1, §1. 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 - Galliae and Galliarum - used of the several divisions of Gaul, occurs in Cicero (Fam., viii, 5, §2; 9, §2; &c.); and Caesar wished to make it clear that he meant the whole of Transalpine Gaul.

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 Celtae and Galli were used indifferently by Polybius. Caesar uses the word 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.

§2. 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.

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, §9), had some territory on the left bank of the Seine (C.G., p.344).

§3. provinciae. See p.xlii.

§5 - 7. H. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.20 - 3) and A.Klotz (C.G., pp.27 - 30) have independently given reasons for believing that this passage was not written by Caesar. The most noteworthy are that initium capit, ab (Sequanis), ab (extremis Galliae finibus) oriuntur, (spectant) in, (spectant) inter, and the singular, septentrionem, are unclassical or inconsistent with Caesar's style.

Eorum, the vagueness of which Meusel derides, can only mean Gallorum in the wider sense - Belgae, Aquitani, and Galli - or it must be regarded as loosely equivalent to terrae quam incolunt Belgae, Aquitani, Galli, the word partium being understood. As far as I can see, eorum and eos are used just as vaguely in vi,11, §3, 13, §4, and vii, 75, §4, the genuineness of which is certain.

2, §1. M. Messala ... consulibus, - that is to say, in 61 B.C. et P., which is inserted in the MSS. before M. Pisone, is certainly an interpolation. As Meusel remarks (J.B., 1910, p.68), no Roman in the time of the republic had two praenomina; and in such phrases Caesar invariably omitted et.

§5. milia passuum. See p. 403.

3, §1. 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'.

§3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp. 54-5, 105) deletes 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, §6); and painstaking writers, in revising their manuscript, have often detected similar clumsy repetitions, which they had made unconsciously. Besides, if ad eas res conficiendas is espunged, it becomes necessary to insert dux, as Meusel does, after Orgetorix. On the other hand, Meusel is perhaps right in deleting sibi (J.B., 1910, pp.54 - 5, 72); for it has no point unless Caesar meant to imply that Orgetorix had delegated certain functions to others. Klotz (C.S., p.6, n.1) adopts the reading of B2, - (Is) ubi; but in eo itinere appear to be the opening words of a new sentence.

suscipit is an emendation, due to Davies and accepted by Meusel. The MSS.have suscepit; but Caesar nowhere changes tenses of the indicative within a sentence or a series of connected sentences without an evident reason. I have therefore adopted similar emendations in a few other passages. See J.B., 1894 pp.342 - 4.

§4. amicus was a title which the Senate bestowed on foreign chieftains whom it wished to conciliate. See p.xlii.

ut regnum ... habuerit. Careful readers will have noticed that persuadet is followed not by occupet, but by occuparet: the reason is that persuadet, like deligitur (§3), is historic present, and is therefore equivalent to 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, - orare, rogare, imperare &c. (J.B., 1894, pp.354 - 5). After occuparet one might have expected habuisset, not habuerit - but in relative clauses Caesar often uses the perfect subjunctive even after and before secondary tenses of the same mood. See J.B., 1894, pp.362 - 4, 381.

Evidently Catamantaloedis had either been dethroned or succeeded by an oligarchical government. Such revolutions (see pp.liv - lvii) were common in Gaul in the century that preceded the arrival of Caesar.

§5. Diviciaci. (See p. lix.) We shall learn more about him in chapters 16, 18 - 20, 31 - 2, 41, &c.

principatum. It is doubtful whether in this passage principatus means `the principal [unofficial] power' or `the chief magistracy '. If it means the latter, Dumnorix was at this time (60 B.C.) Vergobret of the Aedui (see 16, §5). In vi, 8, §9 principatus denotes `the chief magistracy' of the Treveri; but in vii, 39, §2, where we learn that between Eporedorix and Viridomarus there was de principatu contentio, the meaning is simply that they were rivals for power, for the chief magistrate was then Convictolitavis (vii, 33, §4). I am inclined to believe, however, that Dumnorix was Vergobret; for if not, we must assume that as he held the principatus, he was stronger than the Vergobret, and if so, he would probably have made himself king (cf. i, 18, §§3-9, ii, 1, §4; and C.G., pp.555 - 6).

§7. totius Galliae is equivalent to totius Galliae civitatum (or populorum).

§8. Hac ... sperant. The meaning is clear, but the expression is loose; for though adducti refers only to Casticus and Dumnorix, the subject of dant and of sperant is really, though not grammatically, Casticus, Dumnorix, and Orgetorix.

4, §1. per indicium, - of an informer.

§2 ad (hominum) is here equivalent to circiter or fere.

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, §§3 - 6, ii, 1, §4), might make himself supreme in his tribe. In vii, 40, §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 clientes to denote tribes which stood in a dependent relation to some more powerful tribe. Cf. i, 31, §6; iv, 6, §4; v, 39, §3; vii, 75, §2.

obaeratos. This word is illustrated by vi, 13, §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.' (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).

§3. Cum ... conaretur. As Mr.W.E.P.Pantin explains in his lucid chapter on `The Conjunction Cum (Macmillan's Latin Course: 3d Part, p. 60), `Cum with a subjunctive puts before us the circumstances in which the action represented by the principal verb takes place,' whereas cum with the indicative tells us `only how one action is related to another with regard to the time of its occurrence'.

5, §1. ut ... exeant explains id quod constituerant.

§3. domum reditionis. The construction is noticeable; but the noun, reditio, is formed from a verb of motion, and parallel instances are to be found in Cicero (Brutus, 16, §62, &c.).

essent. After the historic present Caesar not infrequently uses an imperfect subjunctive in final clauses which do not depend upon verbs of asking and the like (J.B., 1894, pp. 354 - 5). See the second note on 3, §4.

mensum. C.Wagener (N. ph. R., 1899, pp. 241 - 6) shows that the form mensium does not occur in any writer before, contemporary with, or a little later than Caesar.

§4. The learner has probably noticed that iis is used instead of 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 secum after (oppidis) suis.

oppugnabant was proposed by H.Kraffert instead of the MS. reading oppugnarant. As Meusel remarks (J.B., 1894 pp.236-7), to say that the Boi had once besieged Noreia would in this context be pointless and irrelevant.

6, §1. Erant omnino ... possent. There were other passes, north of the Pas de l'Ecluse (unum ... Rhodanum), leading through the Jura; but they were out of the question, either because the Helvetii shrank from encountering Ariovistus (see pp.lix - lxii) or for some other reason which Caesar ignored (C.G., pp. 613 - 14). The subjunctive - possent - is necessary because quibus is equivalent to talia ut iis, and the explanation of ducerentur is similar.

§2. qui nuper pacati erunt. See p. lx.

§3. 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.

§4. qua die. Dies in the singular is often feminine when it means a fixed day, and almost always when, as in 7, §6, it means a period of time.

a.d. V. Kal.Apr. The Roman calendar was at this time in disorder; and the disorder became much worse before 45 B.C., on the first day of which the Julian calendar came into operation. Under the old calendar the year consisted of only 355 days, or, roughly, twelve lunar months, and an additional month, consisting alternately of 22 and 23 days, was intercalated every other year after the 23rd of February. This, however, was an excessive correction, the excess amounting to 4 days in every 4 years; and in 191 B.C. the college of pontiffs was authorized to make or to omit intercalations at their discretion. This privilege they often abused, omitting an intercalary month occasionally, in order to please some governor of a province who wished to return as soon as possible to Rome. Between 58 and 45 B.C. only two months were intercalated; and the result was that in 46 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 - a.d. V. Kal. Apr - corresponded with March 24 of the Julian calendar and with March 22 of our reformed calendar (A.B., pp.706 - 26; C.Q., 1912, pp.73 - 81).

7, §1. eos ... conari is added to explain id nuntiatum esset. The English phrase, `It was announced that,' &c., is somewhat similar. We should say, `As soon as Caesar was informed that they were attempting to march,' &c.

Galliam ulteriorem means Transalpine Gaul, including the Roman Province.

ad Genavam. Remember that if ad were omitted, the meaning would be different.

§2. legio una. This was one of the four legions - the 7th, 8th 9th, and 10th (see p. lxiii and 10, §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 (Att., ix, 6, §3) and from Caesar's narrative of the civil war (B.C., iii, 4, §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, §7) that in the fifth year of the Gallic war two legions, including perhaps the 400 cavalry (46, §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, §5; 57, §1). See C.G., pp.559 - 63.

§3. diceient. See the second note on 3, §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 obtinebant (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'.

§4. L. Cassium. This officer was defeated in 107 B.C. by the Tigurini (see 12, §§4 - 7), one of the four Helvetian tribes. According to the Epitome of Livy (ch.65, with which cf.Orosius, v, 15, §23 - 4), the defeat took place in the country of thc Nitiobroges, which corresponded with the departrnents of Lot-et-Garonne and Tarn-et-Garonne. Mr.W.E.Heitland has suggested to me that when the Helvetii determined to settle in Western Gaul (B.G., i, 10, §1), they may have been influenced by the recollection of what the Tigurini had achieved (C.G., p.555).

sub iugum. The `yoke' was composed of two javelins planted in the ground and crossed above by a third. The troops were disarmed before they defiled under it, and in doing so they were of course obliged to stoop, and were mocked by their enemies (D.S., iii, 667).

§6. Id.April. The Ides, that is to say, the 13th, of April corresponded with April 9 of the Julian calendar. Careful readers will have inferred from the date that diem does not mean `a day ', which, moreover, would in Latin be unum diem.

8, §1. murum ... perducit. Caesar's description, as Colonel Stoffel pointed out after he had examined the banks of the Rhone between Geneva and the Pas de l'Ecluse, is not to be understood literally. Evidently he threw up earthworks only in the places where the bank was not so steep as to form a natural fortification, and Dion Cassius (xxxviii 31, §4), who says that he fortified the most important points, had the wit to perceive his meaning. Some commentators, indeed, have insisted that a continuous rampart would have been a better protection. But how could the Helvetii have climbed the banks, where they were precipitous, with their wagons? And, supposing that some of them had climbed without their wagons, they would also have been able to climb the assumed rampart unless Roman soldiers had been there to defend it; while if they had been there, the bank would have served as a natural rampart. Caesar was not writing a treatise for military engineers, but a popular narrative; and he expressed himself loosely (C.G., pp.614 - 15).

§2. praesidia here would be best translated by `piquets'.

castella, - redoubts constructed at intervals along the line of earthworks, and garrisoned by piquets (praesidia).

conentur. The MS. reading is conarentur; but, as Meusel shows (J.B., 1894, p. 356), after the historic present, communit, the present, possit, which is found in , accords with Caesar's usage in final relative clauses, and if he wrote it, not posset, which occurs only in , he must also have written conentur.

§4. Helvetii ... conati. These attacks were doubtless made only by impatient isolated bands. The Helvetian commander (see 13, §2) would not have sanctioned such folly.

9, §2. impetrarent See the second note on 5, §3.

10, §1. renuntiatur. Perhaps, as Meusel thinks, Caesar wrote nuntiatur; but Schneider defends renuntiatur on the ground that the news was probably brought by spies whom Caesar had himself sent out to ascertain the plans of the Helvetii.

§2. provinciae is genitive. Cf. v, 19, §2, - magno cum periculo nostrorum equitum cum iis confligebat.

§3. legatum. The reader will notice that this word is used here and in many other passages in a sense different from that which belongs to it in 7, §3 and 8, §3. As it is formed from legare, its original meaning is that of a deputy or commissioner of any kind. Legati, in the sense in which the word is used here (see p.lxiv), were generally, if not always, senators, and were as a rule appointed by the senate (Cicero, Fam., i, 7, §10); but Caesar, perhaps without consulting that assembly, could appoint legati himself (Cicero, Att., ii, 18, §3; Q. fr., ii, 10 [12], §§4 - 5); and indeed Cicero did so when he was Governor of Cilicia (Fam., xiii, 55, §1. Legati were expected to perform any duty with which their chief might entrust them. On Monday a legatus might be placed in command of a legion and lead it in battle (B.G., i, 52, §1); on Tuesday he might be sent to raise a fresh levy of troops (vi, 1, §1). Several passages (i, 52, §1 ii, 26, §1; v, 1, §1; 25, §5; vii, 45, §7) prove that in Caesar's time any legatus who commanded a legion in Gaul was specially appointed to his command by Caesar and held it only so long as Caesar pleased. The office of legatus was passing through a transitional stage and gradually tending to crystallize into the form which it assumed under the Empire, when the legatus became a legatus legionis (C. G., pp.563 - 4).

Italiam here, as often, means Cisalpine Gaul: for Caesar could not levy troops outside his province.

duasque ... conscribit. Caesar raised these legions, which were numbered XI and XII, on his own responsibility. This is proved by the facts that it was agreed in the conference which he held with Pompey and Crassus at Luca in 56 B.C. that he should receive a grant for the payment of the legions which he had raised (Cicero, De prov.cons., 11, §28; Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 24; Plutarch, Caesar; 21), and that this grant was voted by the Senate (Cicero, Fam., i, 7, ). We may suppose that before Caesar left Italy the recruits had received orders to be ready to assemble along the road, so as to join the veteran legions on their march from Aquileia; for otherwise he might not have been able to reach the Saone near Lyons by the early part of June, as he certainly did (12, §§1 - 2; 16, §2). See C. G., p.48, n.2, and C.Q., 1912, p.80.

§§3 - 5. qua proximum ... exercitum ducit. Ocelum (§5) was close to Avigliana (see p. 418): therefore in the Italian part of his march Caesar moved up the valley of the Dora Riparia, and of course crossed the Mont Genevre and passed by Brigantio (Briancon) in the country of the Caturiges. As he was making for that part of the country of the Segusiavi which lies between the Rhone and the Saone near Lyons (see the note on 11, §1), it will be evident to any one who consults a good map that his shortest route would have led past Grenoble, if between Briancon and Grenoble there was then a practicable road: but it is very doubtful whether this route would have led him into the country of the Vocontii, and I therefore believe that he took the road which leads past Embrun, Chorges, Gap, and Die (C.G., pp. 615 - 16).

§5. citerioris provinciae, - Cisalpine Gaul.

11, §1. Helvetii iam ... pervenerant. The route which the Helvetii pursued, after threading the Pas de l'Ecluse (6, §2; 9, §1) to the Saone, cannot be traced exactly, but can be roughly indicated if we can find out where they crossed the river. They crossed it where it was so sluggish that one could not tell, by merely looking, in which direction it was flowing (12, §1), and it answers most closely to this description in that part of its course which lies between Trevoux and Thoissey. If the Helvetii crossed here, they had probably moved along the right bank of the Rhone as far as Culoz, and then struck off westward, along the line of the road which leads past Virieu-le-Grand, Tenay, and St.Rambert, and across the plateau of Dombes. If, on the other hand, they crossed the Saone at Macon, they doubtless followed the route which passes through Chatillon, Nantua, and Bourg. Macon is on the direct road from the Pas de l'Ecluse to Toulon-sur-Arroux, near which, as we shall see in the note to 24, §1, the decisive battle of the campaign was fought; and M.Jullian argues that the Helvetii could only have found the necessary boats at a frequented spot. But boats might surely have been found between Belleville and Villefranche, which are both on great roads: such boats as the Helvetii did find were not sufficient, for they used rafts as well (12, §1), and if they had crossed at a place so renowned as Macon (Matisco), which Caesar mentions in vii, 90, §7, would he not have said so? Moreover, the territory opposite Macon on the eastern bank of the river belonged to the Ambarri (p.406): if, then, the Helvetii had crossed at Macon, Caesar would surely have written in 10, §5 not in Segusiavos, but in Ambarros (exercitum duxit). See C.G., pp. 616-19.

§3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p. 64) deletes eorum, because if there were a pronoun, it ought to be sui, and even if eorum were admissible, it ought to follow agri.

§4. <quo> Haedui Ambarri. The MSS. have Haedui Ambarri only, which will not do. Accordingly Meusel deletes Haedui; but, as he has justly remarked (J.B., 1910, p.72), one cannot see how the word could have been interpolated, and accordingly he was formerly inclined, as I am to believe that quo, which is supplied in the Aldine edition (1513), dropped out of the text.

12, §1. Id Helvetii ... transibant. See the note on 11, §1. Perhaps the Helvetii crossed the Saone at various points, for it has been suggested that if they had all crossed at one, they would have opposed Caesar's passage (C.G., p. 616).

§2. exploratores. The English equivalent is not `scouts', but `patrols'. Scouts, properly so called, were known as speculatores.

vero is the reading of . Most editors adopt the reading fere; but Schneider points out that as three-fourths of the Helvetii had already crossed the river, the remainder must have been one-fourth, and therefore fere would be pointless. Cf.Klotz, C.S., p.98, n.2.

de tertia vigilia is generally explained as meaning `in the third watch' (Th.l.L., v, 64, with which cf. Cl. Ph., 1913, pp. 7 - 13), though Caesar sometimes writes tertia vigilia, &c., without de. I am not quite sure that de does not mean `just after' (the beginning of the third watch). See the note on ii, 7, §1. For military purposes the Romans divided the period between sunset and sunrise into four watches of equal length, the third of which began at midnight.

e castris profectus ... transierat. We have seen (11, §1) that the Helvetii probably crossed the Saone between Trevoux and Thoissey. When Caesar set out to attack the Tigurini he was in the country of the Segusiavi (10, §5) and probably south of Trevoux; for Trevoux, being situated between two places called Amberieux, may have belonged to the Ambarri. South of Trevoux the most suitable spot for a camp is on the heights which command Sathonay. The Tigurini were evidently not more than a few miles north of Caesar's camp; and we may infer that the route by which they had approached the Saone was the valley of the Formans. This valley is dominated on the left by hills which would have screened the Roman column from observation as it marched from Sathonay (C.G., pp.618 - 19).

§3. Eos impeditos ... abdiderunt. According to Appian (Celtica, 1, §3) and Plutarch (Caesar, 18), it was not Caesar who defeated the Tigurini, but Labienus, and it has been said that Plutarch's words - ouk autos alla Labihnos - show that he intended to correct Caesar. But, supposing that he did, what reason is there to believe that his statement is more trustworthy than Caesar's? Caesar gave all his lieutenants, and especially Labienus, full credit for their exploits; and even if he had wished to rob Labienus of his due, he must have known that every officer in the army would detect his lie, and would make the truth known privately if not publicly. I believe that Plutarch and Appian either drew hasty inferences from the fact that Caesar, when he went back to Italy for reinforcements (10, §3), had left Labienus near the Pas de l'Ecluse, that is, east of the Saone, or, like some modern writers, made the mistake of assuming that Caesar himself was encamped on the west of the river. But, as M.Camille Jullian suggests, it is quite possible that Labienus may have commanded a division under Caesar (C.G., pp. 231 - 3).

§5. L. Cassium ... miserat. See the first note on 7, §4.

§7. quod. See the second note on 14, §3.

13, §1. pontem. As this was constructed in a single day, it was doubtless made, like the bridge which Labienus threw across an arm of the Seine (vii, 58, §4), by lashing barges together.

§2. et flumen transirent. See the note on 5, §1.

§5. The conjunction quod, as the reader will notice in the course of this book, has various senses. Here it evidently means `as to the fact that', but the force of this clumsy phrase can be given in another way, - `Granted that he had surprised one clan ... he need not therefore exaggerate his own powers,' &c.

§6. contenderent quam dolo is an emendation, proposed by B.Dinter. The MS. reading, quam dolo contenderent, although Heller (Ph. Suppl., 1889, p.359) has defended it, is hardly grammatical.

14, §3. The only way of translating the first quod, which is merely a connecting particle, is to omit it. Our language does not require such a link between the two sentences. Meusel (L.C., iii, 1536) regards this quod as a relative pronoun; and he would interpret it, I suppose, as meaning `As to which' (, if, &c.).

quod (eo invito), as in 12, §7, and many other passages, serves to explain a preceding word, - here iniurarium. A translation will make this clear: `Even if he were willing to forget an old affront, how could he banish the recollection of fresh outrages - their attempt to force a passage through the Province?' &c. Where quod means `because', as in 6, §3, 9, §3, and 47, §2, the meaning is unmistakable.

If posse is the right reading, not posset, which is found in , its subject can only be se understood. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.339) thinks that it may be populum Romanum. This seems to me impossible; for the Roman People could not have been said to forget outrages which had only just been committed and of which they therefore knew nothing. Meusel, remarking that in §2 the subject is populus Romanus, insists that if the subject of vellet (§3) is Caesar se is required before posse, and says that it may have been omitted in the MSS. by a copyist's neglect.

§4. Quod. See the note on 13, §5.

se ... tulisse. Schneider argues that, although Sallust (Jugurtha, 31, §2) uses impune actively, se cannot refer to Caesar, for Caesar had not long (diu) put up with the outrages of the Helvetii. Referring to Cicero, Fam., viii, 77, §3 (servus meus ... cum multos libros surripuisset nec se impune laturum putaret, aufugit), he says that impune iniurias tulisse means `had committed injuries with impunity'; and similarly Kraner explains impune aliquid ferre as meaning `to escape punishment for something'. Mommsen, however (J.B., 1834, p. 200), deleted iniurias (impune tulisse would then mean `had got off scot-free'), remarking that `nowhere in the speech of the Helvetii [13, §§3 - 7] is there any mention of lasting injury suffered by the Romans at their hands, but it is plainly intimated that the Romans had long refrained from attacking them'. Still, the Helvetii had committed outrages; and I see no reason to doubt that Caesar made the remark in question. Prammer's emendation - (iniurias) intulisse - seems to me uncalled for.

eodem pertinere may be translated by `pointed to the same conclusion'.

§§5 - 6. The reader will perhaps have noticed that although in §§1 - 4 past tenses of the subjunctive, as one would have expect, follow the past indicative, respondit, in the next two sentences Caesar preferred the present, - doleant, velint, sint, &c. This change was made because consuesse (§5) is virtually a present tense (J.B., 1894, p.361).

15, §1. equitatumque ... habebat. See p.lxiii. In the Gallic war Caesar's cavalry consisted entirely of foreigners, - Gauls, Spaniards, and, in the last two campaigns (52 and 51 B.C.) if not before, Germans. They were often commanded by their national chiefs (viii, 12, §4). See C.G., pp. 579 - 81.

§3. quod quingentis ... propulerant. The explanation of this fact will be found in 18, §10.

§4. Kraner takes in praesentia as accusative plural, - `with a view to existing circumstances.' I have little doubt that Meusel is right in regarding it as ablative singular. There is a certain instance of the noun praesentia in v, 43, §4.

Meusel (J.B., 1910, p. 69) strikes out pabulationibus, because, first, it seems to him to interrupt the connexion between rapinis and populationibus; and, secondly, Caesar, as the words suos a proelio continebat show, did not wish to let large numbers of his troops become engaged in fighting, which he would have been forced to do if he had tried to stop the Helvetii from foraging, since, on account of the scarcity of fodder (16, §2), they would have sent large numbers of men into the fields. But as foraging was a kind of plundering, the first objection seems rather strained: moreover, Caesar simply desired to postpone a pitched battle, and he must anyhow have sent out considerable numbers of troops in order to stop the Helvetii from plundering and ravaging. Pabulationibus is perhaps open to some suspicion; but it would be rash to delete it.

§5. Ita dies ... fecerunt. In 16, §3 Caesar says that the Helvetii had struck off from the Saone (iter ab Arari ... averterant); and though he does not tell us when they began to move away, his words seem to imply that for some little time they had marched up the valley. If they had diverged from it at Belleville, they would have found themselves walled in between abrupt hills, on the flanks of which it would have been impossible to deploy. They must, then, have struck westward near Macon; and as the scene of the decisive battle (see the note to 24, §1) was near Toulon-sur-Arroux, Colonel Stoffel was able to determine their route. From the neighbourhood of Macon they followed the line of the road which leads to Autun by way of Cluny, Salornay, and Mont St.Vincent, and thence turned westward past Sanvigne to Toulon-sur-Arroux (C.G. pp.619 - 21). It may be asked, Why did the Helvetii move up the valley of the Saone at all instead of taking the direct route westward to the country of the Santoni? Because the direct route was far more difficult and indeed would have been impracticable for wagons (C.G., pp. 50, 232).

16, §1. essent. The subjunctive of course shows that quod ... polliciti is not a mere statement of fact. In order to give the sense of such subjunctives in good English one has to think hard. Here I should say `(the grain which,) as he reminded them, (they had promised)', &c.

§2. quod Gallia ... posita est. If 1, §§5 - 7, were interpolated, it is obvious that these words were also.

frumenta. The plural always denotes standing corn.

§4. Diem is an accusative of time, the object of ducere being Caesarem understood, and Diem ex die ducere may be translated by `From day to day the Aedui kept him on the expectant'. Similarly Cicero writes to Atticus (vii, 26, §3), Tibi autem ... nihil rescripsi quod diem ex die exspectabam, &c.

§5. metiri. It is very doubtful, as Meusel remarks (J.B., 1910, p. 335), whether Caesar ever used oportere except with an accusative and infinitive or (which comes to the same thing) with a passive infinitive used impersonally, - for example, conclamant ... ad castra iri oportere (iii, 18, §5). We may therefore conclude that, although metior is a deponent verb, metiri is here (and in 23, §1) used passively.

praeerat. Praeerant is found in all the MSS.; but during the last three centuries editors have almost unanimously substituted for it praeerat; and if Caesar wrote the plural, he certainly did so by a slip of the pen. For if he had meant praeerant, he would of course have written not quem vergobretum, but quos vergobretos; and that, at all events among the Aedui, only one Vergobret could legally hold office at a time is proved by a well-known passage in vii, 32, §3, - summo esse in periculo rem, quod, cum singuli magistratus antiquitus creari atque regiam potestatem annum obtinere consuessent, duo magistratum gerant et se uterque eorum legibus creatum dicat (C.G., pp. 505 - 7).

§6. Here, as in 14, §3 (quod eo invito, &c.), it would be a mistake to translate quod by `because'. The meaning is that Caesar `took them seriously to task for not helping him', &c. possit. The MSS. have posset, which Meusel (J.B., 1894, p. 371) corrects for reasons which are obvious.

multo etiam ... queritur. If these words are genuine, Caesar means that `what he complained of more seriously still was that they [the Aedui] had played him false', - they had not only failed to supply bim with corn, but had also broken their promise. Meusel, however (J.B., 1910, pp. 49-50), thinks that sit destitutus means substantially the same as the preceding non sublevetur, and was added by a reader who needlessly tried to strengthen what Caesar had written. I do not feel sure that the passage is spurious; but it is certainly suspicious.

17, §§2 - 4. The MS. reading - praestare debeant - is certainly wrong; for si iam ... perferre must depend upon praestare. As debeant, after dubitare, is ungrammatical, it has been conjectured that Caesar wrote debere; but it seems more likely that the scribe carelessly repeated the former debeant (§2).

§3. possint. The MS. reading, possent, if not absolutely impossible, is very unlikely, for every other verb in the speech is in a primary tense. With Meusel therefore I have adopted F.Hotman's emendation (J.B., 1894, p. 370).

§6. quod. See the note on 13, §5.

18, §3. ipsum esse Dumnorigem. The sense is unmistakable - `The individual referred to was Dumnorix': the words are equivalent to eum quem designari sentiebat esse Dumnorigem, non alium.

portoria. These tolls were levied on merchandise transported by river (Strabo, iv, 3, §2). Dumnorix made a low bid for the right of collecting the tolls; and as he was master of a strong force of cavalry (§5), nobody dared to bid higher. Dumnorix then levied as high tolls as he could collect, and made a large profit.

§6. largiter is never used by Cicero and nowhere else by Caesar. Prof.J.C.Rolfe (C.J., vii, 1911, p.126) suggests that Caesar punned upon largiendum (§4) and meant that Dumnorix `by giving largess acquired the largest power'.

§8. suo nomine, - `personally'.

Diviciacus ... restitutus. See 20, §§2 - 3.

§10. quod proelium ... fugae - Dinter takes quod to be a conjunction (see 13, §5). Schneider apparently regards it as a pronoun. Notice that the two adjectives, equestre adversum are rightly used without et because proelium equestre is virtually one word. Similarly, one can say `a great and good man', but not `a great and naval battle'.

19, §3. Valerium. Doubtless this interpreter had taken the name of his Roman patron.

principem Galliae provinciae seems to mean simply `a leading provincial': in other words, principem does not denote the holder of a magistracy. See the second note on 3, §5.

§4. simul does not refer to the preeeding sentence, but connects commonefacit with et ostendit

Meusel (J.B., 1910, p. 63) brackets Gallorum, because the narrative which begins at 16, §5 shows that the meeting was not attended by and Gauls except Aedui. If, he says, we omit Gallorum, the meaning is unmistakable, whereas the insertion of the word might suggest that other Gallic tribes were represented at the meeting. Perhaps Caesar wrote Gallorum carelessly; but the word is at least suspicious. Mommsen, however (J.B., 1894, p.201), defends it on the ground that Caesar wished to make it clear that Dumnorix had been denounced by his own countrymen.

20, §5. tanti ... condonet. Caesar could not yet afford to punish Dumnorix (he found an opportunity of doing so four years later [v, 6 - 7]) for fear of offending the patriotic party. among the Aedui, with whom Dumnorix was popular (3, §5; 18, §3). See C.G., p.52.

21, §1. sub monte. This hill must be identified with Sanvigne, about 6 miles east of the river Arroux: for, as we shall see in the note on 24, §1, Caesar's next camp was hard by Toulon-sur-Arroux; the march by which he reached it was very short, as we may infer from the fact that the Helvetii, whom he followed took a fortnight or more to advance with their unwieldy wagon-train from the point where they crossed the Saone to the neighbourhood of Toulon (15, §5); and Sanvigne is the only hill east of the Arroux and within a short march of it which answers to the descliption in 21, §1 and 22, §3. See Stoffel's Hist.de Jules Cesar - Guerre Civile, ii, 1887, p. 445.

§2. legatum pro praetore. Labienus was not only the ablest of Caesar's generals, but the highest in rank. As legatus pro praetore, he would be Acting Governor of Gaul and Commander-in-Chief in the winter, when Caesar was in Italy. See 54, §2.

§4. L.Sulla was the famous dictator who overthrew Marius. M.Crassus was the millionaire of Rome, who, with Caesar and Pompey, formed the first Triumvirate, and who had defeated Spartacus, the leader of the rebel slaves, in 71 B.C.

22, §2. a (Gallicis armis) in this sense is extraordinary and perhaps was not in the original manuscript. Indeed it is omitted in L. If Caesar followed the usage of classical prose, he wrote either Gallicis armis or ex Gallicis armis. Insignibus here means `crests'.

23, §1. cum ... oporteret. Even in this passage cum does not tell us only `how one action is related to another with regard to the time of its occurrence' (see the note on 4, §3). It does not tell us only that the rations would be due in 48 hours: it tells us that their distribution would be a consequence of the expiration of 48 hours. The difference is subtle, but real.

metiri. See the note on 16, §5.

existimavit. If the MS. reading is right, itaque, which Meusel inserted in 1894, is evidently required, but he now adopts an old emendation, - existimans.

§2. equitum Gallorum. The adjective of Gallus is Gallicus, but Caesar never uses it as an epithet of living beings. The phrase equites Galli is like mare Oceanus.

§3. existimarent ... confiderent. See the note on 6, §3. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.332), remarking that both Caesar and Cicero often use such verbs in the subjunctive where logically the indicative might seem preferable, says that, strictly speaking, the clause should run either seu quod ... existimabant or seu quod, ut existimabant, Romani discederent.

24, §1. proximum collem. This hill can be identified. When Caesar struck his camp on the morning of the battle he was not more than 18 Roman miles - and we may safely assume that he was not much less - from Bibracte (23, §1), which was situated on Mont Beuvray (see p.411): when he was attacked he was marching towards that town, and the Helvetii, who, on hearing of his movement, had reversed their march (23, §§2 - 3), were trying to intercept him. Evidently therefore, the battle-field was close to a point where a road leading to Mont Beuvray diverged from the route by which the Helvetii had been marching to Saintonge (10, §1). It was also somewhere south-east, south, or south-west of Mont Beuvray, because the Helvetii couid have had no motive for passing by the east and north of Bibracte in order to reach the Loire, which they would be obliged to cross on their way to Saintonge. It is now generally agreed that the only site which fulfils all the conditions is about 3 miles north-west of Toulon-sur-Arroux, and that the hill on the lower slopes of which Caesar formed his army was the hill of Armecy. The site was first pointed out in 1867; and some years later Stoffel discovered by excavation an entrenchment on the plateau. This entrenchment could only have been intended to serve a temporary purpose, for its shape was that of a crescent, the width from horn to horn being only about 300 yards; and there are irregularities in it which seem to show that it was constructed in a hurry. I am inclined to think that the men who erected it may have stopped work when they saw that the battle was going in favour of their comrades: this supposition would account for its not having been completed and made into an enclosure.

But although the battle-field is certain, opinions differ about details Stoffel believed that the hill to which the Helvetii fell back after the failure of their first attack (25, §5) was just north of the village of Montmort; but, as the plan (facing p.25) will show, in order to maintain this view, he was obliged to argue that the Boi and Tulingi attacked the Romans on their left flank, whereas Caesar says that they attacked them on the right (see the note on 25, §6). Besides, according to Stoffel, in the first stage of the battle, while the fighting was going on on the hill of Armecy, the extremity of the Roman right wing was posted on a steep declivity, whereas the Romans preferred a gentle slope. Colonel Bircher therefore modified Stoffel's theory. He concluded that the four veteran Roman legions (24, §2) were posted on the lower slopes of Armecy, facing west-south-west, and that the hill to which the Helvetii retreated was on the further side of the valley through which runs the road from Toulon-sur-Arroux to Luzy. This was the road by which the Boi and Tulingi would have marched to reinforce the Helvetii. Both Stoffel's theory and Bircher's are illustrated in the plan; but Captain G.Veith and M.Jullian agree with me in following Bircher (C.G., pp.624 - 7).

§2. in colle medio, - `half-way up the hill'.

triplicem aciem instruixit. This was the normal formation, though Crassus in Aquitania formed his army for battle in two lines (iii, 24, §1), probably because his troops were comparatively few; while Caesar in Africa once deployed only a single line (Bell.Afr, 13, §2), and in the battle of Pharsalia, for a special reason, improvised a fourth (B.C., iii, 89, §3). In that battle, according to Frontinus (ii, 3, §22), each line in Pompey's army was ten men deep. Frontinus seems to mention this as exceptional; and accordingly it has been conjectured that the normal depth of a cohort was eight men (C.G., pp.587 - 8).

The thoughtful reader will probably ask himself certain questions, which are suggested by Caesar's account of the battle with the Helvetii, but which he does not answer, I suppose because he wrote for his contemporaries, most of whom perhaps knew enough about warfare to understand his book. The soldiers in the front rank of the fighting line must have become tired after, say, twenty minutes of hand-to-hand fighting. How were they relieved? When and how did the second line come into action? What was the use of the third line? The first question and the last can be answered easily. When the foremost ranks became tired, or thinned by the loss of individual soldiers, the rear ranks advanced between the files of those in front, and relieved them. Superintendent Froest tells me that this method would be adopted by the police in street fighting; and indeed no other method appears practicable. The third line served as a reserve: how it was used in this battle will be seen in 25, §7; generally, when its services were required, as, for instance, in the battle with Ariovistus (52, §7), the cohorts that composed it may have been directed against one or both of the enemy's flanks or on his rear. It is the second question that has most perplexed the commentators. Rudolf Schneider has tried to prove that as soon as the light-armed auxiliaries had done their work and hand-to-hand fighting had begun, the second line was regularly incorporated with the first. But in the battle with the Helvetii the auxiliaries were far removed from the fighting line: if, then, the second line was from the commencement of the battle incorporated with the first, why was it formed at all, and what was the sense of the expression triplicem aciem? It is clear from Caesar s narrative (25, §7) that even after the first stage of close fighting was over tbe first two lines still remained distinct. My own belief is that the second line as well as the third acted as a reserve, that if and when the first line needed support, the second was incorporated with it, and occasionally perhaps the third also. In the first stage of the battle each cohort of the first line probably formed a separate group: it would have been dangerous for the enemy to attempt to penetrate the spaces between the groups, for they would have been liable to be attacked and cut off by the fresh cohorts in reserve; and, on the other hand, these could advance when they were wanted into the spaces and reinforce the first line. It is not my business to give reasons for this opinion here, for in doing so I should have to discuss many passages which are not in Caesar's text: but the whole problem, which is interesting, is thoroughly worked out in C.G., pp.588 - 99.

§§2 - 3. in summo iugo ... sarcinasque. The MS. reading, which is untranslatable, is (ipse interim ... veteranorum) ita uti supra se [v.1.sed] in summo iugo ... auxilia conlocari, ac totum montem hominibus compleret interea sarcinas (in unum locum ... iussit). An attempt has been made to amend this by changing conlocari and compleri into conlocaret and compleret. Meusel deletes ita uti supra se and brackets ac totum ... interea, which, as Klotz remarks (C.S., p.239), is a desperate remedy. I have adopted Klotz's conjecture, which is at all events ingenious. Fortunately the general sense of the passage is in any case clear.

§3. sarcinas means the bundles (analogous to knapsacks) which the soldiers carried (see p.lxv). Accordingly Stoffel supposes that the heavy baggage (impedimenta), which, as the reader will have gathered from the preceding note, is not mentioned in the MSS., had been sent on under a small escort to Bibracte. But we should have expected Caesar to tell us this. Moreover, as his army remained on or near the battlefield for three days after the victory (26, §§5 - 6), it seems reasonable to suppose that they must have wanted some of their heavy baggage. On the other hand, as only two days' rations were left (23, §1), the baggage-cattle may have been sent to Bibracte to fetch corn. The entrenchment on the hill of Armecy was not large enough to protect the entire baggage train (C.G., p.628).

§5. phalange. The men in the front rank held their shields, which overlapped, before their bodies, while those behind bore theirs horizontally over their heads. Cf. Livy, x, 29, §6.

25, §1. omnium evidently means only the mounted officers of the legions, not the cavalry.

2. pilis. See p.lxiv and C.G., p.599.

3. cum ... inflexisset. See p.lxiv. When cum is used in describing repeated action, it is generally coupled with an indicative. The subjunctive, as Meusel observes (J.B., 1894, p.371), is here not only iterative but causal. Caesar does, however, occasionally use the subjunctire in a purely iterative sense, e.g. in B.C., iii, 47, §7.

§5. spatio, which is evidently required, was supplied by B.Dinter. Schneider's attempt to defend the MS. text fails.

§6. novissimis praesidio erant. These words have generally been taken to mean that, after the emigrants retraced their steps (23 §3), the Boi and Tulingi served as the rearguard of the whole column, including the wagon-train, which they marched past in order to come into action. But it is very doubtful whether the first stage of the battle lasted long enough to enable them to do this. M.Jullian understands the Latin in the sense that the Helvetii had left the Boi and Tulingi on the road to guard the wagons in front of which they had been marching. I believe that he is right; but if so, the wagons must surely have been protected in their rear by another force, which took no part in the battle (C.G., pp.629 - 30).

ex itinere shows that the attack began immediately after the march ended. I translate thus: - `marched up, immediately attacked,' &c.

<ab> latere apeito. The insertion of ab, as Meusel shows (J.B., 1894, p.299, with which cf.L.C., i, 36 - 9), is necessary. The words mean `on the right flank', which was exposed (aperto) because the shield was worn on the left arm. This was denied by Stoffel, who maintained that the words simply meant `on the exposed flank', - left or right, as the case might be; but there are at least three passages in Caesar - iv, 26, §3; v, 35, §2; and vii, 82, §2 - which prove that ab latere aperto is a technical military phrase, and means what I have said. For the troops which are mentioned in each of these passages were exposed, as far as their position was concerned, on their left as well as on their right; and therefore either ab latere aperto signified `on the right and unshielded flank' or it signified nothing. The passage on which this note is written is fully discussed in C.G., pp.621 - 3, the arguments in which have been accepted on the Continent as conclusive.

§7. Mommsen (J.B., 1894, p. 201) gives a sufficient reason for regarding conversa as an interpolation: - `the first two lines did not change front.'

26, §2. ab hora septima. The Romans divided the period between sunrise and sunset into 12 hours, which of course were only equal to our hours at the equinox.

pugnatum sit. If Caesar had written pugnaretur he would, so to speak, have been placing the reader at the standpoint of a spectator of the battle; whereas the perfect merely states that the battle lasted seven hours without calling upon the reader to form a mental picture of it. See J.B., 1894, p.357.

§3. rotas seems at first sight superfluous; and some editors adopt Meiser's emendation, raedas (cf. 51, §2). Perhaps, however, (inter carros) rotas(que) may be defended on the analogy of inter carros impedimentaque (iv, 14, §4), if we may suppose that in the latter case the baggage was in the carts; and, moreover, the wheels may have played a part in the defence. See p.436.

§5. Ex eo proelio ... pervenerunt. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.39) rightly brackets nullam partem ... intermisso. The words are absolutely superfuous if noctis denotes the same night as ea tota nocte; and if Caesar had meant to describe a succession of night marches and to imply that the Helvetii rested by day, which is more than improbable, he would have written not noctis but noctium (C.G., pp.632 - 3). Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.55) also regards the words triduum morati as interpolated, because, being followed in the next sentence by triduo intermisso, they are unnecessary. Suspicious they certainly are; but I can conceive that, after writing them, Caesar wrote triduo intermisso, and forgot that he was repeating himself.

In translating die quarto we must remember that the Romans as a rule reckoned inclusively. Thus if the battle was fought on a Sunday, the Helvetii reached the country of the Lingones on Wednesday; but it is impossible to tell what point in that country they had reached when Caesar overtook them. They may have retreated to Dijon, the place which they would naturally have made for if as is probable, they already intended to return to Switzerland. See the note on 30, §5, and C.G., pp.631 - 4.

27, §4. ea. See the note on 29, §2.

conquiruntur refers to obsides and servos, conferuntur to arma.

Schneider tries to reconcile nocte intermissa with prima nocte by explaining the former as meaning `after night began to intervene'; but, as Meusel points out (J.B., 1910, pp.56 - 7), it can only mean `after a night had passed'.

in tanta multitudine is virtually equivalent to cum tanta multitudo esset.

existimarent. See the note on 23, §3.

28, §1. in hostium numero habuit. Probably the 6,000 fugitives were put to death. Cf.Cicero, Verr, ii, 5, 25, §64; 28, §73; Cat., iii, 10, §25.

§5. petentibus Haeduis is not dative, but ablative absolute. Cf. ii, 12, §5.

29, §1. litteris Graecis. Greek characters were also used by Druids (vi, 14, §3). Some Gallic inscribed coins have a jumble of Greek and Roman characters (C.G., pp.730 - 1).

§2. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.51) doubts whether Quarum omnium rerum is an interpolation or a corruption. The words seem superfluous. If they are genuine, they are used as the genitive of quae omnia, just as ea is used in 27, §4.

milium ... milium. The reading of X is milia; but Meusel (J.B., 1891, p.275) asks whether Caesar would have been guilty of such a solecism as equitum numerus fuit Vmilia. He refers to iv, 15, §3 - cum hostium numerus capitum CCCCXXX milium fuisset - and many similar passages.

§3. Summa ... CCCLXVIII. A German writer thinks it suspicious that the original number of the whole host, according to Caesar, was exactly four times the number of the fighting men; and he concludes that Caesar merely made a rough estimate, based upon the ascertained number of the men, whose individual names were recorded (§1). Even so, however, the whole number could hardly have been less than 300,000; and some critics have argued that Caesar was guilty of exaggeration. Napoleon III, who accepted his figures, gave reasons for believing that the Helvetii had 8,500 wagons; and if so, the length of the column would have been nearly 80 miles, if the wagons moved in single file. But after the defeat of the Tigurini (12, §§2 - 3) the length would have been reduced to 60 miles; and of course the wagons did not move in single file except when they were crossing a bridge or passing through a narrow defile (6, §1). Wagons in South Africa have often moved four, or even five, abreast; and if the reader will think for a minute he will see that crossing a bridge would simply have caused delay: it would not have increased the length of the column by one yard more than the length of the bridge. Besides, it has been suggested by Captain G. Veith that the Helvetii, having eaten up the greater part of their three months' supply of corn (5, §3) before the battle, and having, moreover, been disheartened by the defeat of the Tigurini, had abandoned many of their wagons. Anyhow, good judges are now almost all agreed that there is no reason for disbelieving Caesar when he says that, according to the Helvetian schedule, the original strength of the allied army was 92,000 (C.G., pp.237 - 41). See, however, p.436.

fuerunt. Both the number and the tense are noticeable. In §2 Caesar wrote summa erat, the plural here is due to the infiuence of the predicate. In §2 Caesar probably used the imperfect because he was emphasizing the process of computation which was gradual; whereas in fuerunt we have the final result.

ad. See the first note on 4, §2.

30, §1. totius fere Galliae does not mean the whole of Gaul in the wider sense, - the sense in which the word is used in 1, §1; for the Belgae made war upon Caesar in the following year, and, moreover, it may be doubted whether the representatives of the more distant tribes would have had time to reach him: indeed for the same reason the words can hardly mean the whole of that part of Gaul which was inhabited by the Celtae. Probably, then, Mommsen is right in supposing that Caesar was loosely referring to Central Gaul. We must remember that he said fere (C.G., p.634).

§2. populi Romani. The Aldine edition, which Meusel now follows, has populus Romanus, but I do not see any sufficient reason for rejecting the authority of the MSS. In B.C., i, 7, §7 iniurias takes an objective genitive: the men of the 13th legion declared sese paratos esse imperatoris sui tribunorumque plebis iniurias defendere.

terrae is rightly bracketed by Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.72).

§5. concilio. M.Jullian may be right in supposing that this council was held at Bibracte; for, although Caesar's narrative suggests that the place of meeting was in the country of the Lingones, he does not say so, and political reasons may have influenced him to go to the capital of his subservient allies, the Aedui, and to emphasize by his presence there at the head of his victorius army the fact that he was now the master of Gaul. Indeed, if the Helvetii retreated to Dijon (see the note on 26, §5), we may be almost sure that the council was held at Bibracte, for the distance from Dijon to Besancon (Vesontio) is much too short to correspond with Caesar's account of his march 37, §5; 38).

31, §1. Meusel brackets in occulto, which is omitted in the first printed edition of the Commentaries. No doubt the words are open to suspicion; but Schneider's defence seems to me reasonable. He thinks that Caesar intended to show how anxious the chiefs were for secrecy, secreto implying that they wished inquisitive persons to be excluded from the proposed interview, in occulto that they wished it to be held in a hidden spot.

§3. Galliae totius ... Avernos. See p.lix, and cf. vi, 12, §1, where Caesar says that, when he arrives at Gaul, `one faction was headed by the Aedui, the other by the Sequani.' There is no inconsistency between the two passages. Probably the Sequani, after they were reinforced by Ariovistus, usurped the supremacy which had been exercised by the Arverni.

§5. ad. See the first note on 4, §2.

§6. clientes here means dependent tribes. A state which had `clients' exercised over them whatever power it could; and some clients were less dependent upon the same state than others. Thus the Cadurci, the Gabali, and the Vellavii were under the imperium of the Arverni, and therefore had to render military service when required to do so (vii, 75, §2) and probably also to pay tribute, as the Eburones did to the Atuatuci (v, 27, §2); but the Carnutes, although they were clients of the Remi, were evidently not under their imperium, for they rebelled against Caesar when the Remi remained loyal (vi, 4, §5). Client tribes certainly managed their own internal affairs, and, as we learn from vi, 12, §§6 - 8, occasionally transferred their allegiance flom one powerful state to another (C.G., pp.517 - 19).

nobilitatem does not mean `the nobility' or `the nobles', but simply `men of rank': in other words, it does not denote a definite class, like our peerage, but merely the most prominent members of the class which Caesar (vi, 13, §3) calls equites, or knights. For in vi, 13, immediately after saying that in Gaul there were only two classes which were held in any esteem, and immediately before saying that `one of the two classes consists of the Druids, the other of the knights,' he makes this remark: - `Generally, when crushed by debt or heavy taxation or ill treated by powerful individuals, they [the common people] bind them- selves to serve men of rank (plerique cum aut aere alieno aut magnitudine tributorum aut iniuria potentiorum premuntur, sese in servitutem dicant nobilibus). If the nobiles had formed a definite class, superior to the equites, Caesar would have said that there were only three classes which were held in any esteem.

equitatum. I am not quite sure whether equitatum here means `cavalry' or `knighthood' - i.e.`knights' (see p.lv and vi, 15). Of course the Aedui had not lost all their cavalry, as 15, §1 proves, but doubtless Diviciacus exaggerated.

§7. hospitio. The hospitium between the Romans and the Aedui (see p.xli) was an example of what was called hospitium publicum, - a friendly agreement concluded between the Roman People and a foreigner or a foreign state. The articles of the agreement were regularly engraved on stone or bronze and preserved in the Roman archives (D.S., iii, 300 - 1).

§8. potuerit. A beginner who had just made the acquaintance of Oratio Obliqua might expect to find potuisset here; but in relative clauses of this kind Caesar often uses the perfect conjunctive even when secondary tenses precede and follow. Perhaps in this case the primary tense is used under the influence of the present infinitive esse (J.B., 1894, pp. 362 - 3). In Oratio Recta the verb would be potui.

§10. tertiamque partem ... occupavisset. This region was evidently in the plain of Alsace (43, §1; C.G., p.637).

pararentur means not `were being prepared', but `had to be prepared'.

§11. ex Galliae finibus. J.Lange (N.J., cli, 1895, p.809) conjectures that Caesar wrote (omnes) Galli e finibus (pellerentur) symmetrically with omnes Germani Rhenum transirent, but that a copyist mistook Galli e for Galliae. Perhaps; but it seems to me more than rash to disregard the MS. tradition for such a reason.

§12. semel is apparently opposed to semel atque iterum and Gallorum to Haeduos eorumque clientes in §6; so we may conclude that the Sequani, finding that they had gained nothing by their victories (§10), had joined the Aedui and made a desperate effort to get rid of Ariovistus. See 40, §8 and C.G., pp.554 - 5.

quod proelium ... Magetobrigam. This battle was probably fought in 60 B.C.; for it appears from a letter of Cicero (Att., i, 19, §2), written on the 1st of March in that year, that the Aedui had recently suffered a defeat (C.G., p.554).

omnia exempla cruciatusque is not a hendiadys; but, exempla being a general word, cruciatus is added, to make it clear what kind of exempla Ariovistus inflicted. Exampla means such punishments as would be a warning to others: so we speak of `exemplary punishment'.

§§12 - 16. The secondary tenses of the subjunctive, which occur, according to rule, in §§3 - 11 (except in §8), are followed in these last five sentences by primary tenses of the subjunctive, which are due to the present infinitives, imperare, poscere, &c. Diviciacus was here speaking of what had recently happened and of what was actually going on. See the note on 14, §§5 - 6.

§12. obsides ... facta sit explains superbe ... imperare and should be translated by a participial clause: - `Ariovistus ... was exercising his authority with arrogance and cruelty, demanding from every man of rank his children as hostages,' &c.

§14. ut. See the note on 5, §1.

32, §5. tamen is here used in what is called a concessive sense, and the meaning of reliquis ... daretur might be expressed by `the others had at any rate a chance of escape'.

quorum oppida ... essent, as 38, §1 shows, was an exaggeration.

33, §1. beneficio suo is explained by 35, §2.

§2. Et is deleted by Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.59), on the ground that Caesar could not have used it in the sense of `also'. This makes me wonder why he inserts Et at the beginning of 52, §3. He also deletes in (dicione), which, I may remark, is omitted in L, because of about 170 passages in Caesar this is the only one in which a preposition is repeated before the second of two synonymous or nearly related concepts connected by a copulative conjunction. fratres ... appellatos. See p.xli, the first note on 3, §4 and C.G., p.519.

§4 ut ante ... fecissent is evidently to be taken not with the preceding, but with the following clause, a1though in fact it relates to the former as well.

Cimbri Teutonique. See pp. lviii - lix.

praesertim ... divideret. Schneider observes that Ariovistus and his followers, who were settled in the country of the Sequani, would have been able to cross the Rhone easily whereas mountains would have been to some extent a barrier; but in reality mountains are weak defences, and to cross a river in the face of a resolute enemy is difficult. Meusel (J.B., 1910 p.34) argues that Caesar would have written Rhodanus solus (or unus) and that after Sequanos he would have added in quorum finibus Germani considerant. These reasons are hardly conclusive; but they justify Meusel in bracketing praesertim ... divideret.

34, §1. utrisque is a correction, made by Ciacconius, of utriusque. The genitive would not be admissible except in poetry; and, as Meusel says (J.B., 1894, p.285), even if it were Caesar would bave written (medium) ipsius et Caesaris.

§2. velit. Perhaps Caesar used the present in order to show that the supposition was probable. In Oratio Recta (opus) esset would remain esset; but velit would become vis.

35, §2. in consulatu ... appellatus esset. Cf.43, §4. I believe that Caesar (and the Senate) had conferred upon Ariovistus the titles of King and of Friend of the Roman People in order to secure his neutrality in view of the threatened Helvetian invasion. Caesar foresaw that when he went to Gaul he would have to deal both with the Helvetii and with Ariovistus; and to dispose of two formidable hosts separately would be quite as much as he could manage. Guglielmo Ferrero, the well-known Italian historian, does not agree with me: he has argued that Caesar made an `alliance' with Ariovistus in order to purchase his aid against the Helvetii. I need only say here that if Caesar conferred titles upon Ariovistus in order to obtain his aid against the Helvetii, it is impossible to explain why he never availed himself of it. It was as much as he could do, unaided, to defeat the Helvetii: why, then, did he not call upon Ariovistus to join him? Obviously because he had never contemplated a proceeding which would paralyse his policy. If he had accepted the aid of Ariovistus against the Helvetii, it would have been impossible for him to turn round afterwards and expel Ariovistus from Gaul. And that was what he meant to do (C.G., pp.218 - 24).

Generally in Caesar when Oratio Obliqua depends, as it does here, upon a historic present, the tenses of the subjunctive are primary: here, however, secondary tenses - appellatus esset, referret, &c. - are used under the influence of the past participle adfectus (J.B., 1894, p.362).

§4. id is deleted by Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.59), who remarks that Caesar writes si ita fecisse(n)t or si id fecisset, but not si id ita fecisset. Probably the id was due to dittography, - the careless repetition of a word by a copyist in the same or nearly the same form. Schneider, however, defends id, on the ground that Caesar had to define his requirements as precisely as possible.

quoniam ... defenderet. See pp.lix - lx. Messala and Piso were consuls in 61 B.C. Quod is not a conjunction but a relative pronoun, equivalent to quantum; and the clause quod ... posset might be translated by `so far as the public interest would permit'. Commodo is ablative, not dative.

36, §4. vectigalia ... faceret. We may infer that the Aedui, relying upon Caesar's aid, had withheld, or threatened to withhold, part of the tribute. The subjunctive would be used even if the speech were in Oratio Recta, for the clause qui ... faceret is causal.

§5. longe ... afuturum. These words are easy to understand but hard to translate. Perhaps this will do, - (if not,) `much good would the title of ``Brethren of the Roman People'' do them!'

§7, qui inter ... subissent. It may be gathered from this boast that Ariovistus arrived in Gaul in 71 B.C.; for he affirmed (44, §2) that he `had not left home and kinsmen without great expectations and great inducements', and these words are hardly consistent with the supposition that his wanderings had begun in Germany (C.G., pp.553 - 4)

37, §2. eorum. See the first note on 5, §4.

§4. Sueborum, Accordinr, to Tacitus (Germania, 38), Suebi was a general name, denoting a people whose several tribes had particular names. The hundred pagi are noticed again in iv, 1, §4.

§5. refrumentaria ... comparata. These words, as one might infer from 39, §6 and 40, §11, are not identical in meaning with frumento ... comparato. The sense is `he arranged as quickly as possible for a supply of corn'. The corn was to be sent after him.

38, §1. triduique viam ... processisse. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.44) is, I think, right in bracketing these words, although I do not accept all his arguments. Following (cum) tridui viam processisset, the clause is suspicious. Moreover, it would seem to imply that Ariovistus had already completed the three days' journey `from his own territory' - that is, from the territory which he had wrested from the Sequani (31, §10) when Caesar's informant started on his errand. If so, Ariovistus would nearly have reached Vesontio (Besancon) when the messenger reached Caesar, and the suspected words would be inexplicable. Therefore, although I can frame no theory to account for the supposed interpolation, I tentatively follow Meusel (C.G., pp. 637 - 8).

§3. idque W. Paul (B.ph.W., 1884, col.1209 - 10), who thinks that id here is weak and pointless, may be right in proposing idemque.

§4. ad ducendum bellum. I am inclined to think that Stoffel (G.C., ii, 370 - 3, 378) is right in taking these words to mean `for prolonging the campaign', - with the object of postponing a decisive battle till a convenient day. In ancient warfare an army in a strongly fortified position was generally secure so long as its supplies lasted, while one pitched battle generally decided the issue of a campaign, because the beaten army, when once its formation had been destroyed, was pursued and routed, almost always with enormous loss. Cf. L.C., i, 404. Anyhow, Caesar was thinking of the advantage which possession of Vesontio would confer upon Ariovistus.

§5. non amplius ... MDC. Caesar, like the other writers of the Golden Age of Latin literature, invariably omits ouam with amplius; and the literal meaning is (which is of) `1,600 feet, - no more'.

MDC, which represents the actual distance, is an emendation, due to Napoleon III, for the MS. reading, DC.

39, §1. Kraner says that congressos can only be used of hostile encounters, and therefore can only refer to Gallorum, not to mercatorum. But in vi, 5, §5 cum Transrhenanis congredi obviously means `to join the peoples beyond the Rhine'.

mentes animosque may be rendered by `judgement and nerve'.

§2. tribunis militum. See p.lxiii. Although Caesar, in order to oblige politicians who might be useful to him, occasionally granted sinecure tribuneships to men who had no experience of war (Cicero, Fam., vii, 8, §1), numerous passages in the Bellum Gallicum (ii, 26, §1; iii, 14, §§3 - 4; iv, 23, §5; v, 52, §4; vi, 39, §2; vii, 47, §2; 62, §6) prove that the duties of tribunes in general were most important (C.G., pp.565 - 7).

praefectis. These were the officers of the auxiliary corps, - the archers and slingers (see p.lxiii). The cavalry officers were called praefecti equitum. They are not referred to here, as one may gather from §5.

qui refers only to reliquis. The men to whom Caesar alludes may have included contubernales, - youths who accompanied a general in the field without being attached to any particular corps, in order to gain experience and to profit by his advice; but probably these friends were `fashionable idlers and disappointed professional men, who ... simply wanted to mend their fortunes by looting' (C.G., pp.60, 101; A.B., pp.327 - 8) or to ingratiate themselves with Caesar.

§3. diceret. Schneider remarks that the mood is due to a kind of attraction, quam ... diceret being equivalent to quae sibi, ut dicebat ... necessaria esset. Cf.the note on 23, §3.

§4. Vulgo ... obsignabantur. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.44 - 5) argues that these words are an interpolation. The reasons which he gives - that they break the context and, in their existing position, can only refer to non nulli in §3, with which they are inconsistent - appear to me inadequate. Any one who reads the chapter in my translation of the Gallic War will, I think, admit that the suspected words fit naturally into their place; and I find it impossible to believe that they were invented.

signa ferri simply means `to advance'. The standards played so important a part as rallying-points for the men that Caesar constantly uses the word signa in phrases in which it cannot be translated literally.

40, §1. omniumque ordinum ... centurionibus. Councils of war were not attended by centurions except those of `the first rank', - the six centurions of the first cohort of each legion. All the centurions were summoned to this council, which was not a council of war, because all were, more or less, concerned.

adhibis centurionibus, vehementer eos incusavit. This construction frequently recurs in Caesar, often apparently, as here, for the sake of emphasis, sometimes perhaps as a mere mannerism. Adhibitos centuriones incusavit would be much less forcible than the expression which Caesar used.

putarent. The learner should not pass on to the next sentence until he is sure that he understands why Caesar wrote putarent, not putabant. When he really understands he will never be puzzled again. If Caesar had used the indicative, the meaning would have been, `Caesar accused them because they thought'; in other words. `Caesar's motive for accusing them was that they thought,' &c. But this is not exactly what he meant. His meaning was, `Caesar accused them, and gave as his reason for accusing them the fact that they thought,' &c. To bring out the meaning of such subjunctives in idiomatic English requires hard thinking. This translation, I think, will serve. - `Observing the state of affairs, Caesar called a meeting, to which the centurions of all grades were summoned, and rated them severely for presuming to suppose,' &c.

§2. iudicaret. According to one of the rules formulated by grammarians, we should expect iudicare: for the question is what they call rhetorical, - that is to say, no answer is expected; and in Oratio Recta iudicaret would become iudicat. But I have noticed that Caesar often violates so-called rules of Oratio Obliqua; and since he was certainly a master of his own language, one may be allowed to suggest that the rules need revision. I find that Meusel (J.B., 1894, pp.388 - 9) agrees with me.

§4. Quod si. See the first note on 14, §3. Here, however, quod must be translated: its English equivalent is `But' (supposing, &c.).

§5. Cimbris ... pulsis. See p.lix.

cum non minorem ... videbatur. Meusel (J.B. 1910, p.42) rightly brackets these words, because videbatur is ungrammatical. In the MSS. cum precedes Cimbris; but as Factum ... memoria without the addition of Cimbris ... pulsis would hardly have been intelligible to ignorant centurions, Cimbris ... pulsis must have been written by Caesar, and accordingly I follow Meusel in transposing cum. Beware of translating videbatur by `seemed': the meaning is that the army, as all could see (or as was evident), had earned, &c. One might translate by `the army confessedly earned'.

servili tumultu. This insurrection, the leader of which was the famous Spartacus, occurred in 73 - 71 B.C.

sublevarint is an emendation, proposed by Morus, for sublevarent, the reading of all the MSS. except f, which has sublevaret. The imperfect is evidently wrong, for in Oratio Recta the verb would be sublevaverunt.

§7. superarint is the reading of , which Meusel follows, apparently against his own inclination (J.B., 1894, p.366): has superassent. Meusel thinks that the contracted form of superaverint is somewhat suspicious, and that if Caesar had written superarint, followed immediately by potuerint, he would most probably have used present tenses (commoveat and quaerant) in §8. Moreover, he adds, the relative clause quibus cum ... superassent is closely connected with what precedes and corresponds with the other relative clauses (§§5 - 6) in which we find the pluperfects accepissent and timuissent, and it is more likely that the writer of would have altered superassent into superarint than vice versa. I may remark that Meusel himself reads perequitarit in vii, 66, §7; and I agree with Prof.Postgate, who observes (C.R., 1903, p.444) that Caesar used `one tense [superarint] for the recent victory of the Helvetii and another [superassent] for the remote defeat' of the slaves.

§8. adversum ... Gallorum refers to the battle of Magetobriga (31, §12).

9. barbaros does not here mean `barbarian', though it implies some contempt, such as an average Englishman feels when he calls Indians `the natives'. Homines ... imperitos may be translated by `the simple natives'.

§10. The position of suum shows that it is emphasized.

desperare ... viderentur is the reading of : has desperare aut praescribere auderent which evidently will not do. I was once tempted to adopt an ingenious emendation, proposed by Mommsen (J.B. 1894, p.201), - desperare viderentur aut praescribere auderent; but it seems to me that although the notion of `daring' is implied in praescribere, viderentur is required with both verbs.

§12. dicantur. See the note on 31, §§12 - 16.

§14. in longiorem diem. See the first note on 7, §6.

§15. sequatur. See the note on 34, §2, and J.B., 1894, pp.363 - 4.

dubitet is a correction, made by Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.364). The MSS. have dubitaret, which, after sequatur, is out of order.

praetoriam cohortem. The praetorian cohort, or general's bodyguard, was composed of the bravest men in the army. The first general who formed a praetorian cohort was Scipio Aemilianus in the siege of Numantia (133 B.C.).

41, §1. innata. I retain the MS. reading, which seems to me justified by Cicero (Off., i, 19, §64 - in hac elatione animi cupiditas principatus innascitur) instead of J. Lange's emendation, inlata, which is, however, supported by ii, 25, §3 and vi, 43, §5.

§3. primorum ordinem centurionibus. Who were the `centurions of the first rank'? No less than eight theories have been devised about them, but it is, I believe, now generally admitted that they were the six centurions of the 1st cohort in each legion. For the ten cohorts in each legion were numbered; the 1st ranked above the rest (v, 15, §4); and it may therefore be presumed that all took rank according to their numbers. That this was the case under the Empire is certain, for the 10th cohort was the lowest. Moreover, a centurion was promoted in the civil war `from the 8th class to the rank of primipilus', or chief centurion of the legion; and Modestus, a centurion who had served for eighteen years in four grades of rank, held the position of hastatus posterior in the 3rd cohort, which accords with the supposition that the 3rd cohort ranked below the first two, but above all the rest. A passage in Tacitus (Hist. iii, 22) shows that in the time of the Emperor Galba there were not less than six primorum ordinem centuriones in the 7th legion. Lastly, it is proved by inscriptions that the centurions of the 1st cohort known as primus pilus prior; primus princeps prior, and primus hastatus prior were the first three centurions of the legion; and the natural conclusion is that the 4th, 5th, and 6th centurions of the 1st cohort also ranked above all the centurions of the other cohorts.

I am, however, inclined to believe that hesides the six centurions of the 1st cohort there were occasionally others who ranked as primorum ordinum centuliones. Caesar mentions three centurions (v, 35, §6; vi, 38, §1; B.C. iii, 91, §1) who had been the chief centurions of their respective legions; and he mentions them in a way which shows that they were still respected by the men just as much as if they had still been chief centurions. Perhaps they were evocati, that is to say, men who had completed their term of service, and were serving again as volunteers: anyhow it seems not improbable that they would have ranked with the primorum ordinum centuriones (C.G., pp.567 - 79).

§4. ut milium amplius ... duceret can only mean that the circuitous part of the march was 50 Roman miles long; and this is just what it would have been if Diviciacus had conducted Caesar by the natural route which Stoffel indicated, namely, the road that leads past Voray, Rioz, Filain, and Vallerois-le-Bois to Villersexel, and thence to Belfort. In regard to amplius see the note on 38, §5.

§5. cum iter non intermitteret. As these words imply, it was usual to give troops a day's rest occasionally; but evidently Caesar wished to lose no time before encountering Ariovistus.

42, §1. quod antea ... existimaret. See the note on 35, §2. I cannot explain why Caesar wrote postularet, accessisset, and existimaret instead of postulaverit, accesserit, and existimet, but perhaps, as Meusel suggests (J.B., 1894, p.362), mittit found its way into the text owing to a copyist's blunder, and should be replaced by misit.

§5. Notice that omnibus equis is ablative, and Gallis equitibus dative. Caesar says omnibus (equis) because the Gallic cavalry had of course spare horses.

legionarios is used emphatically in contradistinction to equitibus and also to the auxiliaries, who were brigaded with the legions.

Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.54) regards cui ... confidebat as a marginal addition because in 40, §15 Caesar has already expressed his confidence in the 10th legion. Perhaps the words are open to suspicion; but Caesar may have forgotten what he had said or may have desired to emphasize it.

§6. ad equum rescribere means `enter in the list of equites'. In Caesar's time the Roman equites were the class engaged in business - banking, money-lending, &c. - which senators were forbidden to take part in (though they found ways of evading the law), and comprising all whose property exceeded in value 400,000 sesterces (about L3,333); but originally the equites were the cavalry, who were selected from the wealthiest citizens. I suggest this as a translation of plus quam ... rescribere: - `Caesar is better than his word: he promised to make the 10th his bodyguard; and now he's knighting us.'

43, §1. Planities erat magna. This was evidently the plain of Alsace. See 53, §1.

tumulus terrenus. It is generally taken for granted that this was a natural feature, - a knoll. But if so, why did Caesar describe it as terrenus (earthen)? He mentions four other tumuli (vi, 8, §3; 40, §1; B.C., i, 43, §1; iii, 51, §8); but to none of them does he apply the epithet terrenus. It is true that Livy (xxxviii, 20, §4) speaks of colles terrenos: but he is contrasting them with rocky heights; and if the tumulus in question was a knoll, it mattered nothing for the purpose of Caesar's narrative whether it was rocky or grassy. It is certainly possible that it was simply an artificial earthen mound or barrow, which has disappeared. If it was a knoll, there is only one with which it can be identified, - the `tertre de Plettig'. See the note on 48, §1 and C.G., pp.639 - 40, 642, 648 - 9.

§4 amplissime is the reading of . J.H.Schmalz (B.ph.W., 1912, col.891 - 6) shows by many quotations that the Romans often preferred an adverb where we should use an adjective.

§7. Beware of translating ut by `that'.

omni tempore. This was a diplomatic exaggeration on the part of Caesar. Towards the end of the second century B.C. Bituitus, King of the Arverni, and not long before Caesar's time another Arvernian, Celtillus, the father of the great Vercingetorix (vii, 4, §1), had exercised a loose supremacy over Gaul.

§8. velit. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.370) changes this into vellet, on the grouud that if Caesar had once adopted a primary tense after the preceding secondary tenses, he would in the next sentence have written possit. But, as Prof.Postgate remarks (C.R., 1903, p.443), `a recognized use of the Primary Tenses is the one in General Maxims or Universal Statements.'

posset? See the note on 40, §2.

§9. in mandatis does not mean `among his instructions', for the instructions referred to were the only ones which Caesar gave, but is equivalent to mandatorum loco (or nomine).

44, §2. Notice that sua sponte does not mean the same here as in 9, §2.

consuerint instead of consuessent after praedicavit is perhaps to be explained by the fact that a present infinitive, capere, precedes (J.B., 1894, p.362, with which cf.p.360); or the primary tense may have been used because the statement is general. See the notes on 31, §8 and 43, §8 (velit).

§3. uno proelio, - the battle of Magetobrlga. Cf.31, §12.

§4. decertare. Caesar often uses paratus with an infinitive; but, as in 5, §3 and 41, §2, he also uses it with ad and the gerundive.

§5. atque is an emendation, proposed by R.Menge, instead of the MS. reading, idque. Schneider explains id as equivalent to ut populi Romani amicus esset.

§7. finibus egressum is the reading of : Klotz (C.S., p.242) prefers that of , - fines ingressum. He says that it is not certain that a Roman army had never before crossed the northern frontier of the Province, and that if one had, Ariovistus would not have cared; for all that mattered to him was that Caesar should not invade his province, - the territory which he had won from the Sequani. Klotz accordingly deletes prouinciae, which he supposes, crept into the text under the influence of the following provinciam suam; and he remarks that when once provinciae had found its way into the MSS. it became necessary to alter fines ingressum into finibus egressum. The argument is ingenious; but I should not feel justified in following Klotz. It is practically certain that no Roman army had ever before marched beyond the Roman Province; and it seems natural that Ariovistus should have complained that Caesar had done so. Besides, Caesar would hardly have used Galliae in this context in the sense of Gaul minus the Province.

§8. Quid ... veniret? Schneider punctuates thus, - Quid sibi vellet, cur ... ueniret? (`What did Caesar mean by invading his dominions?').

§9. The reading of is quod fratres Haeduos appellatos diceret, while has quod a se Haeduos amicos appellatos diceret, and has quod a se Haeduos appellatos amicos diceret. All editors are agreed that a se, which is here meaningless, is a relic of a senatu; and the different positions of amicos in the two families of 13 suggest that it is a gloss. Klotz (C.S., pp.242 - 3) supposes that in the archetype the text was quod a se Haeduos appellatos diceret, something having dropped out after se. He proposes to fill up the gap thus, - quod a se <natu fratres populi Romani> Haeduos appellatos diceret; for, as he says, fratres alone was not the offlcial title. But is it likely that Ariovistus would have troubled himself about the official title ?

(tam) barbarum might here be translated by (such) `a dolt'.

bello Allobrogum proximo. See 6, §3, and p.lx.

§1. quod. A.S.Wesenberg suggested quem, an emendation which Meusel adopts. Nothing, so far as I can see, is gained by rejecting the MS. reading. Ariovistus meant that in keeping an army at all in Gaul, outside the Province, Caesar was doing wrong. See §7.

§13. decessisset, compared with interfecerit (§12), is noticeable. Meusel (J.B., 1894, pp.360 - 1) thinks that the change of tense is due to compertum habere (§12). I doubt this. Prof.Postgate (C.R., 1903, p.443) points out that `when Ariovistus is threatening Caesar ... he uses the Primary tenses [which are more vivid], when promising him rewards the Secondary '.

45, §2. Bello ... Fabio Maximo. This war occurred in 121 B.C. See p.xli.

46, §1. H.J.Muller (W.kl.Ph., 1894, col.566) is perhaps right in inserting et after adequitare.

§3. per fidem, - namely, a Caesare datam. The meaning is that they had been surrounded `through' - that is, through their trust in - `Caesar's pledged word'. We might translate thus, - `that he had pledged his word and then surrounded them.'

§4. fecissent. Meusel adopts H.Kleist's emendation, fecisse.

ut. See the first note on 43, §7.

47, §1. Professor J.C.Rolfe of the University of Pennsylvania has suggested to me that Biduo post means `On the next day' and I believe that he is right. For triduo post certainly means post tertium diem, it is admitted that post tertium diem (iv, 9, §1) is equivalent to tertio die, reckoning inclusively; and therefore biduo post is surely equivalent to altero die, which is substantially the same as postero die.

eos. See the first note on 5, §4.

neque is evidently equivalent to neque tamen, - `but not'.

uti ... mitteret. I do not know any other instance in which Caesar uses uti or ut to introduce an imperative or admonitory clause.

§2. pridie eius diei is bracketed by Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.45) on the ground that it contradicts Biduo post in the preceding sentence; but (supposing that the common translation of biduo post is right) is it not as likely that Caesar was careless as that a reader wrote a misleading note in the margin? Cf.Ph., 1863, p.499.

§3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.55 - 6) deletes ex suis, on the ground that, following ex suis legatis aliquem ad se mitteret in §1, legatum ex suis could only mean legatum ex suis legatis, which, he says, is impossible. I think, however, that Caesar wrote ex suis in contrast to C.Valerium Procillum (who was not a Roman, but a provincial) in §4; and I find that Klotz (C.S., p.238, n.1) agrees with me, though he would alter legatis in §1 into legatum.

§4. C.Valerium. See the note on i, 19, §3 (Valerium).

esset. The subjunctive is used because Caesar was not stating a fact, but expressing a thought which had passed through his mind. Thus quod ... causa non esset is equivalent to quod, ut Caesari videbatur ... causa non erat.

hospitio. By the Roman institution called hospitium privatum agreements were concluded between individual Roman citizens and individual foreigners, under which the former were entitled to receive hospitality from the latter. It has been remarked that this practice must have been very useful in places where the accommodation of inns was not available (D.S., iii, 298 - 9). Provincials upon whom the members of a governor's staff were billeted were also called hospites (Cocero, Att., v, 1, §2).

C.Valerius Flaccus was Governor of the Province in 83 B.C. Towards the end of the Roman Republic, after Roman citizenship had been conferred, as a result of the Social war, upon all the free population of Italy, eminent men had been authorized to confer the civitas upon deserving foreigners; and Caesar exercised this privilege on his own responsibility. See Cicero, Pro Archia, 10, §26; Pro Balbo, 21, §48; Fam., xiii, 36, §1; and Dion Cassius, xli, 24, §1.

48, §1. sub monte consedit. These words are very important for, if they do not enable us to identify the site of the battle between Caesar and Ariovistus (51 - 2), they greatly narrow the choice and condemn nearly all the attempts that have been made to dctermine the topography of the campaign. The great majority of these guesses are irreconcilable either with Caesar's statement (41, §4) that the circuitous part of his march from Besancon was more than fifty Roman miles long, or with the statement that his interview with Ariovistus took place in a great plain (43, §1), or with the statement, on which this note is written, that Ariovistlls halted, on the night before he marched past Caesar's camp, at the foot of a mountain. The only theories which we need examine are those of Colonel Stoffel and M.Jullian.

The words sub monte consedit, as Stoffel remarks, show why Caesar did not attack Ariovistus while he was making the flank march which is described in 48, §2. They prove that he marched along high ground, where the Romans could not attack him without heavy loss: for Caesar, who was economical of words, would not have told us that Ariovistus encamped at the foot of a mountain unless the statement had been essential to his narrative; nor would it have been essential unless it had implied that Ariovistus, after encamping there, ascended the slopes in order to execute his march without the risk of being attacked.

According to Stoffel, Caesar marched from Vesontio (Besancon) at the rate of about sixteen miles a day, and encamped at the end of his seven days' march (41, §5) on the left bank of the Fecht, between Ostheim and Gemar: the tumulus terrenus satis grandis (43, §1) was the `tertre de Plettig'; Ariovistus made his flank march on the lower slopes of the Vosges between the defiles of the Weiss and the Strengbach; and Caesar made the smaller camp which he mentions in 49, §§1 - 2 on a spur of the Vosges between Bebelnheim and Mittelweier. The `tertre de Plettig' is the only knoll which answers to Caesar's description; therefore, unless the tumulus was artificial (see the note on 43, §1), this fact settles the question in favour of Stoffel. Stoffel also affirms that the only part of the Vosges along which the flank march of Ariovistus would have been practicable is the part between the two defiles which I have mentioned; but I am not sure that it would not have been equally practicable further southward, between Cernay and Roderen, where M.Jullian places it. M.Jullian thinks that Caesar originally encamped about a mile and a half south-west of Cernay; that Ariovistus encamped, in order to cut Caesar's communication, at Roderen, near the `benchmark' fixed by the engineers who mapped the country; and that Caesar pitched his smaller camp on the plateau between Michelbach and Guerwenheim. He objects that Stoffel places the battle-field too far north, but Caesar's words (41, §5) show that he marched rapidly from Vesontio and therefore probably pushed as far northward as Stoffel thinks, and, moreover, it seems not unlikely that Ariovistus, after he had failed to seize Vesontio (38, §§1 - 2, 7) may have thought it wise to lure Caesar as far as possible from his base. Between Stoffel and Jullian excavation alone could decide; but Stoffel could not excavate, as the site was covered by vineyards (C.G., pp.636 - 52).

frumento ... supportaretur. Cf.37, §5; 39, §1; and 40, §11.

Notice that Caesar does not say that Ariovistus expected to cut his communication with the convoys which he expected from the Leuci and the Lingones (see 40, §11).

§3. pro castris ... habuit. Caesar did this in order to restore the nerve of his soldiers, who had perhaps not quite shaken off the effect of their recent panic (see 39 - 40). We may infer from B.C., iii, 55, §1, 84, §2 that artillery (see p.lxiv), of which Ariovistus had none, were mounted, ready to protect them. Ariovistus might attack if he liked: but if he attacked, it would be at his peril, if he declined the challenge, the legionaries would be assured that the Germans were not invincible.

ut ... non deesset. Though ut here expresses a purpose, and the learner knows that in final sentences he must not write ut non, but ne, he will not suppose that Caesar wrote bad Latin. Ne here would be very weak, and ut ... non deesset is justifiable, because non deesset is virtually equivalent to adesset. Meusel, indeed (L.C., iii, 2410), and other editors take it as consecutive; but Schneider agrees with me.

49, §1. castris ... delegit. See the note on 48, §1.

§3. Hic locus ... aberat. Meusel brackets these words on the ground that it is incredible that Caesar would have repeated the clear statement which he bad made three lines before.

§5. auxiliorum. These auxiliaries were archers and slingers. See p.lxiii.

50, §2. meridiem. H.J.Muller proposed meridie, an emendation which Meusel adopts (J.B., 1894, p.289), on the ground that in Caesar and all careful writers circiter is invariably an adverb. The emendation may be right, for in MSS. m is frequently added by mistake at the end of a word; but Cicero several times used circiter as a preposition. See Att., ii.17, §1 (circiter Id.Maias), Fam., iii, 5, §4, xv, 3, §2 (circiter Idus Sextiles), and for other instances Th.l.L., iii, 1100.

§4. matres familiae. Cicero, in connexion with pater, mater, and filius, uses the form familias. See H.Merguet, Handlexikon zu Cicero 1905, pp.500 - 1.

§5. non esse fas - `it was not fated'. Fas est is here equivalent to eimartai (meiromai).

novam lunam. This, as we may infer from 40, §11 (iamque esse in agris frumenta matura), was the new moon of September 18, 58 B.C.

51, §1. alarios is another word for auxilia. They were so called because they were commonly posted on the wings of the regular army.

52, §1. guaestorem. The provincial quaestor, as distinguished from the quaestors who served at Rome, acted as Paymaster-General, managed the details of the commissariat, and was responsible for all financial business. Caesar, however, employed quaestors, like legati, as commanders of legions (iv, 22, §3; v 24, §3; 25, §5; 46, §1; 53, §6; vi, 6, §1). In 58 B.C. he had only one quaestor; but in 54 at all events (v, 25, §5) he had two or more.

uti ... haberet. Several passages in the Gallic War, e.g.ii.25 §3, iii, 14, §8, and vi, 8, §4, show that the men fought better when they knew that an officer of high rank would give them credit for proved courage.

§4. Relictis is the reading of : a has reiectis, which has been condemned on the ground that it is equivalent to post tergum iactis, and that the men could not have got rid of their javelins in this way without the risk of killing their comrades. But might not reiectis be equivalent to depositis, as in Cicero, Pis., 23, §55, - (lictores) sagula reiecerunt? H.J.Muller proposed proiectis, which Meusel adopts; but it will not do, for in three of the four passages (vii, 40, §6; 89, §4; B.C., iii, 98, §1) in which Caesar uses proicere with arma it means `to ground arms' in token of surrender; and in the other (B.C., iii, 13, §2) it means `to throw away'.

phalange facta only means that Ariovistus adopted the phalanx formation (see the note on 24, §5), not that the phalanx was one and undivided; for what would have been the use of forming up the tribal groups `at equal intervals' (51, §2) if the intervals were immediately afterwards to be suppressed? Moreover, as M.Jullian observes, it may be inferred from Tacitus (Ann., ii, 45; Hist., iv, 20) that the Germans fought in divisions and the Macedonian phalanx originally did the same (C.G., p.654).

§5. complures nostri does not mean exactly the same as complures nostrorum, but is equivalent to complures, qui erant nostri. The sense is `on our side many', &c.

manibus is ablative.

§7. adulescens is generally understood in the sense of `the younger'; and if this is the meaning, the word was intended to distinguish P.Crassus from his father (21, §4), who, with Caesar and Pompey, formed the first triumvirate, and from his elder brother (v, 24, §3), who was one of Caesar's quaestors in 54 B.C. But would not Caesar's contemporary readers have already been aware of the distinction? M.Jullian remarks that Caesar does not apply the word to certain other [well-known] officers whose fathers were still living; and accordingly he argues that Crassus was called adulescens because he had not attained the age of 30, - the lowest at which a man was eligible for the post of quaestor. M.Jullian may be right: but adulescens was a word of elastic meaning, and Cicero (Phil., ii, 46, §118) spoke of himself as having been an adulescens when he was 43. Cicero generally expresses `the younger' by minor; but in Att., ii, 18, §1 adulescens Curio probably means `the younger Curio'.

53, §1. omnes ... verterunt. We have seen (51, §2) that before the battle, the Germans closed their rear with a semicircle of wagons, `to do away with all hope of escape.' Yet they now fled. Frontinus (ii, 3, §6) explains this apparent inconsistency, but we cannot tell on what authority. `As the Germans,' he says, `being hemmed in, were fighting with the courage of despair, Caesar ordered that they should be allowed an exit, and fell upon them when they were fleeing' (Caesar Germanos inclusos, ex desperatione fortius pugnates, emitti iussit fugientesque aggressus est).

L. The MS. readings are quinque and V; but Plutarch (Caesar, 19) writes stadious tetrarkosious (50 Roman miles), and Orosius (vi, 7, §10) and Eutropius (vi, 17) quinquaginta milia passuum. We may infer that MSS. of Caesar, several centuries older than any which are now extant, had the reading L; and as the battle-field was certainly much more than five miles from the Rhine, I adopt that reading, - very doubtfully. Doubtfully, because it is hardly credible that the Germans, after a desperate battle, fled 50 miles in one heat (even the exhausting retreat from Waterloo to Charleroi was not more than 25 miles), still less that some of them then swam the Rhine; and, moreover, I cannot see why they should have fled 50 miles when the Rhine was not more than 12 to 15 miles away. I have suggested elsewhere (C.G., p.657 ) that Caesar may have written XV; and Meusel (J.B., 1912, p.88) thinks that this emendation is admissible. It has also been suggested that the Ill was then regarded as an arm of the Rhine; but this is unlikely, for when Caesar spoke of the Rhenus in 54, §1 he certainly meant the main stream of the Rhine. May we suppose that some of the Germans fled across the Ill to the nearest point of the Rhine, and others, who escaped pursuit, towards Strasburg? If all fled 50 miles, fugitives and pursuers must both have rested in the night, of whlch Caesar says nothing (C.G., pp.655 - 7).

§5. trinis. The distributive is necessary, because Caesar only uses catenae in the plural.

§6. hospitem. See the note on 47, §4 (hospitio).

§7. ter. Three, as students of folk-lore know, has among all peoples been regarded as a sacred number.

54, §2. in hiberna ... deduxit. The battle-field, from which Caesar led his army in Sequanos, was itself in territory which had belonged to the Seqnani, bnt which Ariovistus had wrested fiom them (31, §10). Presumably Caesar now restored it to the Sequani. By quartering his legions in the country of the Sequani instead of withdrawing them into the Province he made it evident that his purpose was nothing less than to conquer Gaul.

§3. ad conventus agendos. The word conventus is used by Caesar in the sense of an assembly or meeting (18, §2), of the community of Roman citizens living in a provincial town (B.G. iii. 29, §1, &c.), and, as in this passage, v, 1, §5, 2, §1, vi, 44, §3, and vii 1, §1, of judicial or administrative busiuess performed by himself, as Governor, in an assembly of Roman citizens or provincials. As he went on circuit, like a judge through Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum to discharge these duties, we may translate ad conventus agendos by `to hold the assizes'. He used to go to North Italy for the winter, partly with this object, partly to keep in touch with Italian politics, and to look after his own interests.