% tex2asc-version: 1.0
%
%    T. Rice Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    Book I.
%
%    Contributor:   Konrad Schroder <perseant@u.washington.edu>
%
%    Original publication data:
%         Holmes, T. Rice. _C._Iuli_Caesaris_Commentarii_/_
%              _Rerum_in_Gallia_Gestarum_VII_/_A._Hirti_Commentarius_VIII._
%         Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914.
%
%    Version: 0.00 (Alpha), 5 May 93
%
%    This file is in the Public Domain.
%
\input ks_macros.tex
\greekfollows
\centerline{C.~IULI CAESARIS}
\centerline{DE BELLO GALLICO}
\centerline{COMMENTARIUS PRIMUS}
\bigskip
%
1, \S 1. {\bf Gallia .~.~. divisa.} Notice the order of the words. They
must not be translated by `All Gaul is divided', which is not only hideous,
but wrong. The meaning is `Gaul, taken as a whole, is divided'. The
plural---{\it Galliae} and {\it Galliarum}---used of the several divisions
of Gaul, occurs in Cicero ({\it Fam.,} viii, 5, \S 2; 9, \S 2; \&c.); and
Caesar wished to make it clear that he meant the whole of Transalpine Gaul.
 
{\bf Celtae.} This word, in its widest sense, denotes various
kindred peoples, who spoke languages from which the modern
Celtic dialects are descended; who originally inhabited Central
Europe; and who migrated into Gaul, Spain, Britain, Italy,
and Asia Minor. The Greek equivalents of {\it Celtae} and {\it Galli}
were used indifferently by Polybius. Caesar uses the word
{\it Celtae} in a narrow sense; for the Belgae also were a Celtic
people. Galli in Celtic meant `warriors' or `brave men'. It
must be borne in mind that although all the people who dwelt
between the Seine and the Garonne called themselves Celtae
there were no Celtae there some centuries before Caesar's time.
The Celtae were a mixed population descended partly from
pre-Celtic inhabitants, partly from Celtic conquerors.
 
 
\S 2. {\bf lingua.} See pp. xxiv-xxv, xxviii-xxx, xlvii. Celtic was
not generally spoken in Aquitania. The Aquitanians spoke
Iberian, that is to say, Spanish dialects, probably including
Basque, which is still spoken in the south-western corner of
France and the adjacent part of Spain. Most of the Celtae
spoke a language called Gaulish or Gallo-Brythonic, which was
also that of the Belgae, and was virtually identical with the
language of the Brythons, or British Celts, from which Welsh
descended. Perhaps, however, in Caesar's time some of the
Celtae spoke another Celtic dialect, akin to that which was
the ancestor of Gaelic; for at a later period inscriptions were
erected in Gaul in a language which was different from Gaulish;
and though it may have been a dead language (Latin inscriptions belonging
to our own time are to be seen in London), it must have been once spoken in
Gaul.
 
{\bf Gallos .~.~. dividit.} These statements were accurate enough
for Caesar's purpose; but they are not literally correct. The
Bituriges Vivisci, a tribe which he does not mention, belonging
to the Celtae, inhabited the country round Bordeaux on both
banks of the Garonne, the estuary of which is called the
Gironde; and the Veliocasses, a Belgic people (ii, 4, \S 9), had
some territory on the left bank of the Seine ({\it C.G.,} p.~344).
 
\S 3. {\bf provinciae.} See p.~xlii.
 
\S 5--7. H. Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, pp.~20--3) and A.~Klotz
({\it C.G.,} pp.~27--30) have independently given reasons for believing
that this passage was not written by Caesar. The most noteworthy are that
{\it initium capit, ab} (Sequanis), {\it ab} (extremis Galliae finibus)
{\it oriuntur,} (spectant) {\it in,} (spectant) {\it inter,} and the
singular, {\it septentrionem,} are unclassical or inconsistent with
Caesar's style.
 
{\bf Eorum,} the vagueness of which Meusel derides, can only mean
{\it Gallorum} in the wider sense---Belgae, Aquitani, and Galli---or
it must be regarded as loosely equivalent to {\it terrae quam incolunt
Belgae, Aquitani, Galli,} the word {\it partium} being understood. As
far as I can see, {\it eorum} and {\it eos} are used just as vaguely in
vi,~11, \S 3, 13, \S 4, and vii, 75, \S 4, the genuineness of which is
certain.
 
2, \S 1. {\bf M. Messala .~.~. consulibus,}---that is to say, in 61 {\sc
B.C.}\ {\it et P.,} which is inserted in the {\sc MSS.} before {\it M.
Pisone,} is certainly an interpolation. As Meusel remarks ({\it J.B.,}
1910, p.~68), no Roman in the time of the republic had two praenomina; and
in such phrases Caesar invariably omitted {\it et}.
 
\S 5. {\bf milia passuum.} See p. 403.
 
3, \S 1. {\bf pertinerent.} The subjunctive is used because Caesar is not
giving his own opinion as to what preparations were required,
but that of the Helvetii: `to make the necessary preparations'
means `to make the preparations which, as they considered,
were necessary'.
 
\S 3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp. 54-5, 105) deletes {\it ad eas res
conficiendas} on the ground that Caesar would uot have repeated
so clumsily a phrase which he had used only two lines before.
I am not so sure. Certainly he would not have done so if he
had revised his work: but he wrote very rapidly (viii, Praef, \S 6);
and painstaking writers, in revising their manuscript, have often
detected similar clumsy repetitions, which they had made unconsciously.
Besides, if {\it ad eas res conficiendas} is espunged, it
becomes necessary to insert {\it dux,} as Meusel does, after {\it
Orgetorix.} On the other hand, Meusel is perhaps right in deleting {\it
sibi} ({\it J.B.,} 1910, pp.~54--5, 72); for it has no point unless Caesar
meant to imply that Orgetorix had delegated certain functions
to others. Klotz ({\it C.S.,} p.~6, n.~1) adopts the reading of
B$^2$,---(Is) {\it ubi;} but {\it in eo itinere} appear to be the opening
words of a new sentence.
 
{\bf suscipit} is an emendation, due to Davies and accepted by
Meusel. The {\it {\sc MSS.}}~have {\it suscepit;} but Caesar nowhere
changes
tenses of the indicative within a sentence or a series of connected
sentences without an evident reason. I have therefore
adopted similar emendations in a few other passages. See {\it J.B.,}
1894 pp.~342--4.
 
\S 4. {\bf amicus} was a title which the Senate bestowed on foreign
chieftains whom it wished to conciliate. See p.~xlii.
 
{\bf ut regnum .~.~. habuerit.} Careful readers will have noticed that {\it
persuadet} is followed not by {\it occupet,} but by {\it occuparet:} the
reason is that {\it persuadet,} like {\it deligitur} (\S 3), is historic
present, and is therefore equivalent to {\it persuasit.} Even in English
some writers, notably Carlyle, in telling a story, use the present tense
instead of the past when they feel that it is more vivid. Still, Caesar
almost always uses the present subjunctive after the historic present of
verbs of asking and the like,---{\it orare, rogare, imperare} \&c. ({\it
J.B.,} 1894, pp.~354--5). After {\it occuparet} one might have expected
{\it habuisset,} not {\it habuerit}--- but in relative clauses Caesar often
uses the perfect subjunctive even after and before secondary tenses of the
same mood. See {\it J.B.,} 1894, pp.~362--4, 381.
 
Evidently Catamantaloedis had either been dethroned or
succeeded by an oligarchical government. Such revolutions
(see pp.~liv--lvii) were common in Gaul in the century that preceded the
arrival of Caesar.
 
\S 5. {\bf Diviciaci.} (See p. lix.) We shall learn more about him
in chapters 16, 18--20, 31--2, 41, \&c.
 
{\bf principatum.} It is doubtful whether in this passage {\it principatus}
means `the principal [unofficial] power' or `the chief
magistracy '. If it means the latter, Dumnorix was at this time
(60 {\sc B.C.}) Vergobret of the Aedui (see 16, \S 5). In vi, 8, \S 9
{\it principatus} denotes `the chief magistracy' of the Treveri; but
in vii, 39, \S 2, where we learn that between Eporedorix and
Viridomarus there was {\it de principatu contentio,} the meaning is
simply that they were rivals for power, for the chief magistrate
was then Convictolitavis (vii, 33, \S 4). I am inclined to believe,
however, that Dumnorix was Vergobret; for if not, we must
assume that as he held the {\it principatus,} he was stronger than
the Vergobret, and if so, he would probably have made himself
king (cf. i, 18, \S\S 3-9, ii, 1, \S 4; and {\it C.G.,} pp.~555--6).
 
\S 7. {\bf totius Galliae} is equivalent to {\it totius Galliae civitatum}
(or {\it populorum}).
 
\S 8. {\bf Hac .~.~. sperant.} The meaning is clear, but the expression is
loose; for though {\it adducti} refers only to Casticus and
Dumnorix, the subject of {\it dant} and of {\it sperant} is really, though
not grammatically, Casticus, Dumnorix, and Orgetorix.
 
4, \S 1. {\bf per indicium,}---of an informer.
 
\S 2 {\bf ad} (hominum) is here equivalent to {\it circiter} or {\it fere.}
 
{\bf clientes} held an honourable position, which resembled that of
the armed retainers of mediaeval barons, and a powerful land-owner, who
could afford to maintain a large number of them
(cf. 18, \S\S 3--6, ii, 1, \S 4), might make himself supreme in his
tribe. In vii, 40, \S 7 Caesar remarks that `Gallic custom
brands it as shameful for retainers to desert their lords even
when all is lost'. He also uses the word {\it clientes} to denote
tribes which stood in a dependent relation to some more powerful tribe. Cf.
i, 31, \S 6; iv, 6, \S 4; v, 39, \S 3; vii, 75, \S 2.
 
{\bf obaeratos.} This word is illustrated by vi, 13, \S 2, where Caesar,
speaking of the lower classes of Gaul, says, `Generally, when
crushed by debt or heavy taxation or ill-treated by powerful individuals,
they bind themselves to serve men of rank, who exercise
over them all the rights that masters have over their slaves.'
({\it plerique cum aut aere alieno aut magnitudine tributorum aut
iniuria potentiorum premuntur; sese in servitutem dicant nobilibus;
in hos eadem omnia sunt iura quae dominis in servos}).
 
\S 3. {\bf Cum .~.~. conaretur.} As Mr.~W.E.P.~Pantin explains in
his lucid chapter on `The Conjunction {\it Cum} ({\it Macmillan's Latin
Course: 3d Part,} p. 60), `{\it Cum} with a subjunctive puts before
us the circumstances in which the action represented by the
principal verb takes place,' whereas {\it cum} with the indicative
tells us `only how one action is related to another with regard
to the time of its occurrence'.
 
5, \S 1. {\bf ut .~.~. exeant} explains {\it id quod constituerant.}
 
\S 3. {\bf domum reditionis.} The construction is noticeable; but
the noun, {\it reditio,} is formed from a verb of motion, and parallel
instances are to be found in Cicero ({\it Brutus,} 16, \S 62, \&c.).
 
{\bf essent.} After the historic present Caesar not infrequently uses
an imperfect subjunctive in final clauses which do not depend upon
verbs of asking and the like ({\it J.B.,} 1894, pp. 354--5). See the
second note on 3, \S 4.
 
{\bf mensum.} C.~Wagener ({\it N. ph. R.,} 1899, pp. 241---6) shows that
the
form {\it mensium} does not occur in any writer before, contemporary
with, or a little later than Caesar.
 
\S 4. The learner has probably noticed that {\it iis} is used instead
of {\it se,} and he will find other instances, but to lecture Caesar for
inaccuracy, as some editors do, is presumptuous. it would be
wiser to observe how he used the language of which he was
a master and to modify grammatical rules. Probably he shrank
from writing {\it secum} after (oppidis) {\it suis.}
 
{\bf oppugnabant} was proposed by H.~Kraffert instead of the
{\sc MS.} reading {\it oppugnarant.} As Meusel remarks ({\it J.B.,} 1894
pp.~236-7), to say that the Boi {\it had} once besieged Noreia would
in this context be pointless and irrelevant.
 
6, \S 1. {\bf  Erant omnino .~.~. possent.} There were other passes,
north of the Pas de l'\'Ecluse ({\it unum .~.~. Rhodanum}), leading
through the Jura; but they were out of the question, either
because the Helvetii shrank from encountering Ariovistus
(see pp.~lix--lxii) or for some other reason which Caesar ignored
({\it C.G.,} pp. 613--14). The subjunctive---possent---is necessary
because {\it quibus} is equivalent to {\it talia ut iis,} and the
explanation of {\it ducerentur} is similar.
 
\S 2. {\bf qui nuper pacati erunt.} See p. lx.
 
\S 3. {\bf quod nondum .~.~. viderentur.} The subjunctive is used
because the disaffection of the Allobroges is mentioned simply
as a ground for the confidence of the Helvetii, not as a fact
which Caesar guarantees.
 
\S 4. {\bf qua die.} {\it Dies} in the singular is often feminine when
it means a fixed day, and almost always when, as in 7, \S 6, it
means a period of time.
 
{\bf a.d. V. Kal.~Apr.} The Roman calendar was at this time
in disorder; and the disorder became much worse before
45 {\sc B.C.}, on the first day of which the Julian calendar came into
operation. Under the old calendar the year consisted of only
355 days, or, roughly, twelve lunar months, and an additional
month, consisting alternately of 22 and 23 days, was intercalated
every other year after the 23rd of February. This, however,
was an excessive correction, the excess amounting to 4 days
in every 4 years; and in 191 {\sc B.C.} the college of pontiffs
was authorized to make or to omit intercalations at their
discretion. This privilege they often abused, omitting an intercalary month
occasionally, in order to please some governor
of a province who wished to return as soon as possible to Rome.
Between 58 and 45 {\sc B.C.} only two months were intercalated;
and the result was that in 46 {\sc B.C.} the calendar was 90 days
in advance of the real time. In order to make it right, Caesar,
who was then Dictator, enacted that that year should contain
445 days. The date which he gives in this passage---{\it a.d. V.
Kal. Apr}---corresponded with March 24 of the Julian calendar
and with March 22 of our reformed calendar ({\it A.B.,} pp.~706--26;
{\it C.Q.,} 1912, pp.~73--81).
 
7, \S 1. {\bf eos .~.~. conari} is added to explain {\it id nuntiatum
esset.} The English phrase, `{\it It} was announced that,' \&c., is
somewhat
similar. We should say, `As soon as Caesar was informed that
they were attempting to march,' \&c.
 
{\bf Galliam ulteriorem} means Transalpine Gaul, including the
Roman Province.
 
{\bf ad Genavam.} Remember that if {\it ad} were omitted, the meaning
would be different.
 
\S 2. {\bf legio una.} This was one of the four legions---the 7th, 8th
9th, and 10th (see p. lxiii and 10, \S 3)---which Caesar had under
his command when he started for Gaul. In the time of Marius
the legion, on a war footing, was supposed to number 6,000 men
(Appian, Mithr., 87, 108); and the legions of Sulla (Plutarch,
Sulla, 9; Marius, 35) and of Lucullus (Appian, Mithr., 72) were
of the same strength. The organization of the army in the
time of Caesar remained the same; and we may infer from one
of Cicero's letters ({\it Att.,} ix, 6, \S 3) and from Caesar's narrative
of the civil war ({\it B.C.,} iii, 4, \S 3) that what we may call the
ideal strength of the legion was also unchanged. But it would
be a great mistake to suppose that when Caesar had, for example, eight
legions under his command, they amounted to
48,000 men; for his losses were of course considerable. He
tells us (v, 49, \S 7) that in the fifth year of the Gallic war two
legions, including perhaps the 400 cavalry (46, \S 4) that accompanied
them, numbered barely 7,000. From time to time, however, his losses were
repaired, wholly or in part, by fresh drafts
(vii, 7, \S 5; 57, \S 1). See {\it C.G.,} pp.~559--63.
 
\S 3. {\bf diceient.} See the second note on 3, \S 4. In final relative
clauses Caesar uses the present subjunctive after an historic
present much oftener than the imperfect. Here the imperfect
may be due to the influence of {\it obtinebant} ({\it J.B.,} 1894,
pp.~356--361). If the reader does not quite understand what I mean,
an English example will make it clear. In a book written by
a distinguished scholar this sentence occurs: `It would have
been easy enough for Virgil to have taken up at once the heroic
vein in the man' [Aeneas]. `To have taken up' ought logically
to be `to take up'; but the perfect was loosely used under the
influence of `it would have been'.
 
\S 4. {\bf L. Cassium.} This officer was defeated in 107 {\sc B.C.} by
the Tigurini (see 12, \S\S 4--7), one of the four Helvetian tribes.
According to the {\it Epitome} of Livy (ch.~65, with which cf.~Orosius,
v, 15, ~\S 23--4), the defeat took place in the country of thc
Nitiobroges, which corresponded with the de