived from Italy and Germany; and before the end of the Hallstatt period trade was established with the Greeks, while wine was imported and distributed by the merchants of Massilia. The earliest inhabitants of Gaul about whom history has anything to tell were the Ligurians and Iberians, neither of whom are mentioned by Caesar. According to the ancient geographers, the land which originally belonged to the Ligurians was the mountainous tract between the Rh\^one, the Durance, and the Cottian and Maritime Alps: but by the fifth century before Christ they were mingled with Iberians on the west of the Rh\^one; and from the evidence of certain geographical names as well as of archaeology, it would seem that they once possessed the whole of Eastern Gaul as far north as the Marne. The culture of this region in the Bronze Age differed from that of the west, but closely resembled that of Northern Italy, where we know that Ligurians lived. The vast number of sickles which have been discovered in the south-east show that the Ligurians were industrious tillers of the soil; and they may have been descended, at least in part, from Swiss lake-dwellers of the Stone Age, who probably introduced cereals and domestic animals into Gaul. The origin of the Iberians remains uncertain: but when they came under the notice of the Greeks they occupied the eastern part of Spain as well as the country between the Pyrenees and the Rh\^one; and it should seem that they had crossed the Pyrenees and made conquests in Aquitania as well as on the Mediterranean coast. There can be little doubt that in the land which belonged to them, in Spain as well as in Southern Gaul, there once existed, besides Celtic, at least two forms of speech,---Basque and a language or languages, still undeciphered, in which were engraven the so-called Iberian inscriptions. But if the Iberians were not one race, the bulk of them were small and dark, and not unlike the neolithic people of l'Homme Mort. In Caesar's time Liguria, as well as the land of the Iberians, was also peopled by the descendants of Celtic invaders. It was about the seventh century before the Christian era that the tall fair Celts began to cross the Rhine, accompanied doubtless by the descendants of aliens who had joined them during their long sojourn in Germany. Successive swarms spread over the land, partly subduing and mingling with the descendants of the palaeolithic peoples and of their neolithic conquerors, partly perhaps driving them into the mountainous tracts. Physically, they resembled the Germans whom Caesar and Tacitus describe; but they differed from them in character and customs as well as in speech. The Belgic Celts were the latest comers; and if Caesar was rightly informed, the languages of the Belgae and the Celtae were distinct. Of the modern Celtic dialects, Gaelic, which is spoken in the Highlands of Scotland, Manx, and Erse, which is spoken in the west of Ireland, are descended from an old Celtic language, called Goidelic; while Welsh and Breton are traceable to the British language called Brythonic, which was closely akin to Gaulish or Gallo-Brythonic. The difference between the languages of the Belgae and the Celtae was probably slight; for if a Goidelic dialect was spoken anywhere in Gaul, the vestiges of Gallic that remain belong, for the most part, to the Brythonic branch of the Celtic tongue. In Aquitania the natives remained comparatively pure, and formed a separate group, which, in Caesar's time, stood politically apart from the Celtae as well as from the Belgae. They are generally spoken of as an Iberian people; but the name is misleading. The conquering Celts, as we may infer from proper names, had advanced, though probably in small numbers, beyond the Garonne; and evidence supplied by recent measurements of living inhabitants appears to show that in certain parts of Aquitania the old broad-headed element was considerable. But it is certain that the Celtic language was not generally spoken in Aquitania; and the Iberian type was sufficiently conspicuous to give some support to the popular theory. Thus when Caesar entered Gaul, the groups whom he called Belgae, Celtae, and Aquitani were each a medley of different races. The Belgae were the purest and the least civilized of the three; and both in Belgic and in Celtican Gaul the Celtic conquerors had imposed their language upon the conquered peoples. Even in a political sense, the Belgae and the Celtae were not separated by a hard and fast line; for the Celtican tribe of the Carnutes was among the dependents of the Belgic Remi, while on the other hand the Celtican Aedui claimed supremacy over the Belgic Bellovaci. But if not scientifically complete, the grouping adopted by Caesar was sufficient for the purpose of his narrative. Just as a modern conqueror, without troubling himself about questions of ethnology, might say that the people of Great Britain were composed of Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welsh, so Caesar divided the people of Gaul into Belgae, Celtae, and Aquitani. Setting aside the Aquitani, of whom he had little to tell, the medley of peoples whom he called `Galli' had probably so far coalesced that they had acquired certain common traits of character. Perhaps when he described the features of the Gallic temperament which had most impressed him in the course of the war, he took little note of the lowest class, the cultivators and the shepherds, who had not much to do with political life: but we can hardly suppose that his remarks applied only to the ruling class or to the purer Celts;\footnote{$^2$} {See especially {\it B. G.,} ii, 1, \S 3; iii, 19, \S 6; iv, 5, \S\S 2--3, 13, \S 3; vii, 20--1.} and, guided by his observations, we cannot go far astray. The Gauls were an interesting people, enthusiastic, impulsive, quick-witted, versatile, vainglorious and ostentatious, childishly inquisitive and childishly credulous, rash, sanguine, and inconstant, arrogant in victory and despondent in defeat, submissive as women to their priests, impatient of law and discipline, yet capable of loyalty to a strong and sympathetic ruler. The notices which Caesar and other writers have left of their civilization have been supplemented by the evidence of archaeology. Five centuries before the birth of Christ the culture of Hallstatt had given place to that which takes its name from the village of La T\`ene, at the northern end of the lake of Neuchatel, where, some sixty years ago, was discovered a precious series of antiquities. The art, essentially Celtic, characterized by the tasteful use of curves, which was practised in the design and decoration of these objects, was in part an outgrowth of that of Hallstatt, but also owed much to classical and even to oriental influences. Imported into Britain by the Brythonic invaders, it there shook itself free from all trammels, and attained an even higher level than in Gaul, culminating in the graceful and exquisitely decorated shield of bronze and red enamel which adorns the Central Saloon of our National Museum. Specialists have determined three periods, known as La T\`ene I, II, and III, of which the last began about forty years before the proconsulship of Caesar. By that time the Gallic peoples had all risen far above the condition of barbarians; while the Celticans of the interior had attained a certain degree of civilization and even of luxury. Their trousers, from which the Province took its name of Gallia Braccata, and their many-coloured tartan shirts and cloaks excited the astonishment of their conquerors. The chiefs wore rings and bracelets and necklaces of gold; and when those tall fair-haired warriors rode forth to battle with their helmets wrought in the shape of some fierce beast's head and surmounted by nodding plumes, their chain armour, their long bucklers, and their clanking swords, they made a splendid show. About fifty years before Caesar's time, war-chariots, which had excited the astonishment of the Romans in the battle of Telamon, and which were still used in Britain, had fallen into disuse, probably because the wealthy natives had begun to import horses powerful enough for a charge of cavalry; but from the older graves of the department of the Marne, which have yielded numerous remains of these cars, bronze horse-trappings of most delicate open-work and bronze flagons which had been fetched from Greece have been unearthed. The arts of building and of fortification had made a considerable advance. Walled towns or large villages, the strongholds of the various tribes, were conspicuous on numerous hills. The plains were dotted by scores of open hamlets. The houses, built of timber and wattle-work, were large and well thatched. Tweezers and ornamented mirrors of bronze lay on the tables of Gallic dames. Painted pottery, decorated with spirals or symmetrical curves, was used everywhere, except, apparently, in the remote north-western peninsula. The fields in summer were yellow with corn. The vine was not yet cultivated: but the merchants of Massilia imported wine from Italy; and wealthy Gauls would eagerly barter a slave for a jar. Roads, suitable for wheeled traffic, ran from town to town. Rude bridges spanned the rivers; and barges, laden with merchandise, floated along them. Ships, clumsy indeed but larger than many that were seen on the Mediterranean, braved the storms of the Bay of Biscay and carried cargoes between the ports of Brittany and the coast of Britain. Tolls were exacted on the goods which were transported on the great water-ways; and it was from the farming of these dues that the nobles derived a large part of their wealth. The Aeduans were familiar with the art of enamelling. The miners of Aquitaine, of Auvergne, and of the Berri were celebrated for their skill. Every tribe had its coinage; and the knowledge of writing, in Greek and in Roman characters, was not confined to the priests. Diodorus Siculus\footnote{$^3$} {v, 28, \S 6.} remarks that the Gauls threw letters, addressed to the dead, on to funeral piles; and Caesar, after he had defeated the Helvetii, found in their encampment a schedule, on which were recorded in Greek characters the names of individuals, the number of emigrants capable of bearing arms, and the numbers of old men, women, and children. It would seem, indeed, that some knowledge of Latin had penetrated even to the rudest tribe of the Belgae.\footnote{$^4$} {On the other hand, it must be remembered that Caesar conversed with Diviciacus through an interpreter ({\it B. G.,} i, 19, \S 3).} When Caesar was marching to relieve Quintus Cicero, who was besieged by the Nervii, he wrote to him in Greek characters, for fear the letter might be intercepted and read. At an earlier time there were natives, at least in the Province, who acquired a smattering of Greek. Rich enthusiasts resorted to Massilia as a school of learning, and became so enamoured of Greek culture that they wrote contracts in the language of their teachers. Indeed in all that belonged to outward prosperity the peoples of Gaul had made great strides since their kinsmen first came in contact with Rome; and the enormous fortunes which Caesar and his staff amassed are evidence of their wealth. The coins which have just been mentioned require special notice; for none of the antiquities of the Later Iron Age have thrown more light upon the culture of the Gauls. The oldest were copied in the earlier half of the third century before Christ from gold coins of Philip of Macedon, which had been introduced through Massilia. For some time they bore no inscription, except the name of Philip, more or less deformed; but about the middle of the following century---more than a hundred years before the same change was made in our island---they began to be stamped with the names of the rulers by whom they were issued, among whom are to be recognized some who have been commemorated by Caesar,---notably the great Vercingetorix, whose coins are worth about fifty times their weight in gold. Greek characters are sometimes quaintly jumbled with Latin, which gradually became familiar after the Romans had established their footing in the land. Many Roman coins, indeed, must have been circulated in Gaul after the colonization of Narbo; and Roman influence is apparent on many Gallic coins, for example in a figure of Pegasus, which appears on one that bears the name of Tasgetius, King of the Carnutes. For many years gold coins were the only medium of exchange; but, as commercial needs increased, silver and bronze passed gradually into use, the coins of the latter metal being imitated from those of Massilia, and, in the case of certain Belgic specimens, even from those of Campania. The coins, indeed, illustrate not only the commerce of the Gauls, but also their intertribal relations, their manners and customs, and perhaps occasionally their religion. Thus, while the extreme rarity of Arvernian coins in the great mart of Bibracte may perhaps be explained by the traditional enmity between the Arverni and the Aedui, the discoveries of British coins in Gaul and of Gallic coins in Britain attest the maritime trade which Caesar notices; coins of Central Europe found as far west as Saintonge and Gallic coins found in the Bohemian stronghold of Stradoni\'e prove that the Gauls had intercourse with the valley of the Danube; Massilian coins found in various parts of Gaul bear witness to the enterprise of the Greek colony; and numerous hoards of silver coins of one type, all of which have been found in the basin of the Garonne, confirm the impression which we derive from the {\it Commentaries} that the relations of Aquitania were mainly with Spain. Again, when we notice that horses and swine are figured on Gallic coins more frequently than any other animals, we are reminded of the passage\footnote{$^5$} {{\it B.G.,} iv, 2, \S 2.} in which Caesar observes that the Gauls imported well-bred horses at great cost, and of the passage in which Strabo\footnote{$^6$} {iv, 3, \S 2; 4, \S 3.} speaks of the hams which the Sequani exported to Italy. Shields and trumpets remind us of Diodorus's\footnote{$^7$} {v, 30, \S\S 2--4.} description of Gallic arms; and the lyre, which is figured on certain coins, may represent the instrument with which the bards accompanied their songs. It is remarkable that all the coins which have been found in the great strongholds are of late date---not earlier than about a hundred years before the Christian era---which tends to show that none had been founded more than half a century before Caesar entered Gaul. Probably Avaricum, Bibracte, Lutecia, and the other towns which he mentions were fortified during the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutoni, which devastated Gaul between 113 and 109 {\sc B.C.} Of all these towns the one which is best known to us was Bibracte, described by Caesar as `by far the wealthiest and most important town of the Aedui', which stood upon Mont Beuvray, a few miles west of Autun. If Cicero had visited it he might perhaps have spoken with less disdain of the urban life of the Gauls.\footnote{$^8$} {See Cicero's speech, {\it De prov. cons.,} 12, \S 29,} Streets, workshops, ramparts have been revealed by excavation. Fifteen hundred coins, nine-tenths of which belonged to the period of independence, testify to the manifold commercial relations of the inhabitants. The houses show that the round conical wooden huts which Strabo described were only the more primitive productions of Gaulish domestic architecture. Like them, indeed, the houses at Bibracte were partly subterranean, this form having been adopted as a precaution against cold on such a high altitude, and probably, like the modern cottages of the Morvan, they were thatched with straw; but their Shape was rectangular, they were built of stone compacted with clay, and they were entered by an interior staircase. The crucibles, moulds, and polishing-stones of enamel-workers, broken tools, brooches, and pottery, all belong, like the coins, to the latest period of the Celtic Iron Age. Besides these relics of native workmanship were painted vases, imported from Italy, which Gallic artificers soon learned to imitate. But the growth of material prosperity had not been matched by true national progress. The Aquitani, indeed, the maritime tribes, and the Belgae were untouched by foreign influences; but the Celticans of the interior had been enfeebled by contact with Roman civilization. Much nonsense has been written about the enervating effect of luxury. Its effect, however, when it is suddenly introduced among a half-civilized people, is quite different from its effect when it is a natural growth. The Gauls had lost the strength of barbarism, and had not gained the strength of civilization. They had once, as Caesar remarked,\footnote{$^9$} {{\it B.G.,} vi, 24, \S 1.} been more than a match for the Germans; but enervated by imported luxury, and cowed by a succession of defeats, they no longer pretended to be able to cope with them. The reader will have gathered from the foregoing pages that neither the Belgae, nor the Celtae, nor the Aquitani formed one state or even a confederation: each of the three was a group of tribes, which Caesar called {\it civitates.} The tribe was generally an aggregate, more or less compact, of communities to which he gave the name of {\it pagi,} the members of which had originally been related by blood or by near neighbourhood; but it would seem that some of the smaller tribes consisted each of one {\it pagus} only. Each {\it pagus,} under its own magistrate, appears to have enjoyed a certain measure of independence, and to have contributed its separate contingent to the tribal host. Each tribe had its council, which Caesar called a senate, and had once had its king: but when Caesar came to Gaul revolutionary forces were at work to which there were analogies in the earlier history of Greece and Rome. Many of the states had expelled their kings, whose authority had passed in some cases into the hands of annually elected magistrates, while in others perhaps the council kept the government to itself. A rule which prevailed among the Aedui illustrates the anxiety which was felt lest monarchical power should revive. In that state the chief magistrate, who was known as the Vergobret, was forbidden to stir beyond the frontiers of the country, from which it may be inferred that it was not lawful for him to command the host. The executive was generally weak. Some of the smaller communities of which a tribe was composed occasionally acted on their own account, in opposition to the rest or to the policy of the tribal authorities. Like the Anglo-Saxon thanes and the Norman barons, the nobles surrounded themselves with retainers,---loyal followers or enslaved debtors; and none but those who became their dependents could be sure of protection. On the other hand, none but those who were strong enough to protect could be sure of obedience. The oligarchies were no more secure than the monarchs whom they had supplanted. These men or their descendants sullenly plotted for the restoration of their dynasties, and, reckless of the common weal, they were in the mood to court the aid even of a foreign conqueror, and to reign as his nominees. Here and there some wealthy noble, like Pisistratus in Athens, armed his retainers, hired a band of mercenaries, won the support of the populace by eloquence and largess, and, overthrowing the feeble oligarchy, usurped supreme power. Thus the oligarchies lived in perpetual unrest: if no one noble was conspicuously strong, there was intestine strife; if one could make himself supreme, the government was overthrown. The populace were perhaps beginning to have some consciousness of their own latent strength; but there is no evidence that anywhere they had any definite political rights. The Druids and the nobles, or, as Caesar called them, the knights, enjoyed a monopoly of power and consideration: the bulk of the poorer freemen, ground down by taxation and strangled with debt, had no choice but to become serfs. And if in individual tribes there was anarchy, want of unity was the bane of them all. It was not only that Belgian and Aquitanian and Celtican were naturally distinct: the evil was more deeply seated. It is of course true that disunion is the normal condition of half-civilized peoples. The Old English tribes showed no genius for combination: it was the strong hand of an Egbert, an Edgar, an Athelstan, that laid the foundations of the English kingdom. Nor was the kingdom united, except in the loosest sense, even on the eve of the Norman Conquest. If Harold was formally king over all England, his subjects felt themselves Yorkshiremen or men of Kent rather than Englishmen. Moreover, the circumstances of the Gauls were peculiarly unfortunate. Their patriotism, if it was latent, was real: they were proud of what their fathers had achieved in war; and the sense of nationality was stirring in their hearts. Caesar himself allows that some of the tribes were comparatively well governed;\footnote{$^{10}$} {{\it B.G.,} vi, 20.} and even clientship, which after all harassed our own government until Henry the Seventh stamped it out, had its noble side. Who does not respect the `six hundred devoted followers' of Adiatunnus,\footnote{$^{11}$} {{\it Ib.} iii, 22.} the four squires whom neither fear nor favour could induce to betray Ambiorix,\footnote{$^{12}$} {{\it Ib.} vi, 43, \S 6.} and those attendants of Litaviccus who remembered that 'Gallic custom brands it as shameful for retainers to desert their lords even when all is lost'?\footnote{$^{13}$} {{\it B.G.,} vii, 40, \S 7} `If the Gauls had been unmolested or had been exposed to attack only from a single enemy, it seems probable that, in the fullness of time, some great ruler might have welded them into a united nation. But menaced as they were by the Germans on one side and by the Romans on another, their tendency to disunion was increased. And, though it is foolish to pass sweeping judgements upon a people of whom, except during the few years that preceded the loss of their independence, we have only the scantiest knowledge, it would be a great mistake to leap to the conclusion that, in political capacity, one race is as good as another. No one would deny that the Greeks were endowed with a genius for art and literature which their environment doubtless helped to develop; and it may be that the Celts were but poorly endowed with political talent, and that circumstances had helped to stunt its growth. The important fact is, explain it as we may, that the tribal rulers of Gaul had not achieved even that first step towards unity which the kings of Wessex achieved when they swallowed up the petty kingdoms of the Heptarchy. Or perhaps it would be more true to say that, when the Romans first established themselves on the west of the Alps, the Arvernian king had achieved that step; but that first his defeat on the banks of the Rh\^one, and afterwards the revolution which subverted the royal power, had broken the ascendancy of his house and dealt a fatal blow to the political development of Gaul. There, as in Latium, the downfall of the monarch inevitably weakened the power of the tribe; and the oligarchies, if they had the power, were not granted the time to work out their own salvation. Individual tribes, such as the Aedui and the Arverni, did indeed achieve some sort of supremacy over their weaker neighbours; and in certain cases two tribes, for example the Senones and the Parisii, formed one state. There were leagues of the Belgae, the Aquitani, and the maritime tribes. But supremacy had not hardened into sovereignty; and the leagues were loose, occasional, and uncertain. If some powerful baron, stimulated by ambition or impressed by the evils of disunion, succeeded in clutching the power of a Bretwalda,\footnote{$^{14}$} {The king of one of the seven principal kingdoms of early English history, if he was strong enough, exercised over the other kings `an acknowledged, though probably not a very well-defined supremacy'. See E. A. Freeman's {\it Norman Conquest of England,} i, 1870, p.~27, 542--8.} he was forthwith suspected by his brother nobles of a design to revive the detested monarchy, and was lucky if he escaped the stake. The country swarmed with outlawed criminals, who had fled from justice, and exiled adventurers, who had failed to execute {\it coups d'etat.} Nobles and their clients lived sword in hand; and hardly a year passed without some petty war. Every tribe, every hamlet, nay, every household was riven by faction. One was for the Romans and another for the Helvetii; one for the Aedui and another for the Arverni; one for a Diviciacus and another for a Dumnorix; one for the constitutional oligarchy and another for the lawless adventurer. All, in short, were for a party; and none was for the state. Yet, besides the memory of their glorious past, which, as Caesar once remarked,\footnote{$^{15}$} {{\it B.G.,} v, 54, \S 5.} both saddened the Gauls and spurred them to desperate enterprises, there were certain influences which tended to make every man feel that he and his fellows belonged to one nation. If the French are the most united of all peoples, they owe this fortune to their country, whose unifying tendency has ever been the same. France, says Vidal de la Blache,\footnote{$^{16}$} {E. Lavisse, {\it Hist. de la France,} t.~i, 1 (by P.~Vidal de la Blache), pp.~49, 51--2; {\it Bull. de g\'eogr. hist et descr.,} 1902, pp.~119, 124.} who of all geographers knows best how to make his readers feel the tie between motherland and people,---France is a country whose regions are naturally connected, and whose inhabitants learned early to mingle with and to know one another. No country of equal extent comprises such diversities; but they pass off into each other by insensible gradations. `There is ', says this writer, `a beneficent force---a genius loci---which has guided our national life,---an indefinable power which, without obliterating varieties, has blended them in a harmonious whole.' The wayfarer who roams from the sand-hills of the Channel to the mountains of Auvergne, from the uplands of the Morvan to the plain of the Berri, conversing with peasant and townsman in turn, who is touched by the spirit of prehistoric life wafted from the rude stone monuments of Brittany and by the spirit of imperial Rome which broods over the mediaeval glories of Bourges and over that ancient town\footnote{$^{17}$} {Alesia.} which is being revealed by the excavator on Mont Auxois---who feels how one influenced the other and both survive in our Mechanical Age---will comprehend what the geographer means; and for him the tale which Caesar told will become real. And in Gaul, as in England before the Norman Conquest, there was another influence which in some measure counteracted disunion,---community of religious ideas, controlled by one ecclesiastical organization. Local deities of course abounded: but the great gods whom Caesar noticed, however variously they may have been conceived by various tribes, were common to Gaul; while every rite and every sacrifice was recognized and regulated by Druidism.\footnote{$^{18}$} {See the notes on vi, 13--14, 17--18.} But though religion might perhaps foster the idea, it could not supply the instant need of political union. Over the vast wooded plains of Germany fierce hordes were roaming, looking with hungry eyes towards the rich prize that lay beyond the Rhine. Moreover, the danger of Gaul was the danger of Italy. The invader who had been attracted by `the pleasant land of France' would soon look southward over the cornfields, the vineyards, and the olive-gardens of Lombardy. When Caesar was entering public life, men who were not yet old could remember the terror which had been inspired by the Cimbri and Teutoni,---those fair-haired giants who had come down, like an avalanche, from the unknown lands that bordered on the northern sea. They descended into the valley of the Danube. They overthrew a Roman consul in Carinthia; crossed the Rhine and threaded the passes of the Jura; and overran the whole of Celtican Gaul. Four years after their first victory they defeated another consul in the Province. Then they vanished: but four years later they reappeared; and two more armies were routed on the banks of the Rh\^one. The panic-stricken Italians dreaded another Allia: but, while Italy lay at their mercy, the Cimbri turned aside; and when, after three years' wandering in Spain and Gaul, they rejoined the Teutoni, and the two swarms headed for the south, Marius was waiting for them on the Rh\^one, and his brother consul in Cisalpine Gaul. Once more the host divided; and while the Teutoni encountered Marius, the Cimbri threaded the Brenner Pass, and descended the valley of the Adige. The Teutoni were destroyed in the neighbourhood of Aix; the Cimbri at Vercellae, near the confluence of the Sesia and the Po. But if this danger had been averted, the movements of the other German peoples might well cause anxiety. A bitter enmity had for many years existed between the Aedui and the Arverni, each of whom were overlords of a group of tribes. The Arverni, in conjunction with the Sequani, hired the aid of a German chieftain, Ariovistus, who crossed the Rhine with fifteen thousand men. They were enchanted with the country, its abundance, and its comparative civilization; and fresh swarms were attracted by the good news. After a long struggle the Aedui were decisively beaten, and had to cede territory and give hostages to the Sequani, who apparently usurped the supremacy which had been exercised by the Arverni. One of the leading Aeduans, the famous Druid, Diviciacus, went to Rome and implored the Senate for help. His aim was not merely to get rid of Ariovistus and to free his country from the yoke of the Sequani, but also to regain his own influence, which had been eclipsed by that of his younger brother, Dumnorix. He was treated with marked distinction, made the acquaintance of Caesar, and discussed religion and philosophy with Cicero; but the Senate did not see their way to interfere on his behalf. All that they did was to pass a vague decree that whoever might at any time be Governor of the Province should, as far as might be consistent with his duty to the republic, make it his business to protect the Aedui and the other allies of the Roman people.'\footnote{$^{19}$} {I agree with Long ({\it D.R.R.,} iii, 477) that the senatorial decree was aimed against Ariovistus, for there is no evidence that the Helvetii entered Gaul before 60 {\sc B.C.}} Meanwhile the Sequani had found that their ally was their master. He was not going to return to the wilds of Germany when he could get a rich territory for the asking. He compelled the Sequani to cede to him the fertile plain of Alsace. At length they and their Gallic allies, including, as it should seem, even the Aedui, mustered all their forces and made a desperate effort to throw off the yoke: but they sustained a crushing defeat; and their conqueror was evidently determined to found a German kingdom in Gaul. Meanwhile the Allobroges, who had never yet fairly accepted their dependent condition, had risen in revolt. They were still embittered by defeat when the Roman agents in the Province were alarmed by the appearance of bands of marauders on the right bank of the Rh\^one. They had been sent by the Helvetii, a warlike Celtic people, who dwelt in that part of Switzerland which lies between the Rhine, the Jura, the Lake of Geneva, and the Upper Rh\^one. The Romans had already felt the weight of their arms. A generation before, the Tigurini, one of the four Helvetian tribes, had thrown in their lot with the Cimbri. They had spread desolation along the valley of the Rh\^one, defeated a consular army, and compelled the survivors to pass under the yoke. Now, in their turn, they were hard pressed by the Germans; they had reason to fear that the victorious host of Ariovistus would sever them from their Celtic kinsmen; and they had formed the resolution of abandoning their country and seeking a new home in the fertile land of Gaul. The author of the movement was Orgetorix, the head of the Helvetian baronage. His story throws a vivid light upon the condition of the Gallic tribes. He persuaded his brother nobles that they would be able to win the mastery over Gaul, and undertook a diplomatic mission to the leading Transalpine states. Two chiefs were ready to listen to him, Casticus, whose father had been the last king of the Sequani, and Dumnorix, brother of Diviciacus, who was at that time the most powerful chieftain of the Aedui. If Diviciacus saw the salvation of his country in dependence upon Rome, his brother regarded the connexion with abhorrence. He was able, ambitious, and rich; and the common people adored him. Orgetorix urged him and Casticus to seize the royal power in their respective states, as he intended to do in his, and promised them armed support. The three entered into a formal compact for the conquest and partition of Gaul; and, if they had any aim beyond their own aggrandizement, they may have hoped that their success would not only checkmate Ariovistus, but stop the anarchy which paralysed their country and avert the encroachments of Rome. Their purpose threatened the republic with a twofold danger. Once they had gone, the lands which they left vacant would be overrun by the Germans, who would then be in dangerous proximity to Italy; and there was no telling what mischief they might do in Gaul. Above the din of party strife at Rome the note of warning was heard. Men talked anxiously of the prospects of war; and the Senate sent commissioners to dissuade the Gallic peoples from joining the invaders. But the ambitious triumvirate had still to reckon with the Helvetii. They heard that their envoy had broken his trust, and immediately recalled him to answer for his conduct. He knew that if he were found guilty, he would be burned alive; and accordingly, when he appeared before his judges, he was followed by his retainers and slaves, numbering over ten thousand men. The magistrates, determined to bring him to justice, called the militia to arms; but in the meantime the adventurer died, perhaps by his own hand. But the idea which he had conceived did not die. The Helvetii had no intention of abandoning their enterprise, nor Dumnorix of abandoning his. He had married a daughter of Orgetorix; and he was quite ready to help them if they would make it worth his while. They resolved to spend two years in preparing for their emigration; bought up wagons and draught cattle; and laid in large supplies of corn. But in Italy there was a statesman ready to checkmate them. One of the consuls for the year 59 was Julius Caesar. About the time of the election Ariovistus, who had already paid court to Caesar's predecessor, Metellus, made overtures for an alliance with Rome; and doubtless with the object of securing his neutrality in view of the threatened Helvetian invasion, the Senate conferred upon him the title of Friend of the Roman People. They had already half promised to protect their Gallic allies. They now practically guaranteed to the conqueror of those allies the security of his conquest. And in this latter policy Caesar, if we may believe his own word,\footnote{$^{20}$} {{\it B.G.,} i, 33, \S 1; 35, \S 1; 43, \S 4.} fully concurred. He must have seen the impending troubles. But he was not yet free to encounter them; and he doubtless approved of any expedient for keeping the barbarian chief inactive until he could go forth in person to confront him. That time was at hand. In the year of his consulship Caesar was made Governor of Illyricum, or Dalmatia, and of Gaul, that is to say of Gallia Cisalpina, or Piedmont and the Plain of Lombardy, and of Gallia Braccata, or, as it was usually called, the Province. If Suetonius\footnote{$^{21}$} {{\it Divus Iulius,} 22.} was rightly informed, his commission gave him the right to include Gallia Comata---`the land of the long-haired Gauls'---that is to say the whole of independent Gaul north of the Province, within his sphere of action.\footnote{$^{22}$} {It has been objected (Athenaeum, Jan. 13, 1900, p. 42) that `in another passage (Gram., c. 3) Suetonius applies the expression ``Gallia Comata'' to a portion [only] of Transalpine Gaul'. Suetonius (ed. C.~L.~Roth, p. 289, l. 23) there says that `Munatius Plancus, when he was governor of Gallia Comata, founded Lugdunum ({\it Munatius Plancus, cum Galliam regeret Comatam, Lugdunum condidit}), which surely does not prove that the Province could properly be called Gallia Comata. Still Suetonius may have used the expression incorrectly.} As he assumed the responsibility of invading Britain also, it may be well to say a few words about the people whom he found there. The primitive life of Britain, in its main features, though more backward, was not very different from that of Gaul; and from an early period there was intercourse between the two. Britain, like Gaul, had its Stone Age, its Bronze Age, its Early Iron Age. Its earlier inhabitants, like those of Gaul, were conquered by Celts, the latest hordes of whom were Belgae. Druidism flourished in Britain: the Britons worshipped gods who were also Gallic; and we have seen that trade was carried on across the Channel. But even in Caesar's time the Britons lagged behind their continental kinsmen. Though in the social and the political conditions, the manners and customs of the two countries there were many points of resemblance, in Britain there is no sign that either oligarchy or tyranny had yet anywhere supplanted monarchy. Caesar's appointment carried with it the command of an army consisting of four legions, perhaps about twenty thousand men. One of them was quartered in the Province: the other three were at Aquileia, near the site of the modern Trieste. He could also command the services of slingers from the Balearic Isles, of archers from Numidia and Crete, and of cavalry from Spain; but, as his own narrative will show, he raised the bulk of his cavalry year by year in Gaul itself. The number of the auxiliary infantry was perhaps generally about one-tenth of that of the regulars; the number of the cavalry varied greatly, but four hundred for each legion was near the average. Various military reforms had keen introduced by Marius; and the legions of Caesar were, in many respects, different from those which had fought against Hannibal. They were no longer a militia, but an army of professional soldiers. Each legion consisted of ten cohorts; and the cohort, formed of three maniples or six centuries, had replaced the maniple as the tactical Unit of the legion. From the earliest times the legion had been commanded by an officer called a military tribune. Six were assigned to each legion; and each one of the number held command in turn. But they now often owed their appointments to interest rather than to merit; and no tribune in Caesar's army was ever placed at the head of a legion. They still had administrative duties to perform, and exercised subordinate commands. But the principal officers were the {\it legati}, who might loosely be called generals of division. Their powers were not strictly defined, but varied according to circumstances and to the confidence which they deserved. A {\it legatus} might he entrusted with the command of a legion or of an army corps; he might even, in the absence of his chief, be entrusted with the command of the entire army. But he was not yet, as such, the permanent commander of a legion. The officers upon whom the efficiency of the troops mainly depended were the centurions. They were chosen from the ranks; and their position has been roughly compared with that of our own non-commissioned officers. But their duties were, in some respects, at least as responsible as those of a captain: the centurions of the first cohort were regularly summoned to councils of war; and the chief centurion of a legion was actually in a position to offer respectful suggestions to the legate himself. Every legion included in its ranks a number of skilled artisans, called {\it fabri,} who have been likened to the engineers in a modern army; but they were not permanently enrolled in a separate corps. They fought in the ranks like other soldiers; but when their special services were required, they were directed by staff-officers called {\it praefecti fabrum.} It was their duty to execute repairs of every kind, to superintend the construction of permanent camps, and to plan fortifications and bridges; and it should seem that they also had charge of the artillery,---the {\it ballistae} and catapults, which hurled heavy stones and shot arrows against the defences and the defenders of a besieged town. The legionary wore a sleeveless woollen shirt, a leathern tunic protected across breast and back by bands of metal, strips of cloth wound round the thighs and legs, hobnailed shoes, and, in cold or wet weather, a kind of blanket or military cloak. His defensive armour consisted of helmet, shield, and greaves: his weapons were a short, two-edged, cut-and-thrust sword and a javelin, the blade of which, behind the hardened point, was made of soft iron, so that, when it struck home, it might bend and not be available for return. These, however, formed only a part of the load which he carried on the march. Over his left shoulder he bore a pole, to which were fastened in a bundle his ration of grain, his cooking vessel, saw, basket, hatchet, and spade. For it was necessary that he should be a woodman and navvy as well as a soldier. No Roman army ever halted for the night without constructing a camp fortified with trench, rampart, and palisade. The column was of course accompanied by a host of non-combatants. Each legion required at least five or six hundred horses and mules to carry its baggage;\footnote{$^{23}$} {Caesar nowhere mentions that he used wagons or carts during the Gallic war, though it seems certain that he must have used some, to carry artillery and material for mantlets and the like. See {\it Bell. Afr.,} 9, \S 1; {\it B.C.,} iii, 42, \S 4. The larger pieces of artillery were of course not conveyed entire, but in parts, which were put together as occasion required.} and the drivers, with the slaves who waited on the officers, formed a numerous body. Among the camp-followers were also dealers who supplied the wants of the army, and were ready to buy booty of every kind.\footnote{$^{24}$} {There is no evidence that there was any medical staff in Caesar's army or under the republic at all, though it may perhaps be inferred from a passage in Suetonius ({\it Divus Augustus,} 11) that wealthy officer were attended by their private surgeons. Moreover, as Long remarks ({\it D.R.R.,} ii, 19), `it is hardly possible that there were no surgeons or physicians in a Roman army [in Caesar's time] when they were employed to look after the health and wounds of gladiators.'} What line of policy Caesar intended to follow, he has not told us. While he was going forth to govern a distant land, the government of his own was lapsing into anarchy. He must have seen that the Germans would soon overrun Gaul unless the Romans prevented them; and that the presence of the Germans would revive the peril from which Marius had delivered Rome. We may feel sure that he had determined to teach them, by a rough lesson if necessary, that they must advance no further into Gaul, nor venture to cross the boundaries of the Province or of Italy. Confident in himself and supported by his fellow triumvirs, Pompey and Crassus, he was prepared to act without waiting for senatorial sanction; and it can hardly be doubted that he dreamed of adding a new province to the empire, which should round off its frontier and add to its wealth. But whether he had definitely resolved to attempt a conquest of such magnitude, or merely intended to follow, as they appeared, the indications of fortune, it would be idle to conjecture. The greatest statesman is, in a sense, an opportunist. When Caesar should find himself in Gaul, he would know best how to shape his ends. \bye