1, §2. iter per Alpes, - evidently the route over the Great St. Bernard.

§4. castellis, `forts'. See the first note on ii, 29, §2.

§6. flumine. The Dranse then flowed in a different channel through the centre of the valley: it is now close to the western hills.

ad hiemandum. German editors are now generally agreed that these words are either spurious or originally followed cohortibus. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.56) deletes them, on the ground that Caesar, after writing cohortibus ... hiemare in §4, would not have superfluously inserted ad hiemandam.

alteram ... attribuit. Galba certainly encamped on the left or western bank of the river, while the Gauls occupied the right; for if he had allowed them to hold the left bank, they would have cut his communications with the two cohorts which he had left among the Nantuates (C.G., pp.677 - 8).

2, §1. exploratores. See the note on ii, 11 §2.

concesserat. As it is impossible in transiating to separate quam ... coneesserat from ex ... vici (we should say `he was informed that during the night the Gauls had all quitted the part of the village which he had allotted to them'), it may seem at first sight surprising to a beginner that Caesar did not write concessisset; but he used the indicative because the patrols had simply said that the Gauls bad quitted their part of the village: he independently reminded the reader that he had allotted it.

§2. Id ... caperent. Id relers to §1, and ut ... caperent is added in order to make it quite clear what is meant by Id. In English one would say `Various reasons had led the Gauls to form tbe sudden resolution of renewing hostilities', &c. Cf.i, 7, §1.

§3. After legionem Meusel, following Jurinius, supplies unam, in my opinion unnecessarily.

§4. Notice that decurrerent does not mean `were charging down' but `would charge down': the charge had not yet begun. See the note on adflictarentur in 12, §1.

3, §1. opus hibernorum munitionesque. Opus or its plural is often used as an equivalent of munitiones, and therefore at first sight munitionesque may appear superfluous. But opus may mean the work of constructing munitiones (cf. ii, 20, §1), and munitionesque is added here to complete and define opus hibernorum. Similarly in i, 8, §4 Caesar speaks of operis mu tione even though operis plainly means `entrenchment' and opere might have been used alone in the sense of munitione. The entrenchment was an entrenchment even before the palisade and castella which completed it were made.

plene. H.J.Muller (W.kl.Ph., 1894, col. 566) prefers plane (cf. 26, §3), which is found in one inferior MS.; for he can find no satisfactory analogy to plene. Will not these examples do, - si hoc plene vitare non potes (Cicero, Q.fr., i, 1, §38) and quae ut plene esset ... perfecta (De Div., ii, 1, §3)?

§2. omnia fere ... conspicerentui: Probably the natives were posted on both the parallel ranges of mountains which dominate Martigny, in order to cut off the Romans from all possibility of escape (C.G., pp.677 - 8).

§4. ad extremum. W.Paul (Z.G., 1878, p.194) supplies casum, referring to 5, §1 (resque esset iam ad extremum perducta casum) and remarking that Caesar, like Cicero, only uses extremum by itself in the sense of `end' or `conclusion', never in that of `extreme peril'.

4, §1. constituissent. See the note on ii, 35, §1.

conlocandis. If the MS. reading is right, the meaning of iis rebus ... conlocandis is `for making the dispositions which had been resolved upon'. W.Nitsche suggests that Caesar wrote comparandis.

§2. quaecumque ... videbatur: The explanation is suggested by 2, §3.

§4. non modo ... excedendi. The reader has doubtless noticed that non is omitted before excedendi, though in a similar clause (ii, 17, §4) it is expressed. Caesar began the sentence as if he had intended to write sed etiam saucio ... facultas non dabatur. The omission of non in such sentences is frequent.

sui recipiendi does not mean `of retreating', which would be tautological, but `of recovering himself'.

5, §1. pugnaretur. Meusel (J.B., 1894, pp.389 - 90) remarks that in expressions of this kind (v, 35, §5; vii, 80, §6) Caesar generally uses the imperfect where one would have expected the pluperfect. I do not think that I would have expected it: the imperfect pictures the long-drawn-out battle more vividly. When Caesar does use the pluperfect, as in i, 26, §4, he wishes to show that the fighting was over.

§2. primi pili centurio. See the note on ii, 25, §1.

extremum auxilium may be translated by `a forlorn hope'.

§3. certiores facit is followed by a subjunctive (without ut) because it implies a command, the meaning being `he informed them (that his decision was) that they should', &c. My translation is, `Galba ... quickly made the men understand that they were to leave off fighting', &c. - After the historic present of verbs of asking, commanding, and the like, Caesar almost invariably uses the present subjunctive: here, as Meusel remarks (J.B., 1894, p.355), the imperfect, intermitterent, is justified by the immediately preceding imperfect, experirentur.

6, §1. portis. See the note on 19, §2 (duabus portis).

sui colligendi means `of closing their ranks'. Notice that although sui is plural, the gerundive is singular, because the genitive plural of se is identical in form with the genitive singular (L.C., iii, 1968 - 9). No Italian would have written sui colligendorum. Madvig, however (Lat.Gr., §§297b, 417), who denies (§85) that the reflexive pronoun has a genitive, takes sui as the neuter singular of the possessive (suus).

§2. intercipiunt is an emendation, proposed by J.Lange (N.J., cli, 1895, p.799) instead of the MS. reading, interficiunt. He refers to v, 39, §2, where interciperentur, which is certainly right, is found in and interficerentur in , and to vii, 38, §9 where interficit, the reading of , is preferable to intercipit.

milibus amplius XXX is certainly a gross exaggeration. In 1861 the entire population of the country occupied by the Nantuates, Veragri, Seduni, and Viberi was only 81,559; and it is therefore unlikely that the Seduni and Veragri (2, ) could muster more than 10,000 fighting men. Galba, says Ernest Desjardins, must have misled Caesar. I should say that he was also misled himself (see the note on 26, §6 and C.G., p.678).

§3. armis does not agree with exutis. Cf. v, 51, §5.

§4. atque alio ... videbat is easy enough to construe, but extraordinarily hard to translate. The best rendering that I can give is this: - `he reflected that the circumstances with which he had to contend were at variance with the purpose for which he had taken up his quarters'.

commeatusque is bracketed by Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.65) because while Caesar in six other passages has frumenti inopia, he nowhere else speaks either of commeatus inopia or offrumenti commeatusque inopia. As Mommeen remarks (J.B., 1894, p.203), the omission of que in points to an interpolation.

7, §1. superatis ... Sedunis. These words are suspicious. Perhaps Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.35 - 6) lays too much stress on the facts that the events are mentioned in a wrong order and that the Helvetian campaign is ignored; but why should Caesar have named the Seduni rather than the Veragri, in whose country Galba's operations had taken place?

§2. adulcscens. See the note on i, 52, §7. According to Dion Cassius (xxxix, 31, §2), Crassus was a legatus, and Caesar's silence does not prove that he was not: but he was not yet a senator (see the first note on i, 10, §3); and therefore it is doubtful whether Dion did not jump to the conclusion that he held this rank, because he commanded an army in the field. Still, irregular things were done in those times, and if Crassus was not already a legatus, Caesar may have made him one.

§3. praefectos. See the note on i, 39, §2 (praefectis).

8, §1. auctoritas ... maritimae. The meanIng is clear enough; but if one analyses the sentence, one sees that, like totius Galliae in i, 3, §7, it is elliptical, - -a concise way of expressing auctoritas auctoritatum omnis orae maritimae civitatum. Of course no educated Roman would have written anything so clumsy as this.

in magno ... aperto. The preposition, as in i, 27, §4 (in tanta multitudine), is conditional; and the words, which are thus equivalent to cum magnus (or tantus) impetus maris esset, &c., may be translated by `the sea being very stormy and open'. But if the text is right, the expression, though it is vivid, is somewhat poetical, for aperto would normally belong not to impetu, but to maris; and I am therefore tempted to adopt the emendation of A.Zucker, - in magno impetu maris vasti atque aperti. The order of the words atque aperto is defended by Schneider.

paucis portibus ... vectigales. The natural conclusion to be drawn from these words is that the Veneti possessed, or were able, owing to their naval strength, to blockade, harbours in territory which was not theirs; for there would have been no point in saying that they were masters of tbe harbours in their own country.

§2. Ab his ... Velanii. Schneider remarks that Caesar, studying brevity as usual, omitted the word legatorum, which belonged to all the officers who were detained; and that the sentence means `They [the Veneti] were the first who detained [envoys, - namely] Silius and Velanius'. I am inclined, however, to prefer the explanation of Herzog, - `The Veneti made a beginning by detaining Silius', &c. Betinendi would then be a genitive of definition, as in 10, §2 (iniuria retentorum equitum). I would suggest the following translation, - `They took the initiative by detaining Silius and VeIanius.' Long objects that this would mean that `the seizure of these men was the first of their hostile acts'. But so it was.

Besides their natural impatience of Roman rule, the Veneti had a business-like motive for resistance. According to Strabo (iv, 4, §1), they had heard that Caesar was contemplating an invasion of Britain; and they naturally determined to prevent him from interfering with their trade. See p.1; C.G., p.87; and the note on iv, 21, §4.

§3. principes here seems to mean simply `leaders'. Cf. the notes on i, 3, §5 and ii, 5, §1.

9, §1. naves longas. `Long ships', or galleys - to be distinguished from naves onerariae, `merchant ships' - were of various kinds: everybody is familiar with the terms `bireme', `trireme', &c. What class these particular naves longae belonged to we are not told. Naves longae were not always even decked (B.C., i, 56, §1; iii, 7, §2).

gubernatores. Nowadays seamen take turns in steering a ship on a preecribed course; but when there were no compasses steering was necessarily entrusted, as this passage shows, to specialists. The gubernator, who might be loosely compared to the master in a ship of Nelson's time, bad to observe sun, moon, and stars in order to know where he was, fixed the course of the ship, steered her or directed the steersman, and also performed on occasion the duties of a pilot (D. S., ii, 1673-4).

§2. cum primum ... potuit, - that is, as soon as forage began to be plentiful (cf. ii, 2, §2) and the roads were in a fit state for the movement of troops accompanied by a baggage-train (cf. vii, 10, §1).

Before Caesar started for Gaul he held the famous conference at Luca, the southernmost town of Cisalpine Gaul, where he arranged with his fellow triumvirs, Pompey and M.Licinius Crassus, that his term of office, which would normally expire on March 1, 54 B.C., should be prolonged for five years. See the note on viii, 39, §3.

§3. legatos ... coniectos. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.36, with which cf. ib., 1911, p.109) gives various reasons for bracketing these words, of which one seems to me weighty: Caesar would not have written fuisset, but fuit.

§5. diutius. We should say simply `long', but there is a reason for the comparative. It implies that the Veneti were confident that the Romans would not be able to remain in their country longer than the time for which their supplies would last. So in English one sometimes says `at all long'.

§6. iam ut. Any one can see that ut is concessive and means `supposing that'; but iam, which marks a transition in thought, is not superfluous. Ac iam ut may be translated by `and even supposing that'.

§7. concluso mari - `a land-locked sea' - of course refers to the Mediterranean.

§10. quae ... posita est. Caesar appears to have shared the misconception of his contemporaries and of some later geographers, who thought that the coast of Gaul, from the Rhine to the Pyrenees, was roughly parallel with Southern Britain. The famous explorer, Pytheas of Massilia (Marseilles), who was contemporary with Alexander the Great, knew better (A.B., pp.217-21, 352; C.G., p.446, n.3). That the Veneti succeeded in securing the allianee of the Morini and Menapii shows the alarm which Caesar's designs had aroused. These Belgic tribes were 400 miles from the Veneti; but they commanded the coast from which Caesar would have to embark for Britain.

10, §2. equitum Bomanorum, - not `cavalry', but `knights', that is to say, members of the equestrian order. See the note on i, 42, §6.

rebellio does not here mean `rebellion'. Think of the derivation.

§3. libertati studere is the readiug of : has libertatis studiose incitari, which is nonsense, but has led Klotz (C.S., pp.246 - 7) to offer a very ingenious emendation. He remarks that in libertatis studiose we may discern an older reading, libertatis studio, and he argues that Caesar wrote condicionem servitutis instead of servitutem for the sake of symmetry. Probably, he suggests, there was a gap in the archetype after studio, which was patched up by inserting incitari in and writing libertati studere in . Accordingly he conjectures that what Caesar wrote was libertatis studio incendi.

11, §2. Belgis. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.292) adopts the reading of , - Gallis. What, he asks, could have induced the Germans, after the Belgae had been beaten in the preceding year, to come to their assistance? Moreover, if Caesar had feared that the Belgae were going to rebel and that the Germans intended to support them, he would have assigned part of his infantry to Labienus rather than to Crassus (§3); and probably he would have written not a Belgis but ab his. Meusel concludes that Gallis must mean the Veneti and their allies. He admits that it is surprising that the Veneti should have asked for the aid of the Germans, from whom they were separated by the whole breadth of Gaul; but, as they made an alliance with the Morini and Menapii and sent for reinforcements from Britain, it is not impossible. I am not convinced. The interests of the Morini, the Menapii, and the Britons coincided with those of the Veneti; but that the Germans could have been induced to march 600 miles in order to help an Atlantic tribe is incredible. The Belgae rebelled in 54 - 53 B.C., and they might rebel in 56. At all events, Labienus was sent to look after them; and as he only had to prevent the Germans from crossing a broad river, the force which Caesar assigned to him was enough. Whether Caesar wrote Belgis or Gallis, I am sure that he meant the Belgae.

§3. ne ex his ... coniungantur. Mommsen remarks (H.B., v, 1895, p.500, note) that Caesar's attempt to justify the invasion of Aquitania `as a defensive measure which the state of things had rendered inevitable' breaks down. It is generally assumed that the danger which Caesar professed to fear did not exist, hecause the Aquitani had apparently no political connexion with the Celtae and the Belgae, and were in race distinct from both: but vii, 31, §5, where we learn that Vercingetorix was reinforced by Aquitanian cavalry, shows that the danger was real; and is it quite certain that it was not lessened by the defeats which Crassus inflicted upon the Aquitani? And if the danger was insignificant, is it certain that Caesar knew it to be so? If Mommsen is right, why did Caesar make no excuse for having sent Crassus to reduce the maritime tribes, who had offered him no provocation, to submission? Surely because it never occurred to him that his conduct required an apology.

§5. D.Brutum adulescentem. See the note on 7,§2. Although Brutus was entrusted with the command of the fleet, it is doubtful whether he had at this time the rank of legatus; for, like P.Crassus, he was not yet a senator.

reliquisque pacatis regionibus. What `the other settled districts' were I cannot conjecture.

possit. The MS. reading is posset; but, as Meusel says (J.B., 1894, p.371), it is extremely improbable that Caesar, having used the present subjunctive seven times in one paragraph after a historic present, should have changed the tense without the slightest reason.

eo. Meusel may be right in believing tbat Caesar wrote eodem. Cf.L.C., ii, 28 with 340 - 5.

12, §1. lingulis pomunturiisque. Here again, as in 3, §1, Caesar defines the sense in which he uses one word by adding another. By adding promunturiisque he showed what the relation of the `spits' (lingulae) was to the mainland; and if he had written promunturiis alone, his meaning would not have been completely expressed, for a headland may be of any shape. `Spits, or headlands' would, I think, bean adequate translation.

cum ... incitavisset. As we have seen in the note on i, 25, §3, when Caesar uses cum in describing repeated action, he generally couples it with the indicative, as in 15, §1 (circum steterant). The subjunctive, as MeuseI remarks (J.B., 1894, p.371), may be explained here and in 13, §9 by Attraction of Mood; for the cum-clause is dependent upon an ut-clause.

bis is, I need hardly say, contrary to fact. May we suppose thst Caesar wrote hic? I find that this conjecture has been made already (H.Meusel, L.C., iii [Tab. Coniect., p. 12]). Kraner, referring to Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii, 97, §212, gets over the difficulty by adopting an old emendation, - XXIIII instead of XII. Caezar mentioned the tides because in the Mediterranean they are hardly perceptible.

As any one will see who reads the sentence attentively, adflictarentur does not mean `were injured', but `would be injured': quod ... adflictarentur is equivalent to quod timendum fuit ne ... naves in vadis adflictarentur.

§3. aggere ac molibus. It seems to me that aggere denotes the material of the structure, which in this case must have been principally stone, and molibus the structure itself. In B.C., i, 25, §5 Caesar calls the mole which he constructed in the harbour of Brundisium in order to har the exit of Pompey's ships, moles atque aggerem: in a letter to Cicero (Att., ix, 14, §1) he calle it moles only.

his ... adaequatis. Schneider takes his as an instrumental ablative and adaequatis as agreeing with moenibus; but Meusel (L.C., ii, 630) makes adaequatis agree with his, and takes moenibus as datIve. Of course the question of fact remains unaffected.

§5. vasto ... portibus. All these ablatives are evidently absolute.

13, §4. transtra ... confixa. In ex is omitted: the meaning would then be, `the beams were fastened to the timbers [of the side], which were a foot thick, with iron bolts', &c. (Tr., p.85, n.1). The transtra were the cross-timbers, which supported the deck. Meusel (J.B., 1885, p.196) successfully defends the reading of .

§7. pulsu remorum. The ships of the Veneti had no oars, except perhaps `sweeps', which may have been used occasionally to help them in tacking (C.Q., 1909, p.37).

§8 copulis, - grappling-irons. Cf. B.C., i, 57, §2, where two kinds of grappling-irons - manus ferreae and harpagones - are mentioned. Copulis is a general term.

§9. cum ... dedissent. See the second note on 12, §1. In we find a meaningless reading, - cum se saevire ventus coepisset vento dedissent: has simply cum se vento dedissent. I have adopted the accepted reading. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.58 - 9) brackets saevire ... et, remarking that whereas Caesar uses coepi with an infinitive fifty-five times in B.G., he only once separates it from its infinitive; while Klotz (C.S., p.42, n.2) brands saevire ventus coepisset as a poetical expression, which Caesar would never have used.

14, §4. Rostro ... cognoverant. They had ascertained this by inquiry or by inspecting Gallic ships in the estuary of the Loire; for, as we may infer from 11, §5, 12, §5, and 14, §1, they had not before encountered the enemy (C.G., pp.686 - 7). turribus should here be translated by `turrets', not `towers'. These turrets protected artillerymen (cf. iv, 25, §1), who discharged bolts from small catapults (vii, 25, §§2 - 3). They could be elevated or lowered at short notics, and were evidently taken to pieces after a battle.

ex barbaris navibus. Meusel (L.C., i, 1193) regards ex as partitive: Kraner denies that puppium is to be taken with ex barbaris navibus, which he translates by `on the side of the native ships'.

§5. muralium falcium. These implements were ussd for loosening and dragging down the stones and timbers in the walls of a besieged town (vii, 22, §2), and were worked by men who were safe inside a sappers' hut. Vegetius (De re mil., iv, 14) describes the falx as a wooden beam with a piece of iron at the end, wrought into the shape of a hook. A specimen was discovered about fifty years ago in the Gallic wall of Vesontio (Besancon). See C.G., p.611.

§6. funes ... destinabant should be translated by `the halyards', which, as J.A.Froude, a practical yachtsman, pointed out (Caesar, ed. 1886, p. 290), were doubtless `made fast, not to the mast, but to the gunwale' (C.G., p.237). They were probably rove through a block at the mast-head.

comprehensi ... erant. In regard to the mood here and in 15, §1 (circumsteterant) see the second note on 12, §1.

§7. velis armanientisque. Kraner, referring to iv, 29, §3, remarks that the sails were part of the armamenta, which included anchors, &c.; and if so, Caesar mentions the sails epecifically as the most important part of the armamenta. But the only armamenta which mattered here were the sails and rigging; and I believe that Caesar used armamentis in the limited zense of `rigging'. `Rigging' means the tackle of a ship in general and also in particular the ropes by which the sails are manipulated.

§9. omnes enim colles ... tenebuntur. The theatre of the war with the Veneti was certainly between the river Vilaine and the Pointe du Raz (see the article Veneti on p.434), not, as some writers have tried to prove, between the Vilaine and the mouth of the Loire, in the peninsula of Guerande or the plain of La Grande-Briere; for these districts did not belong to them. It is now generally agreed that the strongholds which Caesar attacked (12, §§2-5) were on the gulf of the Morbihan; but there is a difference of opinion about the naval battle. Napoleon III believed that the Venetian fleet sailed out of the river Auray; that the battle took place in Quiberon Bay off Point St.Jacques; and that the colles from which the Roman army watched it were the heights of St.Gildas. M.Jullian, on the other hand, who maintains that Caesar penetrated into Venetia not from the south but from the north of the gulf of the Morbihan, thinks that he watched the battle from the peninsula of Locmariaquer; and he suggests tbat the Venetian fleet may have put out to sea from Port Navalo, - a roadstead off the peninsula of Sarzeau and between St.Gildas and Locmariaquer. It will be seen that M.Jullian's view differs from Napoleon's only in details. No certain decision, as he acknowledges, is attainable; but what leads me to adhere to the common opinion is the belief that Caesar must have wished to keep in touch with Brutus and the fleet, and therefore would not have cut himself off from them by marching far away from the Loire in order to enter Venetia from the north.

Some writers have argued that in Caesar's time the gulf of the Morbihan did not exist, and therefore that the theatre of the war must have been somewhere else. The evidence which they offer is that flint knives have been found in a part of the bed of the gulf which is never exposed even at the lowest tide. Now it is quite true that this coast has undergone subsidence. Any tourist can verify the fact for himself. There are two stone circles on the islet of Er-Lamic, one of which is only visible when the tide is exceptionally low. But this does not prove that the gulf did not exist in 56 B.C. Tbe flint knives and the stone circles were probably 2,000 years old or more, even in Caesar's time. Obviously the facts are consistent with the supposition that some of ths islands which now stud the surface of the gulf were then headlands, insulated at high tide. The promontories which Caesar described (12, §1) have mostly disappeared, partly from subsidence, partly from erosion (C.G., pp.679 - 85).

15, §3. malacia ac tranquillitas. Schneider remarks that Caesar explains the unfamiliar Greek word by tranquillitas. But why did he not write tranquillitas alone? Perhaps, as Long zays, because malacia seemed to him more expressive. One might, I think, translate malacia ac tranquillitas by `a dead calm'.

§4. ad negotium conficiendum. Do not rest satisfied with tbe hideous translation, `for finishing the business'; never be satisfied with any translation until you are sure that you cannot prodnce something better, and probably you will be dissatisfied even then. The best translation that I can offer of Quae ... oportunitati is `This was just what was wanted to make the victory complete'.

maximae ... oportunitati is the reading of : that of is maxime ... oportuna. Klotz (C.S., p.247) points out that in every instance in which Caesar uses maxime with an adjective, the adjective has no superlative.

16, §4. ius legatorum. It has been said repeatedly that the officers whom Caesar had sent to arrange for a supply of corn (7, §3; 8, §§2-3) were not ambassadors, and therefore that Caesar used the word legatorum loosely in order to aggravate the offence of the Gauls. If so, his readers could detect his misrepresentation: but the Gauls had submitted before they seized the officers; and therefore they were obviously guilty of an offence against international law.

sub corona vendidit, - `sold into slavery'. Prisoners taken by the Romans in war were decked with wreaths when they were exposed for sale. The practice was connected with religion (D.S., i, 1537).

17, §2. magnasque copias is almost certainly an interpolation (J.B., 1910, p.49). If the words were genuine, the `large forces' would evidently have included the magna multitudo of §4, whereas the latter is expressly said to have formed an addition. J.Lange, however (N.J., cxlvii, 1893, p.359), remarking that Caesar nowhere else uses the expression exercitum cogere, conjectures that he wrote equitatum magnasque copias.

§3. auctores. Remember that auctor does not always mean `author' or `originator', but is sometimes equivalent to qui probat aliquid.

§4. revocabat. Meusel, following W.Paul, inserts et before quos, and, adopting an emendation of his own, substitutes sevocabat for the MS. reading, revocabat. Klotz (C.S., pp. 247 - 9) condemns the former alteration on the ground that the perditi homines were influenced by spes praedandi and the latrones by studium bellandi; the latter because he regards the word revocabat as more applicable than sevocabat to casual labourers like these `desperadoes and brigands'. Klotz's arguments seem to me weak. The first is due to that restless spirit, characteristic of certain German scholars, which insists that Caesar must always have written symmetrically: the second depends upon the assumption that the desperadoes and brigands did occasionally work, whereas Caesar may mean that `the hope of plunder and love of fighting were [constantly] more attractive [to them] than farming and regular work'. Still, if he does mean this, et is euperfluous. As for revocabat, I suppose that Meusel rejects it because in every other passage in which Caeear uees the word it means either `to recall' or `to withdraw from'; but may it not also mean to divert from the thought of doing what has not yet been done?

§5. Sabinus ... tenebat. It is impossible to fix the site of this camp; for Caesar tells us nothing about it, except that it was in the country of tbe Venelli (see p.434), and on high ground which sloped gently down for the distance of about one Roman mile to the plain. M.Jullian may, however, be right in selecting Vire, a place where several roads meet, about 33 miles east of Granville (C. G., p. 688).

§7. teneret. The subjunctive is used because the sentence is virtually in Oratio Obliqua. Supposing that Sabinus explained his reasons for not fighting, he may have said, Eo absente qui summam imperi tenet ... non dimicandum est.

13, §1. auxilii causa. As the man whom Sabinus selected was a Gaul, the auxiliary corps to which he belonged was presumably the cavalry; for the archers were Numidians and Cretans, and the slingers were Balearic islanders (ii, 7, §1).

. non prius ... contendant. These words prove that Viridovix and his officers could not restrain their undisciplined followers; but any one who will take the trouble to think will see that they are not necessarily inconsistent with the statement, which Caesar makes in vi, 13, §1, that everywhere in Gaul `the masses are regarded almost as slaves, never venture to act on their own initiative, and are not admitted to any council'. Even disciplined troops have been known to mutiny in countries where democracy did not exist (C.G., p.532).

19, §2. cupientibus. J.Lange (N.J., cli, 1895, p.208) may be right in supplying omnibus and taking the words as ablative absolute. He refers to 24, §5.

duabus portis. Roman camps were square, or as nearly square as the lie of the ground allowed, and had four gates, or rather openings, one on each side. It seems fair to assume that duabus portis means the right and the left gate, ae the Romans would thus have fallen upon the flanks of the panting multitude. See Long's Caesar, p.176.

§3. unum, the MS. reading, was altered by Ciacconius into primum; and this conjecture has been generally accepted. I do not feel sure that it is necessary. In the other passages of the Bellum Gallicum (ii, 24, §1; iii, 2, §4; v, 28, §4; vi, 37, §3) in which Caesar speaks of primus impetus it is implied or stated that other charges followed or might have followed; but in this case it is obvious that no other charge followed or could have followed.

§6. Nam ut ... mens eorum est. If the reader will think, he will discern the difference between animus and mens, as they are used here, and he will also see that neither means quite the same as in i, 39, §1. When he has thought the matter out, he may turn to my translation of the two passages and see whether it satisfies him. Schneider observes that in 22, §1 Caesar uses animis in much the same sense as that in which he uees mentibus in 26, §2, and that while he speaks here of the mens mollis of the Gauls, in vii, 20, §5 he makes Vercingetorix speak of their animi mollities with the same meanIng.

20, §1. After hominum the MSS. have ex tertia parte, which Lipsius proposed to replace by est tertia pars: H.Kleist for an obvious reason altered this into tertia pars ... est. The first pars, et regionum ... hominum, and aestimanda are bracketed by Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp.32 - 3) and Klotz (C.S., pp.34 - 5). Their chief reasons are that Caesar could not have written quae pars ... ex tertia parte ... est, &c.; that ex tertia parte (Galliae est aestimanda) is an unclaesical expression; that the statement could only have applied to Aquitania as it was in the time of Augustus, when the province of Aquitania extended beyond the Garonne as far as the Loire; and that in i, 1, §1 (or §7), to which the words ut ante dictum est evidently refer, the same statement is not to be found. Dr.Rutherford, indeed (Gallic War, II and III, p.91), defends the passage, remarking that `ex has the same meaning here as in haeres ex asse', and accordingly he translates by `which district ... by reason both of its extent and population, ought to be regarded as a third division of Gaul'; but the words seem to me suspicious. Vielhaber brackets the whole passage quae pars ... aestimanda: but if we were to follow his example, we should be confronted with the awkwardness of two successive clauses each beginning with cum; and if we accept Meusel's reading, we must admit that the statement quae, ut ante dictum est, tertia pars Galliae est is hardly worth making.

L.Valerius Praeconinus and L.Manlius were defeated in 78 B.C. in the war with Sertorius, a famous Roman general, belonging to the party of Marius, who, supported by native allies, held his ground for many years in Spain against Metellus and Pompey. But the reader must not be satisfied with this note, which is only a kind of sign-post. If he wants to make the acquaintance of Sertorius, who is worth knowing, he must read Roman history.

§2. auxiliis ... comparato. These troops were, I believe, raised in the country of the Nitiobroges, immediately north of Aquitania, who were very strong in cavalry, and were then ruled either by Ollovico, a king who was on friendly terms with the Roman Senate, or by his son and successor, Teutomatus (vii, 31, §5).

multis ... evocatis. Meusel and other editors, who take Tolosa ... Narbone as depending upon evocatis, delete ex, and accordingly place the comma not after finitimae, but after regionibus. It is, however, quite possible that viris fortibus should be taken closely with Tolosa ... Narbone, the meaning being `excellent soldiers from (or belonging to) Tolosa', &c. Caesar uses similar expressions in the Civil War; for instauce, Cn.Magius Cremona (B.C., i, 24, §4), where Cremona ie equivalent to Cremonensis.

Tolosa ... Narbone. In the text stands Tolosa Carcasone et Narbona; in , Tolosa et Narbonae. Meusel, following , formerly supplied et, which is required by grammar, before Carcasone; but now, influenced by Mommsen (J.B., 1894, p.203), who thought that the absence of et before Carcasone in proved that Carcasone had been interpolated, he omits that name. Klotz, however (C.S., p.35, n.3), remarks that has Tolosae instead of Tolosa, which suggests that in something has dropped out.

nominatim shows that the names of the viri fortes were entered on muster-rolls. They were Roman citizens, who had settled in the Province.

§3. equitatuque. Meusel (J.B., 1910, p.68) deletes que, because equitatuque cannot grammatically be taken with magnis copiis coactis in the sense of equitatuque coacto, and must therefore go with adorti. I am not sure that he is right. The words primum equestre proelium commiserunt, following immediately after equitatu quo ... in itinere agmen nostrum adorti, would be startling, whereas if que is retained one feels that though the battle began with a combat of horse, the magnae copiae might afterwards come into action.

§4. Hi. J.Lange may be right in proposing His.

21, §2. oppidum Sotiatium. See the article on Sotiates (p. 429).

vineas ... egit. See the note on ii, 12, §3.

§3. cuniculis ... actis, - evidently with the object of dragging away the material of the embankment and so causing it to collapse, or of setting the woodwork on fire. Cf. vii, 22, §§2, 4; 24, §2.

aggerem. See the note on ii, 30, §3.

aerariae secturaeque. With aerariae, which is really an adjective, is understood fodinae, just as we say `an express' when we mean `an express train'. Schneider remarks that secturae was added in order to explain aerariae to readers who were ignorant of mining. I doubt whether, if they did not understand aerariae, they would have understood secturae; and I believe that Caesar added the word because there is a tendency in the human mind to use two kindred words sometimes when one would be enough. We all do it. Traces of one of the mines to which Caesar alludes have been found at Sos, the site of the stronghold of the Sotiates (Comptes rendus de l'Acad. des Inscr., &c., 1911, p.842).

Before faciunt J.Lange (N.J., cxlvii, 1893, p. 361) supplies imperatum. He maintains that faciunt by itself is not justifiable, and refers to v, 37, §1. Doberenz-Dinter defend the MSS., referring to iii, 6, §1, which, however, is hardly analogous. But see B. C., i, 2, §7.

22, §1. Adiatunnus. The reading of is Adcatuannus. O.Hirschfeld (S.P.A., 1896, p.431, n.1) argues that Caesar wrote Adietuanus, because that form is found on a coin of the Sotiates. Perhaps he did; but on the same coin we find Sotiota, although the accepted name of the tribe (C.G., p.849) is Sotiates.

illi can only signify Sotiates or Aquitani. But soldurios is supposed to be a Celtic word (A.G.S., ii. 1890); and, as Hirschfeld points out (S.P.A., 1896, pp.450 - 1), Nicolaus of Damascus (Fragm. hist. Graec., ed. Didot, iii, 418), who evidently copied Caesar, says that these retainers were called soldurii `by the Gauls' (upo Galatwn). Hirechfeld concludes that Caesar wrote Galli. But it is not certain that soldurios is Celtic; and, as Caesar reckoned Aquitania as a part of Gallia, Nicolaus may have regarded the Aquitani as Galatai.

soldurios. The Aquitanian soldurii apparently stood in much the same relation to their lords as the Celtic clientes, of whom Caesar says (vii, 40, §7) that `Gallic custom brands it as shameful for retainers to desert their lords even wben all is lost'. The argument by which Max Radin (G.J., 1912, pp.309 - 10) hae attempted to refute this view is, to my mind, InconclusIve. See A.C.S., ii, 1599 - 1601.

§§2 - 3. dediderint ... decovisset. See the note on ii, 35, §1 (incolerent).

23, §3. citerioris Hispaniae. The Roman proviuce of `Hither Spain' lay between the Ebro and the Pyrenees.

. magna ... multitudine. Meusel (J.B., 1894, p.318; 1910, p.61) deletes cum, because (1) in Caesar cum, placed between an adjective and a substantive, always has a modal sense, as in magna cum auctoritate; (2) bellum gerere cum magna hominum multitudine would mean `to carry on the war against a large number of men'; and (3) even if cum here could mean uno cum, it would yield no sense, for the magna multitudo included the Aquitanians themselves. This last argument ie weak. In vi, 10, §4 we read that Suebos omnes ... cum omnibus suis sociorumque copiis ... se recepisse. Here omnibus suis copiis are identical with Suebos omnes; hut tbe expression is justifiable because the writer is thinking of the leaders of the Suebi. Cf. i, 2, §1 (Orgetorix ... civitati persuasit ut de finibus suis cum omnibus copiis exirent. So we might say `in 1870 the Germans invaded France with a large force'.

J. Lange (N.J., cxlvii, 1893, p.361), who observes that there is no other passage in Caesar in which auctoritas means `prestige', may be right in conjecturing that he wrote (magna cum) alacritate.

§7. Quod (see the first note on i, 7, §1) is explained by suas copias ... diduci; and the meaning is `When Crassus saw this, namely, that his own force', &c. In English the significance of quod can only be suggested. We should say `Crassus, reflecting that h1s own force', &c. What justifies the use of quod is that Crassus's reflection wae prompted by the pacts related in the preceding sentences.

Meusel is, perhaps, right in supplying et after relinquere. Cf. i, 46, §1.

24. §1. duplici acie. See the note on i, 24, §2. Crassus formed h1s army in two lines because it was comparatively small.

auxiliis ... coniectis. Caesar would not have mentioned this if the auxiliaries had generally been placed in the centre. Evidently Crassus placed them there because he thought that they would fight better if they were supported and encouraged by being near the legionaries. It has been said that the usual position of the auxiliaries was on the wings (see tbe note on i, 51, §1); but we do not know what it was in Caesar's time. He used them in various minor operations (i, 24, §2; 49, §5 §1; 11, 7, §1; 10, §1; 19, §4; iv, 25, §1; vii, 81, §2); there is no record of his having done so in a pitched battle. In the battle of Pharsalia Pompey stationed his slingers and archers on the left wing (B.C., iii, 88, §5).

§3. infirmiores is an emendation, due to J.Kvicala. The reading of is infirmiore, of inferiore, which is obviously wrong. Infirmiore animo could only refer to the Romans; but, as Meusel remarks (J.B., 1894, p.282), syntax requires that the words should be taken with adoriri cogitabant and therefore refer to the Aquitanians. W.Paul simply deleted infirmiore animo; but, as Meusel says, something corresponding with impeditos is evidently desirable after sub sarcinis. Klotz (C.S., pp.249 - 50), who cannot see why the Aquitanians should have expected the Romans to fight with less cournge in a difficult position, proposes to read firmiore animo; but his objection is surely answered by iv, 24, §§2 - 4.

§5. timoris. The MSS. have timidiores, which yields no sense. With Meusel and other editors I have adopted the emendation of Stephanus, - timoris; but, as Meusel says (J.B., 1894, p.273), it is hardly satisfactory. For, after sua cunctatione, opinione would naturally be an opinion held by the enemy, whereas the sense requires that it should be taken as an opinion held by the Romans.

25, §1. vallo munitionibusque. See the note on 3, §1. Schneider remarks tbat munitionibusque does not necessarily imply that the camp had any other fortifications [for example, a palisade] except the rampart and ditch. He says that if Caesar had written vallo only, his readers might have inferred that the fortification was a mere makeshift; and that if he had written munitionibus only, they would not have known whether the camp was fortified in the Roman fashion or in some outlandish way. That this thought was in Caesar's mind I take leave to doubt. (See the note on aerariae secturaeque (21, §3).)

aggerem does not mean `an agger', as in 21, §3, but a kind of bank, formed by filling up the trench, and intended to enable the troops to mount the rampart. Cf. ii, 12, §5 and v, 9, §7.

ac non is used correctly instead of neque (which would here be weak), because non timide, being equivalent to fortiter, is substantially one word.

26, §2. Illi ... pervenerunt. Meusel supposes that between imperatum and eductis some words have been lost; for it seems to him incredible that cavalry officers commanded infantry. But is not Schneider'e explanation satisfactory? Crassus, he says, requested his cavalry officers to select the troopers who knew the ground best, and to employ them as guides for the cohorts (C.G., pp.688 - 9).

§3. posset. Caesar sometimes uses prius ... quam with the subjunctive even when it is impossible to detect the idea of a purpose; but here he may have meant to suggest what the cavalry officers intended.

§4. If impugnare is right, the object, castra, must be supplied from the context. Meusel adopte an emendatIon, pugnare.

§6. milium L. Very likely this number (for which, remember, not Caesar, but Crassus was responsible) is exaggerated. It is often impossible to get accurate estimates of an enemy's force. Colonel G.F.R.Henderson (Stonewall Jackson, i, 1898, p.158) says that in the American Civil War `Patterson reported to his Government that he had been opposed by 3,500 men, exactly ten times Jackson's actual number' (C.G., p.242).

25. §1. essent. If Caesar had written erant, he would have meant simply to state the fact that the Morini and Menapii remained in arms; whereas qui in armis essent is equivalent to qui eo animo erant ut in armis essent. In English the force of the subjunctive can only be suggested.

eo properly means in Morinos Menapiosque. Close study of chapters 25-9, however, show with which cf. iv, 38, §§1 - 2, will, however, show that Caeear actually invaded the territory of the Morini only.

29, §2. diutius ... possent. We might infer that the troops lived in huts in the winter, even if the fact were not expressly stated in v, 43, §1.

et ... non. See the note on 25, §1 (ac non). Doubtless Caesar wrote et... non instead of neque in order to emphasize the negation.

§3. reliquis ... civitatibus. If this were to be understood literally, it would mean that divisions of the army were quartered not only in the territories of the Veneti and all the tribes of Brittany and Normandy who had helped them against Caesar, but also in Aquitania. But this, as we may infer from iv, 6, §1, was not the case. R.Menge is perhaps right in conjecturing that Caesar wrote not Lexoviisque, reliquis, but, Lexoviis reliquisque.