1, §1. Meusel (J. B., 1910, p.56) brackets in hibernis, first because the expression in hibernis esse is not elsewhere used of an individual, but only of armies, and secondly, because the winter-quarters of the army (i, 54, §2) were in the country of the Sequani. Klotz, however (C. S., pp. 163 - 4), suggests that what Caesar wrote was (Cum ... Gallia) legionesque essent conlocatae (in hibernis), &c.

dixeramus. Probably a beginner would be surprised that Caesar did not write diximus, just as he wrote demonstravimus earlier in the sentence. He used the pluperfect as an English writer might have done if he had said, `the Belgae, whose territory, as I had remarked before I reached this part of the narrative, forms a third part of Gaul,' &c. But if he had chosen to use the perfect, as in iii, 20, §1, he would have written equally good Latin.

§2. omni pacata Gallia. The position of these words in the sentence shows that they cannot mean `as the whole of Gaul was [already] subdued', but must mean `if the whole of Gaul [namely, the country of the Celtae] were to be subdued'. Cf. Meusel's L. C., ii, 717 - 29.

eos (see the first note on i, S, §4) is used instead of se, - probably because Caesar is describing the situation as it appeared to Labienus rather than to the Belgae.

§3. partim ... studebant. Probably Caesar means that some of the Celtae who had virtually submitted to the Romans (i, 30) were tired of their supremacy and wished to exchange it for that of the Belgae; for in i, 17, §3 the followers of Dumnorix are said to have argued that `it was better ... to have Gauls for their masters than Romans'. Or perhaps he may only mean that these Gauls, being tired of Roman supremacy, were bent on making a revolution, no matter what.

§4. in Gallia ... occupabantur: See pp. liv - lv.

2, §1. duas ... conscripsit. After Caesar had raised these legions, which were known as the 13th and 14th, he had altogether eight. See i, 7, §2; 10, §3.

3, §2. in fidem. Fides here has virtually the sense of tutela. The Remi entrusted themselves to the good faith of the Roman hope, i.e. placed themselves under their protection.

§3. paratosque esse ... iuvare. See the note on i, 44, §4

§4. Germanosque ... incolant. See 4, §10.

§§4 - 5. incolant ... utantur ... habeant ... potuerint. See the note on i, 44, §10.

§5. fratres ... suos. See C. G., p.519. Caesar uses the same words (i, 33, §2) to denote the relation into which the Aedui had entered in the second century B.C. with the Roman People. See p.xli.

qui ... habeant. As the Suessiones and the Remi formed one political community, we may infer that Galba, the king of the Suessiones, had been overlord of the Remi. Mommsen, then, is doubtless right in saying (H. R., v, 1895, p.50) that the Remi `discerned in this [Roman] invasion ... an opportunity to shake off the rule' of the Suessiones.

4, §1. plerosque Belgas ... Germanis. See pp. xxx - xxxi.

§2. Teutonos ... prohibuerint. See p.lviii. Suos is emphasized: otherwise it would follow fines. The primary tense (prohibuerint) instead of which one might have expected prohibuissent, was perhaps used under the influence of the present infinitive, esse. Moreover, the event described in this sentence was more recent than the events described in §1. See the note on i, 31, §8.

§3. magnosque spiritus ... sumerent. It is always difficult to translate Caesar into good English; and this is one of the passages which cannot be rendered without very hard thinking or, so to speak, a happy inspiration. I should say, `assumed the air of a great military power.'

§4. cognoverint, following dicebant. is, as Meusel remarks (J. B., 1894, p.368), surprising: one might have expected cognovissent, though if Caesar had written that, he would also have written pollicitus esset. Perhaps, as in §2, primary tenses were used because the event described was recent.

Most editors say that quisque stands for quaeque civitos or quaeque pars Belgarum: but although the several contingents were of course provided by the tribes, the tribes evidently could not make a promise `in the general council of the Belgae'; and Caesar wrote quisque because he was thinking of the individual delegates who attended the council.

§7. Apud eos ... obtinuerit. This Diviciacus must not be confused with the Aeduan Druid of the same name, who is mentioned in this Commentary (5, §2; 10, §5; 14, §1; 15, §1) as well as in the first. Britanniae is a loose expression: it can only mean South-Eastern Britain, - the part which Caesar invaded in 55 and in 54 B.C.; for it is plainly incredible that the power of Diviciacus should have extended beyond that part of the country which had been conquered by the Belgae (v, 12, §2). What was the nature of his imperium? One cannot suppose that he had invaded Britain with an armada and conquered his Belgic kinsmen. When Caesar came to Gaul the tribes of South-Eastern Britain were divided into antagonistic groups, headed respectively by the Catuvellauni - the subjects of Cassivellaunus - and the Trinovantes (A.B., pp. 299 - 300); and I am inclined to believe that after Diviciacus had made himself overlord of a `large part of the Belgic territory' in Gaul (magnae partis harum regionum), some of the British tribes had sought his aid against their rivals, and had purchased it by recognizing his supremacy and perhaps also by paying tribute.

obtinuerit. See the note on i, 31, §8.

§10. qui ... appellantur: See pp. xxxi - xxxii.

The subject of arbitrari is of course se, supplied from §4, and XL milia is governed by posse conficere, supplied from §5, not by polliceri; for in the latter case the Remi would not have been doubtful about the number. But the omission of se and posse conficere is so extremely harsh that there is perhaps a gap in the MSS. (J.B., 1894, pp. 337 - 8). Mommsen infers from arbitrari that the so-called Germani took no part in the council (§4) of the Belgae.

According to the estimate with which the Remi supplied Caesar, the sum of the contingents which the various tribes had promised to furnish amounted to 296,000 men. Caesar does not guarantee the accuracy of this number; but neither does he question it. Various critics have insisted that it is grossly exaggerated; and there is some ground for their scepticism. For, supposing that the proportion of fighting men to women and children was about the same as in the Helvetian host (i, 29, §§2 - 3), the hundred thousand men whom the Bellovaci are said to have been able to muster would have represented a population almost as great as that which now inhabits their country; and, moreover, the contingents of the Bellovaci, Suessiones, and Nervii are said to have amounted to considerably more than half of the entire force, whereas their territories were only about one-fourth of the whole. Allowance must, however, be made for the greater fertility of their country. I am inclined to believe that none of the tribes sent into the field as many men as they had promised; and I doubt whether the Nervii and their allies (16, §§1 - 2) took any part in the first stage of the campaign, and whether the more distant tribes fought at all (C.G., pp. 241 - 2).

Caesar's eight legions, with his auxiliaries and cavalry, probably did not number much more than 40,000 men. See the note on i, 7, §2.

ad. See the first note on i, 4, §2.

5, §1.Caesar ... prosecutus may be translated by `Caesar addressed the Remi in encouraging and gracious terms'. Cf. B.C., i, 69, §1.

principum seems to mean simply `leading men'; it does not, as for instance in vii, 65, §2 and 88, §4, denote magistrates. Some of the principes, whom Caesar frequently mentions, were certainly magistrates, and perhaps these were; but the word, as such, rarely bears that meaning. Cf. the second note on i, 3, §5.

§4. in unum locum coactas. Where did the Belgae concentrate? It is not certain whether they marched against Caesar up the valley of the Aisne - the Axona which Caesar mentions in this sentence - or towards the Aisne from north to south. M.Jullian decides for the former, because it was the natural route for the Bellovaci and the Suessiones, who furnished the strongest contingents to the confedelate army. But if they had taken this route, it is unlikely that they would have marched on the north of the Aisne, as the narrative (5 - 7) proves that they did, to attack Caesar, who was still on the south: for if they had marched on the south, they would have compelled him either to fall back or to march westward against them, for fear his communications should be cut; and M.Jullian himself admits that if they had concentrated on the Aisne, their natural line of march would have been the road from Soissons to Reims. Besides, it is impossible to find a satisfactory site for Bibrax, the stronghold which they attacked when they were marching against Caesar (6, §1), at any point on or near the road leading from Soissons to the place where he crossed the Aisne: indeed, unless that place was Berry-au-Bac - and this as I shall show in the note on 8, §§3 - 5, is very doubtful - Bibrax was certainly not in the valley of the Aisne (see p.411). It is probable, therefore, that the point where the Belgae concentrated was not in the valley, but somewhere north of the Aisne - perhaps near La Fere on the Oise - and at a considerable distance from it (C.G., pp. 658 - 9).

vidit is deleted by Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.67) on the ground that, coupled with cognovit, it can only mean `saw with his own eyes'. Schneider, on the other hand, maintains that it means `realized' and that, if it were omitted, there would be nothing to show that Caesar acted from careful consideration and from conviction as well as from mere information. I cannot understand what motive an interpolator could have had for inserting ridit.

ibi castra posuit. The question of the site of this camp is discussed in the note on 8, §§3 - 5.

§5. portari. W.Nitsche is very likely right in proposing supportari. See the passages collected in L.C., i, 606, 1340.

§6. in altitudinem pedum XII. When Caesar mentions the height of a vallum he means the combined height of the rampart and the palisade which surmounted it. See B.C., iii, 63, §1.

duodeviginti pedum denotes the breadth of the ditch, which was doubtless V-shaped. Caesar once (vii, 72, §1) mentions a trench which, as only a small force was available for its defence, he constructed with vertical sides - but the labour of digging such trenches was of course very great.

6, §2. testudine. See the note on i, 24, §5.

§§2-3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.40 - 1), who follows the MS. reading, succendunt, instead of succedunt, and adopts the reading namque tanta multitudo lapides ac tela coiciebant ut in muro consistendi potestas esset nulli, which is found in , condemns the whole passage as an interpolation. He remarks (1) that Caesar could not have used the plural, coicerent or coiciebant after the singular, multitudo; (2) that he would not have written Gallorum eadem atque Belgarum, but Belgarum eadem atque Gallorum; (3) that he would not have used the words moenia and murus in the same sentence; (4) that succendunt is obviously impossible; (5) that Caesar would not have written circumiecta multitudine hominum totis moenibus, but multitudine hominum totis moenibus circumiecta; and (6) that the passage breaks the connexion of the narrative, for if Caesar had written it, he would have done better to put the sentence Aegre eo die sustentatum est (§1) immediately before Cum finem oppugnandi nox fecisset (§4). He remarks, further, that the reading of - namque ... nulli - at all events yields sense and is consistent with fiebat, the meaning being that whenever this method of attack was adopted the defenders were unable to remain upon the wall; whereas the reading of (which I have adopted) involves the supposition that tum means `on this occasion' though, if it did, fiebat would have to be altered into factum est. But might not Quod ... fiebat mean `in this case the operation was being easily performed'? Schneider defends the order of the words Gallorum ... Belgarum, arguing that Caesar wished to emphasize the fact that the mode of attack which he described was common to all the Gallic tribes; but it must, I think, be admitted that the passage, as it stands, is unsatisfactory. If we adopt the conjecture succedunt, which is probable enough, we are confronted with the difficulty that Caesar nowhere else uses succedo, governing an accusative, without a preposition. Accordingly Klotz (C.S., pp.243 - 4) substitutes propius for portas.

§4. nuntium. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.250), following the Aldine edition, reads nuntios, because in 7, §1 Caesar writes isdem ducibus usus qui nuntii ab Iccio venerant. But what if nuntium means, as it often does, `a message'? Schneider says that it cannot, for `Caesar only says nuntium and nuntios mittere and dimittere of men, whereas of things he says [nuntium] accipere, afferre, and perferre'. This is a weak argument. Caesar nowhere else has occasion to speak of sending a message, and he only uses accipere, adferre, and perferre in this connexion twelve times in all. Cicero (Att., i, 13, §3) writes uxori Caesarem nuntium remisisse.

7, §1. de media nocte is generally explained as meaning `in the middle of the night' or `about midnight' ( Th.l.L., v, 64 with which cf. Cl.Ph., 1913, pp.7 - 13), though Caesar sometimes writes media nocte without de. I am not quite sure that de does not mean `just after' (midnight); for Censorinus (24 §2) says itempus quod huic [mediae nocti] proximum est vocatur de media nocte. Cf. the third note on i, 12, §2.

8, §§3-5. We cannot tell where Caesar pitched his camp until we know where he had crossed the Aisne (5, §4); and four points of passage have been proposed, namely, Berry-au-Bac, for which most commentators have decided, Conde-sur-Suippe, which is about 3 miles higher up the river, and Pontavert and Pontarcy, which are respectively about 4 and 11 miles, as the crow flies, lower down. The claims of Conde-sur-Suippe and Pontarcy have been disproved.

The reason why Berry-au-Bac is generally accepted is that about a mile and a half north-east of it, near Mauchamp, Colonel Stoffel discovered by excavation a camp, which he identified with the camp of Caesar. If the reader will look at the illustration of this camp, which is substantially identical with Pl.8 of the Atlas of Napoleon's Histoire de Jules Cesar, he will see that it does not correspond with Caesar's description. According to Caesar, the hill on which the camp stood rose gradually from level ground on the right bank of the Aisne: it descended gradually to level ground in front: its flanks, on the right and left, descended to the plain with a strongly marked slope; and its length, or extension from right to left, was just sufficient to allow six legions to be drawn up on it in line of battle in front of the camp. Between the hill and the enemy's camp, which was in front of it, was a small marsh. In order to prevent the enemy from outflanking him, Caesar drew a trench crosswise - that is, at right angles with the extension of the hill - past either flank of it; and at each end of each trench he constructed a redoubt. Before Stoffel began to excavate he understood Caesar's description in this sense, and tried in vain to find the two trenches on the right and the left of the hill; when he had found them in the places where they are marked in the illustration, and his discovely had been accepted by Napoleon as conclusive, commentators tried to force Caesar's words into agreement with Napoleon's Plan. `The key of this description', said Dr. Rutherford (Gallic War, II and III, Preface and pp.55 - 6). `is pro castris, which proves that Caesar was looking westward ... along the axis of the hill.' But Rutherford himself supplied disproof; for in his Vocabulary (p. 124) he rightly translated pro castris by `in front of the camp': the front of the camp was evidently that side of it which faced the enemy, and if the camp near Mauchamp was made by Caesar the side which faced the enemy was, as both Napoleon and Rutherford admit, the north. In every other passage in which Caesar writes pro castris, he means `on the side of the camp which faced the enemy'. Rutherford's `key' only opened the door to fresh mistakes. Having mistranslated pro castris, he was obliged to mistranslate in fronte, which, he said, `refers to tbat end of the hill's ridge furthest removed from the camp'; whereas any one who looks at the illustration will see that the `front' of the hill can only be that side of it which faced the enemy. Again, Rutherford forgot that, according to Caesar, the hill was just wide enough to enable the Roman line of battle to be formed along it; whereas, according to his interpretation of Caesar and according to Napoleon's Plan, the hill was wide enough to allow the line of battle to be formed upon it alongside of the camp, that is to say, wider, by the length of one side of the camp, than Caesar says. It is clear that according to Caesar, the line of battle was formed in front of not alongside of, the camp. Finally, Caesar says that his object in constructing the two trenches was to prevent the enemy from attacking his troops on their flanks (ab lateribus). Would he have used the plural if he had only meant the right flank?

The camp at Mauchamp is open to two other objections. The western slope of the hill is so extremely gentle that it could not lightly be described by the words lateris deiectus (§3); for deiectus denotes a sharp, fairly steep gradient. Rutherford, indeed, perversely identifies the lateris deiectis with the northern and southern sides of the hill; but the northern and southern slopes are hardly less gentle than the others. Also the trench which, according to Napoleon's Plan, touched the Aisne is only 400 metres long, whereas, according to Caesar, each trench measured about 400 passus, or nearly 592 metres; and it shows no trace of a redoubt. Napoleon strove to meet this objection by asserting that the Aisne had changed its course since 57 B.C. and thereby obliterated all traces of the end of the trench and of the redoubt. But there is no evidence that the course of the Aisne has changed.

Now for Pontavert. If Caesar crossed the Aisne there, the hill on which he encamped must have been the plateau of Chaudardes, which is shown in my plan. When I examined this ground I noted one or two objections. The western end of the plateau, where the flank companies of Caesar's left wing would have been posted, does not `gradually merge in the plain by a gentle slope' (in fronte leniter fastigatus paulatim ad planitiem redibat [§3]), but is actually rather lower than the ground immediately in front of it which would have been occupied by the Belgae; while the northward slope of the central and eastern parts of the plateau is perhaps rather too marked.

On the whole, the topography of Mauchamp, with the very important exception of (lateris) deiectus, conforms perhaps somewhat more closely to Caesar's description; but the results of Stoffel's excavations cannot be reconciled with Caesar's text. Let the advocates of Chaudardes excavate in their turn (C.G., pp. 659 - 68).

§3. in fronte, The reading of , which J.H.Schmalz (N.J., clv, 1897, pp.211 - 12) defends, is in frontem: but Caesar could not have written in frontem unless he had been thinking of the ascent of the hill from south to north; and that he had already described by the words paululum ex planitie editus. has frontem simply. The reading which I adopt is generally accepted.

§4. ad extremas ... constituit. Unless there had been a castellum at the southern as well as at the northern extremity of each trench, the southward prolongation would have been almost useless.

tormenta. Neither ballistae nor catapultae are mentioned in the Bellum Gallicum: but both are perhaps included under the name tormenta and as that name, which is derived from torqueo, suggests, both derived their power from the recoil of tightly twisted cordage. The Roman were probably inferior to the Greek, on the pattern of which they were modelled; for Caesar's artillery was no match for that of the Massiliots (B.C., ii, 2, §5; 9, §3): but the best Greek engines must have been nearly, if not quite, as effective as the cannon of the Middle Ages. The Greek writer Agesistratus says that a range of over 800 yards was occasionally attained; and Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey has constructed a comparatively small machine which threw a stone ball weighing eight pounds nearly 500 yards. It is impossible to state exactly what the difference between catapults and ballistae was; but both resembled huge crossbows, the main difference being that instead of one bow there were two arms, connected by a rope which formed the bowstring; and both catapult and ballista could discharge either heavy stones or feathered javelins (C.G., pp.582 - 3). See p.440.

§5. duabus ... relictis. I need not explain why Caesar tells us that the legions which he left in camp were the two newly raised legions.

quo. Perhaps the reader has already seen that this word depends upon duci mentally supplied from the next clause.

instuxerunt. The MSS. have instruxerant; but the perfect is in the first printed edition of the Commentaries. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.351) points out that in the preceding sentence we find constituit, and that item requires that the next verb should be in the same tense.

9, §1. ut impeditos ... erant. Kraner and other editors affirm that parati is used absolutely, as in vii, 59, §5, and that ut adgrederentur does not depend upon it, but upon parati ... erant. I believe that they are right, although in vii, 19, §§2 and 5 sic paratus is used with ut. The sense of course is `our men, weapons in hand, were ready to attack them', &c.

10, §1. pontem. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.282) rejects the MS. reading in favour of R.Schneider's emendation, ponte, on the ground that `one can say flumen, mare, fossam, palludem, vallem traducere, but not pontem. The pons is the means of crossing', &c. J.H.Schmalz (N.J., clv, 1897, p.211) is not convinced by this argument. Remarking that Caesar nowhere else in the Bellum Gallicum uses the instrumental ablative, ponte, he insists that a bridge has an extension equal to the breadth of the stream, and that Meusel is therefore wrong in comparing it, as a means of crossing, with naves. Why, then, should not one say that a general transported an army across a bridge? Certainly one can say so in English, though one would not say `he transported his army across the ships', but `across the sea in ship. I agree with Schmalz that there is not sufficient reason for rejecting the authority of the MSS.

§4. convenirent. Stephanus, whom Meusel follows, proposed as an emendation, convenire; but I am inclined to think that Caesar may have written convenirent (perhaps under the influence of introduxissent) just as in vii, 78, §1 he wrote constituunt ut ii ... excedant.

11, §2. speculatores (scouts) were not the same as exploratores (patrols), who were generally cavalry. Speculatores were often employed singly; and under the Empire there were ten in each legion. Similarly in our own army there are trained scouts in each company of infantry (Tr.,p. 58, .1; Z.G., 1911, pp.711 - 12, 715).

§4. Hi ... conciderunt. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.45 - 6) brackets these words, arguing that they are contradicted by the following clause, cum ... sustinerent. He also asks whether the novissimi were different from the extremum agmen, and whether the priores of §5 were the vanguard and indeed the greater part of the fugitive column or only the leading division of the rearguard (novissimi). If, however, Hi ... conciderunt was not written by Caesar, ponerent (§5) is plainly wrong; and accordingly Meusel alters it into ponebant: but he is obliged to admit that in this case (priores) quod ought to be followed by the indicative. In fact all the attempts that have been made to amend the passage fail. As far as I can see, no alteration is needed: for extremo agmine denotes the same men as novissimos; priores denotes all the rest; cum is causal and introduces two reasons for the slaughter which is described by magnam multitudinem ... conciderunt; and the words which Meusel brackets are justified by §6.

§5. viderentur ... continerentur. See the note on i, 6, §3. Viderentur is equivalent to sibi viderentur.

exaudito ... ordinibus. In translating one should try to make it clear that the second ablative absolute is the result of the first. I should say `broke their ranks when they heard the distant cries'.

12, §1. Postridie ... contendit. Confecto, as Nipperdey first saw, is certainly spurious; for, as no place is indicated as the terminus of the magnum ita; it has no meaning; and, moreover, postridie proves that Caesar reached Noviodunum on the same day on which he made the magnum iter, - in other words, the terminus of the magnum iter was Noviodunum. An editor who wished to retain confecto might, indeed, put this question: - `Supposing that Caesar had wished to say that he made a forced march which did not take him the whole way to Noviodunum, and that on the following day he pushed on for Noviodunum, would not tbe words magno itinere confecto ad oppidum Noviodunum contendit have expressed his meaning?' No; for in the case supposed he would have written (magno itinere confecto) proximo (or altero or postero) die (ad oppidum, &c.).

It is generally assumed that the starting-point of this forced march was Caesar's camp on the Aisne (5, §4): if so, the length of the march was about 28 miles if he encamped on the hill of Mauchamp; about 24 miles if he encamped on the plateau of Chaudardes (see the article on Noviodunum [pp.426 - 7]). The assumption, however, seems to me doubtful. The force which Caesar had detached in pursuit of the Belgae `returned, in obedience to orders, to camp' (11, §6). Consider what is involved in the supposition that they returned to the camp mentioned in 5, §4. If their pursuit had been directed down the valley of the Aisne, they were obliged, after an extraordinarily long day's work and immediately before another prodigious march, to return the whole distance which they had covered between dawn and sunset, while Caesar, although he was anxious to reach Noviodunum as soon as possible, needlessly imposed this heavy labour upon them, and imposed upon them and the rest of the army a march of nearly twice the ordinary length on the next day. Is it not more likely that, instead of sitting idle in camp, he marched down the valley to within a short distance of the frontier of the Suessiones?

But why did he order the detachment to return at all? If the pursuit was directed down the valley, along which he was himself about to march, this question cannot be answered; but if, on the other hand, the Suessiones fled northward down the road towards Laon, to fetch baggage which they may have left at the place where the Belgae had concentrated (5, §4), the answer is obvious. While Caesar moved a few miles down the valley, and thus shortened the inevitable magnum iter, the detachment rejoined him (by a road leading to Beaurieux?). It has, indeed, been suggested that the various Belgic contingents dispersed at the very beginning of their flight, the Bellovaci and Suessiones moving down the valley on the heights parallel with the right bank of the river, and all the others towards Laon. But if so, how could the Suessiones have failed to detect that Caesar in the valley below was overtaking and outstripping them (12, §§2-4), and why should they have allowed him to do so (C.G., p.670)?

§3. vineas agere. Vineae were sheds used to protect soldiers who were engaged in constructing earthworks, &c., or, as on this occasion, in filling up a moat. The vinea, as described by Vegetius (De re mil., iv, 15), was a movable hut, 16 feet long, 8 feet high, and 7 feet wide, the sides of which were defended by wickerwork, while the roof was protected against fire by raw hides; but of course the dimensions and the strength of the materials would vary according to circumstances. Caesar's vineae were evidently placed end to end: therefore, in order to enable men to move from one to another, they must have been open at the ends (C.G., p.608).

§4. Interim ... proxima nocte. The last two words fix the meaning of interim: the Suessiones entered the town in the night that intervened between the preparations for the siege and the operations of the next day. Do not translate interim by `meanwhile': it will not bring out the meaning. Try whether you can improve upon this: - `On the following night before he could resume operations, the whole host,' &c.

§5. aggere here does not mean `an agger', or terrace, though it does in 30, §3. Agger primarily means material - earth or what not - piled up in order to form a rampart, a terrace, or some other military structure, or, as in this passage, shot into a moat with the object of filling it up. Caesar uses the word in various kindred senses, which can always be distinguished without a dictionary, by a little thought.

turribus, - wooden towers, from the stories of which archers, slingers, and artillery showered missiles among the defenders of a beseiged town. They were moved on rollers. Occasionally they were very high, containing as many as ten stories (viii, 41, §5.)

14, §5. sua is evidently emphatic; but to render it by `his' would be very weak. One might translate ut ... utatur by `to treat them with the forbearance and humanity for which he was distinguished'.

15, §4. eorum is suspicious. Schneider remarks that if it is deleted, his rebus ... virtutem must be taken as applying to mankind in general, not to the Nervii in particular; but Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.64), wbo holds that this is precisely the sense in which the words were intended, remarks that if they applied only to the Nervii, Caesar would have written not (animos) eorum but (animos) suos. Rutherford, however, says (Gallic War; II and III, p.61), `we are to understand that the precautions were taken by the chieftains to protect the people.' In other words, he believes that the implied subject of existimarent is duces, and that eorum means the Nervii in general. I may add that Caesar does occasionally use eorum, iis, &c. instead of a reflexive pronoun. See 1, §2; i, 5, §4; 6, §3.

§5. dedidissent ... proiecissent. See the note on i, 36, §4.

16, §1. inveniebat. The learner should ask himself why Caesar used the imperfect.

milibus. The MSS. have milia: but if it was not written by mistake, this is the only passage in the Bellum Gallicum in which non amplius abesse is not used with the ablative and the archetype probably had the abbreviation mil. (J.B., 1891, p.282).

17, §2. hanc ... adoriri. If the legion were to be attacked on the march when the men were carrying their heavy packs (which included their entrenching tools), it would be at a serious disadvantage. Cf. i, 24, §3.

§4. teneris ... enatis is the accepted reading: has teneris ... atque in latitudinem ramis enatis; teneris ... atque inflexis crebrisque in latitudinem ramis. Klotz (C.S., p.48, n.1) objects - captiously, I think - that in crebris simply means multis. Accordingly he regards inflexis crebrisque as an interpolation. On the other hand, he condemns enatis in , because it does not harmonize with effecerant. Thus, he says, the genuine part of the text is teneris arboribus incisis atque in latitudinem ramis, which he completes by adding inflexis. But if, as he supposes, incisis means `pollarded', inflexis is objectionable, for branches would naturally have shot out sideways; and Meusel has pointed out that if we omit et, enatis is unobjectionable. If incisis means `cut into', the accepted reading describes the operation of `plashing' (Ency. Brit., xiii, 1910, p.101).

18, §1. Loci natura ... delegerant. It is now generally agreed that only one of the numerous sites that have been proposed for Caesar's famous battle with the Nervii corresponds with his description, and that it corresponds exactly. The battle was fought on the left bank of the upper Sambre, on the heights of Neuf-Mesnil opposite Hautmont. These heights slope, as Caesar says (18, §1), evenly and gently down to the bank; but at Boussieres, a little higher up the stream, heights which are connected with those of Neuf-Mesnil terminate at the river in steep escarpments, which, as Long says (D.R.R., iv, 59), `are not accessible at Boussieres, but may be scaled lower down' (see the plan facing p.83). These are the `high banks' (altissimas ripas) which Caesar mentions (27, §5). Evidently the battle was fought at a place where Caesar was obliged to cross the Sambre, for the Nervii were awaiting him; and at Maubeuge, which has always been the strategical point of the river, the valley is crossed by the Roman road from Bavay to Reims. No objection worth considering has been brought against the site, except that, according to Caesar (18, §3), the Sambre opposite the battle-field was only 3 feet deep, whereas the depth opposite Hautmont is much more. But the depth has increased since Caesar's time, because the river has been canalized (C.G., pp.671 - 5).

§2. adversus ... contrarius, - `opposite the other and directly facing it'. If this hill had been opposite the other, but had not directly faced it - if, that is to say, its axis had not been parallel with the axis of the other - it would have been contranus, but not adversus. The reader will notice that in my translation I have deliberately inverted the order, - for a good reason.

infimus. Klotz (C.S., pp.244 - 5) objects to the MS. reading on the ground that Caesar regularly places infimus and inferior before the substantive; and accordingly, referring to 18, §1 and vii, 78, §6 (ab summo), iii, 19, §1 and iv, 17, §3 (ab imo), vii, 19, §1 and 73, §3 (ab infimo), he suggests that we should read ab infimo here. The conjecture may be right; but I follow the MSS., for in v, 44, §12 and vii, 35, §4 inferior follows its noun.

§3. stationes here means `piquets'.

19, §2. expeditas. When this word is used of troops it does not always mean the same thing. When troops who were just going into action are called expediti (vii, 11, §8; 40, §1; B.C., iii, 85, §4, &c.), we are to infer that they were free from every burden that would have interfered with their fighting. But these six legions were at all events carrying their entrenching tools (§8), if not also their packs. Expeditas therefore probably means that they were not hampered by the presence of the heavy baggage. It may be translated by `in light marching order'. See G.K., ii, 232 - 3.

§6. ut ... confirmaverant denotes both the formation in which the Nervii darted forth (provolaverunt) and the immediate cause of their doing so, and ut includes the senses of quandoquidem, `inasmuch as', and quem ad modum. Its force might be expressed by the following translation: - `suddenly, in the exact order in which, with mutual exhortations, they had formed their line within, the whole force darted forth,' &c.

§7. ut iam ... nostris. If these words are genuine, in manibus nostris means `close to our men' or `in our immediate neighbourhood', and one might translate them by `and now at sword's point with our men'. But I know no similar phrase except in Sallust, Jugurtha, 57, §4, where the text is uncertain. See J.B., 1910, p.49.

20, §1. quod ... dandum. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp. 41 - 2) regards this as an interpolation: for, he says, every Roman reader knew why the vexillum was displayed; the words quod ... oporteret needlessly interrupt the narrative; Caesar would have written oportebat, not oporteret, and signum, not insigne; and signum dandum is already in its proper place at the end of the sentence. If any one will refer to i, 23, §1 and vi, 24 §1, he will, I think, doubt whether Caesar would have written oportebat; and Klotz (C.S., pp.245 - 6) defends the words quod ... oporteret. He maintains that Caesar was not writing only for soldiers, but also for readers who were ignorant of military matters. At the same time he points out that signum tuba dandum, where it stands in the MSS., is out of place, because the troops who were recalled from the trenches (ab opere revocandi milites) saw the vexillum, and because the sound of the trumpet would have been inaudible to the men who had gone further afield and who therefore had to be fetched by gallopers (qui paulo longius ... arcessendi). Accordingly he proposes to remove signum tuba dandum from its MS. position and to substitute it for signum dandum.

aggeris (see the note on 12, §5, - aggere iacto) evidently means `wood'.

21, §1. quam [in] partem fors obtulit. An attempt has been made to explain these words as equivalent to in eam partem (decurrit) quam fors obtulit; but, as Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.59) says, this is impossible. They can only mean in eam partem in quam fors obtulit, which is nonsense; and, moreover, Caesar would have written ad, not in. Meusel, therefore, deletes in.

§4. Remember that alteram means `the other' - in other words, the right wing - not `another'.

§5. insignia. See the note on i, 22, §2 (insignibus).

defuerit. See the note on i, 26, §2 (pugnatum sit).

22, §1. delectusque collis - the MS. reading - was certainly not written by Caesar, and Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.39) has no doubt that the words represent a marginal note, written by a reader who had remarked quem locum nostri castris delegerant in 18, §1. Perhaps, however, Caesar wrote deiectusque collis - `the slope of the hill' (cf. 8, §3) - which is in the first printed edition of the Commentaries.

diversae means that the legions were isolated; but whether it also means that they faced in different directions I am not sure; 23, §3 suggests that it does not.

certus is here used, as often, in the sense of constitutus or definitus: so certa subsidia means reserves posted at fixed points.

23, §1. ut. See the note on 19, §6.

§3. ex loco superiore must, I think, be taken with profligatis; but von Goler (G.K., p.80, n.3) couples the words with erant congressae. Obviously the general sense of the whole sentence is, in either case, the same.

§4. <ab> aperto latere. See the note on i, 25, §6 (<ab> latere aperto).

summum castrorum locum does not mean `the highest part of the camp', but `the summit of the hill on which the camp stood': it is equivalent to summum locum, ubi castra posita erant.

24, §1. levis ... pedites, - the archers and slingers mentioned in 7, §1 and 10, §1.

dixeram. See the note on 1, §1 (dixeramus).

§2. ab decumana ... collis. Ac ... collis defines ab decumana porta, and shows that the summum iugum and the site of the rear-gate were identical. One might translate by `from the rear-gate, situated on the crest of the ridge'. transire is the reading of : , which Meusel follows, has transisse. He thinks (J.B., 1894, p.353) that it is hard to decide, but adopts the reading transisse on the ground that it would have been more usual to write transeuntes than transire. But transisse vould be illogical: the calones had not seen that the legions had crossed the stream, they had seen them cross; and the present infinitive is supported by 24, §4 (fugere vidissent), 25, §1 (excedere ... vitare ... intermittere ... instare ... vidit), 31, §1 (adpropinquare ... viderunt), vi, 8, §6, vii, 28, §2, &c.

§4. castra [nostra]. The reading of is castra compleri, nostras; of , castra nostra compleri. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.65) infers that nostra(s), which, following nostris castris (§2), is superfluous, was a marginal addition.

25, §1. signiferoque interfecto. In que is omitted. I agree with Klotz (C.S., p.240, n.1) that it is required; for it was not the death of the standard-bearer, whose position was always exposed, that Caesar wished to emphasize, but the loss of the standard. By coupling signifero interfecto with signo amisso he showed that the standard-bearer was not to blame.

primpilio, - the first centurion of the 1st cohort and therefore the chief centurion of the legion. The origin of the word is interesting. Pilus is equivalent to triariorum manipulus, the triarii having, under the earlier Roman military organiz ation, formed the third and most important line of the army in battle array (triplex acies). The chief centurion of the triarii was called primi pili, centurio being understood. Afterwards the word primipilus was formed, denoting an officer of the same rank. When the cohort became the tactical unit of the legion (see p.lxiii), each cohort contained three maniples, the first of which consisted of triarii, and each maniple contained two centuries. The first of the two centurions of the first maniple of the 1st cohort, who was, as such, the chief centurion of the legion, was called primipilus.

ab novissimis here and in §2 does not mean `from the rear ranks', but `in the rear ranks'; in other words, ab has the same force as in a fronte (`in front') and ab utroque latere (`on either flank').

subeuntes and intermittere are closely connected in sense.

§2. manipulos laxare. In regard to the maniples see p.lxiii. The three maniples of each cohort probably always stood side by side, not one behind another (C.G., p.588). As the cohorts were huddled together (§1), the only way, as far as I can see, of opening out the ranks would have been to make every other man in the front rank step forward.

26, §1. et conversa signa ... inferrent. The exact meaning of these words is uncertain. In 24, §4 Caesar says that the 7th and 12th legions were almost surrounded, and in 25, §1 that the Nervii were attacking the 12th in front and on either flank. It seems clear, then, that the object of the formation which he describes was to enable the two legions to face the enemy on all sides. They certainly had to repel attacks in front and on either flank, and Caesar says (26, §2) that when they had effected the movement which he ordered, they no longer feared an attack in the rear. F.Giesing remarks that it was only necessary for the rear companies of the two legions to turn round and for the wing companies to make a quarter-turn, thus forming a closed parallelogram. Probably he is right; but it is enough to get a clear general idea of Caesar's meaning (C.G., pp.676 - 7).

§5. Qui. The antecedent is milites, implied in X. legionem. Cf. i. 15, §1, and see J.B., 1894, pp. 263 - 4.

nihil ... fecerunt is equivalent to nihil ad celeritatem reliquerunt - `they left nothing undone that could conduce to speed' - and might be translated by `they put forth their utmost speed'.

27, §1. nostri is equivalent to nostrorum, but is used, as in i, 52, §5, because the men who are designated as nostri were not a part of those who renewed the fight, but the whole. I should translate thus: - (`Their arrival wrought such a complete change that,) on our side (, even men who,' &c.).

procubuissent. The force of this subjunctive and of superessent (§4) has been explained thus: - if Caesar had written procubuerant, he would have meant certain men who were known to have lain down - one would then translate by `even those men who', &c., - whereas etiam qui procubuissent means `even those, whoever they were, who had lain down'. I am inclined to think, however, that Meusel (L.C., iii, 1506; J.B., 1894, p.379) is right in attributing both subjunctives to Attraction of Mood, - in other words, to the influence of redintegrarent and of coicerent respectively.

§2. pugnae is the reading of : has pugnant quo. Meusel, who now accepts H.Kleist's conjecture - pugnandi studio - formerly (J.B., 1894, p.386) agreed with Schneider in defending . Pugnae does not mean `the battle-field', but `the battle'; but Meusel thought that locis might be used loosely with pugnae.

28, §1. prope ... redacto. This, though Caesar may not have known it when he reported his victory to the Senate, was an exaggeration. See pp.ix - x.

aestuaria. This word, which is connected with aestus (`tidal stream'), cannot be used of marshes formed by a river which does not flow into the sea; so we must conclude that the marshes in question bordered on the estuary of the Scheldt (C.G., pp.674 - 5).

dixeramus. See the note on 1, §1 (dixeramus).

§2. ex DC ... dicerunt. See the first note on §1.

vix ad D. Caesar may have intended to emphasize vix (vii, 6, §1), but anyhow he could not have written ad vix D. Ad reliqui temporis pacem (vii, 66, §4) is good Latin, and so is ad bene vivendum, but except in such phrases a word cannot be placed between ad and its object.

§3. ut ... videretur (see the second note on i, 40, §5) may be translated by `wishing to establish his character for', &c.

29, §2. castellis, as distinguished from oppidis, probably means strongholds which, in time of peace, were uninhabited or only sparsely inhabited. Cf. A.B., p.138.

unum oppidum ... munitum. See the article on Atuatucorum oppidum (p.409).

§3. deiectus is an old emendation. The MS. reading, despectus, is pointless: whether the town commanded a wide view or not would have had no interest for Caesar or his readers.

amplius ... CC. See the note on i, 38, §5.

duplici ... muro. M.Saint-Venant, a well-known French archaeologist, has discovered ancient forts in the Maritime Alps the ramparts of which were formed each of two distinct walls (C.G., p.80, n.4).

duplici. See the note on i, 18, §10.

tum is, I think, equivalent to tunc, but I am not quite sure that it has not the sense of praeterea. Cf. L.C., ii, 2227, 2234.

§4. impedimentis, as agere shows, does not here mean `baggage' only, but `stock' - that is to say, cattle - `and baggage'. Remember the original meaning of the word.

§§4 - 5. reliquerunt ... delegerant. The MSS. have the perfect but the old emendations which I have adopted seem necessary. See J.B., 1894, p.351.

30, §2. vallo pedum XII. Klotz (C.S., pp.220 - 1) oddly thinks that this rampart was the town-wall of the Atuatuci.

XV milium is certainly wrong, for to construct a contravallation 15 Roman miles in extent round either Namur or Mont Falhize, with one or the other of which the oppidum must be identified, would have been sheer folly. The reading of - vallo pedum in circuitu XV milium - will not do either, for Caesar never reckoned miles in terms of feet. Possibly he wrote V (C.G., pp.390 - 1).

castellis. See 33, §3 and the note on i, 8, §2.

circummuniti means `shut in'. Cf. B.C., i, 81, §5; 84, §4.

§3. aggere extructo. The word agger is here used in the sense of an oblong mound or terrace, such as was commonly constructed by Greeks, Romans, and Asiatics in besieging fortified towns. We shall see presently what purpose it was intended to serve. Before the construction of such a mound could be begun, the ground upon which it was to be erected had generally to be levelled, or, if it was too steep or broken to be reduced to one plane surface, it was perhaps levelled in step-like sections; and this was done by men working under the cover of a sapper's hut (B.C., ii, 2, §4). The agger was made largely, if not mainly, of wood, - the lightest suitable material; while earth and rubble were used to fill up interstices and to make the structure compact. The woodwork consisted of logs, piled in layers, the logs in each layer being laid at right angles with those in the layer below. When, as at Avaricum (vii, 24, §1), the agger was very large, this elaborately constructed woodwork probably served only as a wall on either side, to prevent the more loosely heaped interior from scattering. The workmen were protected from the enemy's missiles by sheds called vineae (see the note on 12, §3). The evidence for this description will be found in B.C., ii, 2, §4; Thucydides, ii, 75, Lucan, iii, 394 - 8, 455; Appian, Mithr., 30, and Silius Italicus, xiii, 109 - 10.

In vii, 22, §5 Caesar says that during the siege of Avaricum the Gauls endeavoured to prevent the Romans from bringing their cuniculi up to the walls (apertos cuniculos ... morabantur moenibusque adpropinquare prohibebant), and accordingly some writers believe that there were galleries in the agger. The passage will be considered in the right place, but cuniculos can only mean subterranean galleries, or mines. The agger was certainly solid; for there is direct evidence that some aggeres were (Thucydides, ii, 75, §2; Lucan, iii, 394-8); the only use of making galleries would have been to save material, and the gain would have been more than counterbalanced by the enormous increase of labour that would have been entailed by making such an agger strong cnough to carry the host of soldiers, the sappers' huts and the huge towers that stood upon it. Indeed, without bricks it could not have been built.

Aggeres were always in danger of being set on fire by the enemy (vii, 22, §4; 24, §2), but the great difficulty began when they were getting quite close to the enemy's wall. It could hardly have been possible then to continue rearing a compact and uniform structure, for the enemy could pitch down heavy stones and other missiles, although the artillerymen in the towers which stood upon the agger (see the second note on 12, §5) doubtless did their best to keep them at a distance. Sapper's huts of extraordinary strength, the sloping roofs of which were protectcd against fire by bricks, clay, and raw hides soaked in water (see the last note on v, 42, §5), would therefore be placed on the agger, near its edge; and, screened by them, the men could shoot earth, timber, and fascines into the vacant space until the mass reached the necessary height.

The width of an agger must have depended upon its object. At Avaricum the object was to take the town by escalade (vii, 27), and therefore the agger was necessarily very broad (24, §1); but when, as in the siege of the stronghold of the Atuataci (ii, 32, §1), at Uxellodunum (viii, 41, §2), or at Massilia (B.C., ii, 10 - 11), the object was simply to breach the wall, to attack one definite point, or to batter down a bastion, a vast embankment would have been superfluous.

How the vineae were used in constructing an agger is a difficult question. The men who brought up the material for the original aggeres at Massilia passed it, like bricklayers, from hand to hand under the protection of vineae (B.C., ii, 2, §3); but whether vineae were used by the men who actually reared the fabric, we are not told. As they were still nearer to the enemy, they must have been protected somebow; but inside vineae they could not have worked. We must suppose that they were screened by the defences, called plutei, which Vegetius (De re mil., iv, 15) describes, - high convex wooden shields running on rollers (see the first note on vii, 25, §1). See C.G., pp.599 - 607.

quod ... institueretur. If Caesar had intended merely to give the reason why the Atuatuci jeered, he would have written instituebatur; but he means that they jeered `because, as they said, such a huge machine', &c. See the notes on i, 6, §3 and 23, §3. Translate by `at the idea of such a huge machine being erected'.

§4. plerumque ... contemptui est. A modern Italian, travelling for the first time in France, would not be impressed by the stature of the inhabitants, except here and there in certain departments, especially of the north-east. I have tried to account for this in the article on the Ethnology of Gaul (pp.xxvi-xxvii).

31, §4. deprecari is not distinct in sense from petere, but defines it: one might translate unum ... deprecari by `One thing only they would beg him not to do'.

sua. Cf. the note on 14, §5.

32, §1. aries. The battering-ram was a long beam, armed with a head of iron or bronze. It was suspended from the roof of a sapper's hut, so that both the engine itself and the men who worked it were screened from attack; and the momentum was obtained by pulling the beam backwards, and then letting it swing forwards.

§2. in Nerviis means `in the case of the Nervii'. Cf. i, 47, §4.

§3. facere is stronger than facturos esse: the meaning of illi ... dixerunt is `they professed themselves ready to obey his commands. So one says `I'm coming', meaning `I'll come at once'.

33, §2. praesidia. See the note on i, 8, §2.

denique here points to that which comes last in thought; and so it means `at any rate'.

viminibus intextis. Kraner and Meusel take these words not as depending upon ex, but as ablative absolute. Schneider makes intectis agree with scutis. I am inclined to agree with Kraner.

pellibus induxerant. Readers who have begun to feel interested in the story will, I hope, bave already inferred from these words that the Atuatuci had plenty of cattle in the fortress. Cf. vii, 71, §7.

§4. turribus. This shows that towers were erected not only on the agger; but also along the rampart which formed the contravallation. Cf. vii, 72, §4.

iacerent. The mood is, I think, to be accounted for by supposing that Caesar meant (those who) were in such circumstances that they threw, &c.

5. ad. See the first note on i, 4, §2.

§6. sectionem. Sectio bonorum was the legal term denoting the public sale of the property of a person condemned on a capital charge or under a proscription, such as that of Sulla. Those who bought such property on speculation were called sectores. My translation of sectionem ... vendidit is, `Caesar sold by auction, in one lot, all the booty of war found in the town.'

§7. iis qui emerant. See p.lxv.

34. una. R.Schneider (J.B., 1887, p.238) proposes VII as an emendation, remarking that in iii, 7, §2, where Crassus's legion is alluded to, it is called in MSS.legione VIIa, and that VIIa might easily have been altered by a copyist into una. Klotz, however (C.S., p.162, n.4), rejects Schneider's conjecture, and it seems to me unnecessary. Cf. i, 7, §2 , vii, 45, §5, &c.

35, §1. pacata. The pacification did not last long.

incolerent. See the second note on 27,§1. Meusel, who explains the subjunctive as due to the attraction of mitteruntur, remarks (J.B., 1894, p.379) that Caesar habitually uses that mood in relative clauses which are inserted, as this is, in a subjunctive clause, even when one would have expected to find the indicative. Exceptions, however, occur; for instance, in v, 10, §1, - ut eos qui fugerant persequerentur.

legationes. The reading of is mitterentur legati ad Caesarem; of , legati ad Caesarem mitterentut; while in B2L mitterentur is followed by quae instead of qui, which is found in Q. G.Sauppe, whom Meusel follows, concludes that Caesar wrote legationes. If he wrote legati, the use of se is extraordillarily strained.

§2. Illyricum. See p.419.