Text File

\centerline{C. IULI CAESARIS} \centerline{DE BELLO GALLICO} \centerline{COMMENTARIUS SECUNDUS}

1, \S 1. Meusel ({\it J. B.,} 1910, p. 56) brackets {\it in hibernis,} first because the expression {\it 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, \S 2) were in the country of the Sequani. Klotz, however ({\it C. S.,} pp. 163--4), suggests that what Caesar wrote was (Cum...Gallia) {\it legionesque essent co1llocatae} (in hibernis), \&c.

{\bf dixeramus.} Probably a beginner would be surprised that Caesar did not write {\it diximus,} just as he wrote {\it 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, \S 1, he would have written equally good Latin.

\S 2. {\bf 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 {\it L. C.,} ii, 717--29.

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

\S 3. {\bf 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, \S 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.

\S 4. {\bf in Gallia...occupabantur:} See pp. liv--lv.

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

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

\S 3. {\bf paratosque esse...iuvare.} See the note on i, 44, \S 4

\S 4. Germanosque...incolant. See 4, \S 10.

\S\S 4--5. {\bf incolant...utantur...habeant...potuerint.} See the note on i, 44, \S 10.

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

{\bf 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 ({\it 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, \S 1. {\bf plerosque Belgas...Germanis.} See pp. xxx-xxxi.

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

\S 3. {\it 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.'

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

Most editors say that {\it quisque} stands for {\it quaeque civitos} or {\it 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 {\it quisque} because he was thinking of the individual delegates who attended the council.

\S 7. {\bf Apud eos...obtinuerit.} This Diviciacus must not be confused with the Aeduan Druid of the same name, who is mentioned in this Commentary (5, \S 2; 10, \S 5; 14, \S 1; 15, \S 1) as well as in the first. {\it Britanniae} is a loose expression: it can only mean South-Eastern Britain,--the part which Caesar invaded in 55 and in 54 {\sc 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, \S 2). What was the nature of his {\it 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 ({\it 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 ({\it 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.

{\bf obtinuerit.} See the note on i, 31, \S 8.

\S 10. {\bf qui...appellantur:} See pp. xxxi--xxxii.

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

According to the estimate with which the Remi supplied Caesar, the sum of the contingents which tlle 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, \S\S 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, \S\S 1--2) took any part in the first stage of the campaign, and whether the more distant tribes fought at all ({\it C.G.,} pp. 241--2).

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

{\bf ad.} See the first note on i, 4, \S 2.

5, \S 1.{\bf Caesar...prosecutus} may be translated by `Caesar addressed the Remi in encouraging and gracious terms'. Cf. {\it B.C.,} i, 69, \S 1.

{\bf principum} seems to mean simply `leading men'; it does not, as for instance in vii, 65, \S 2 and 88, \S 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, \S 5.

\S 4. {\bf 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 A cona 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 unlike]y 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 commlmications should be cut; and M.~Jullian himself admits that if they had concentrated on the Aisne, their natu- ral 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, \S 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, \S\S 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 F\`ere on the Oise---and at a considerable distance from it ({\it C.G.,} pp. 658--9).

{\bf vidit} is deleted by Meusel ({\it J.B.,} 1910, p. 67) on the ground that, coupled with {\it 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 {\it ridit.}

{\bf ibi castra posuit.} The question of the site of this camp is discussed in the note on 8, \S\S 3--5.

\S 5. {\bf portari.} W.~Nitsche is very likely right in proposing supportari. See the passages collected in {\it L.C.,} i, 606, 1340.

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

{\bf duodeviginti pedum} denotes the breadth of the ditch, which was doubtless V-shaped. Caesar once (vii, 72, \S 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, \S 2. {\bf testudine.} See the note on i, 24, \S 5.

XXX

\S\S 2-3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, ~p. 40-1), who follows the MS. reading, succendun~, instead of succedunt, and adopts the reading namqlle tanta ~lultitudo lapidesac tela coiciebant 1lt in muro consi~tendi 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 singu]ar, multitudo ù (2) that he would not have written Gallorum eadem atqlze Belgarunz, but Belgarum eadem atque (~allorum; (3) that he would not have used the words moenia alid murus in the same sentence; (4) that succendunt is ob- viously impossible ù (5) that Caesar would not have written cir- cumiec~a multitudine honlinuin totis moenibus, but multitudine honzinum totis moenibus circumiecta ù and (6) that the passage breaks the conne~ion of the narrative, for if Caesar had written it, he would have done better to put the sentence ~egre eo die sustentaturn est (\S 1) immediately before Cum ~nem oppu- gnandi noxfecisset (\S 4). He remarks, further, that the reading of IB--namque...nulli--at all events yields sense and is con- sistent with ~ebat, the meaning being that whenever this method

of attack was adopted the defenders were unable to remain upon the wall; whereas the reading of a (which I have adopted) inYolves the supposition that tum means ' on this occasion'

though, if it did,J~ebat would have to be altered intofactum est. But migbt not Quod...fiebat mean ' in this case the operation was being easily performed ' ? Schneider def~nds the order of the words Gallorum...Belgaruin, arguing that Caesar wished to emphasize the fact that the mode of attack which he de- scribed was common to all the Gallic tribes; but it must, I think, be admitted that the passage, as it stands, is unsatisf;ac- tory. If we adopt the conjecture succedu~t, which is probahle enough, we are confronted with the difficult~T that Caesar no- where else uses succedo, governino an accusative without a preposition. Accordingly Klotz (C.~., pp. 243 4j substitutes propius for portas.

\S 4. nuntillm. Meusel (J. B., 1894, p. 250), following the Aldine edition, reads nzciltios, because in 7, \S 1 Caesar writes 1sdem ducib2~s usus qui nllntii ab Iccio venerant. But what if nunt2um 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 [nuntiuml acc7pere, a~Ferre, and peiferre '. This is a weak argument. Cae~ar ow ere else has occasion to speak of sending a message, and e only uses accipere, adferre, and perferre in this connexion n uen tei lmes in tasli Cicero (Att., i, 13, \S 3) writes u cori Caesar~m

7, \S 1. de media nocte is generally explained as meaning ' in e mi dle of the night ' or ' about midnight ' ( Th. I. L., v, 64 Wi which cf. Cl. Ph ,1913, pp. 7-13), though Caesar sometimes s med a nocte wlthout de. 1 am not quite surc that de does tø pmueaunOdJh t after (midnight); for Censorinus (24 \S 2) says nocte. Cf. the thirdednaOetenOOCtii] 12 0\S Ci2m2(m est ?,ocatur d e med ia

8, ~\S 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 ~vhich 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 sub~tantially identical with Pl. 8 of the Atlas of ~Napoleon's Histoire de Jules Ccsar, 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 flanl~s, 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 sumcient 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 e~tension 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 Caesars words into agreement with Napoleon's Plan. ' The key of this description ', said Dr. Rutherford (G~allic War, lI and III, Preface and pp. 55-6). ' is pro castris, which proves that Caesar was looking we~tward...along the axis of the hill.' But Rutherford himself supplied disproof; for in his Vocabulary (p. 124) he rightly translated pro castris by ù 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 vvas, as both Napoleon and Rutherford admit, the north. In every other passage in which

Caesar writes p1-o casti is, 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 c~stris, he v~as oblieed to mistrans]ate i~ fronte, which, he said, ' refers to tbat end of the hill's ridge furthest removed from the camp'; whereas anv 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. Aga~n, l~utherford 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 inter- pretation 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 *ont of not along~ide of, the camp. Finally, Cacsar 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 e~treunely gentle that it could not lightly be described by the words Iateiis deiectus (\S 3)- for deiectus denotes a sharp, fairly steep gradient. Ruthelford. indeed, perversely identifies the lateris deiect~s with the northern and southern sides of the hill ù 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 ù and it shows no trace of a redoubt. Napoleon stro~e to meet this objection bJ ~serting 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 e~amined 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 po~ted, does not ~ gradually merge in the plain bJ a gentle slope~ (in froote leniter fastigatus yaulatim ad planitiem redibat [~ 3]), but is actual]y rather lower than the ground immediately in front of it which would have been oceupied bJ the Belgae; while the northward slope of the central and eastern parts of the plateau is perhaps rather too marked.

On the whole, the topograph~ of Mauchamp, with the very important exception of (lateris) deiect~s, conforms perhaps -~wbat more closely to Caesar's description; bllt the results

of Stoffel's excavations cannot be reconciled with Caesar's text. Let the advocates of Chaudardes excavate in their turn

\S 3. i'1/frO1/te, The reading of a, which J. H. Schmalz (N. J., clv, 1897, pp. 211-12) defends, is in frontem: but Caesar could not have written in fro~ltenl unless he had been thinking of the ascent of the hill from south to north; and that h-e had already d~scribed by the words paulillum e c planitie ed itus. ,~ has fron- tem simply. The reading which I adopt is generally accepted.

\S 4. ad e ctremas...constituit. Unless there had been :d castel- luin at the southern as well as at the northern extremity o~ each trench, the southward prolon,,ation would have been almost useless.

tormeilta. Neither b~dlistae nor catapu7tae 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 tight]y twisted corda<re. The Roman were probably inferior to the Greell~, on the pattern of which they were modelled; for Caesar's artillery was no match for that of the Massiliots (I~.C., ii, 2, ~ 5; 9, \S 3): but the best Greek engines must have been nearly, if not quite, as efiective as the cannon of the Middle Ages. The Greek writer Agesistratns says that a range of over 800 yards was occasionally attained; and Sir Ralph Payne- Gallwey has conshucted a comparatively small machine which threw a stone ball weighing eight pounds nearly 500 yards. It .s impossible to state e~actly what the difference between cata- pults and ballistae was; but both resembled huge crossbows, the main dif~erence 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.

\S 5. dl~abus...relictis. I need not e~plain why Caesar tells us that the legions which he left in camp were the two newly raised legions.

quo. 1'erhaps the reader has already seen that this word depends upon duci mentally supplied from the next clause.

insti1l~cerl~nt. The MSS. have instru~cerant; but the perfect

is in the first printed edition of the Com.mentaries. Meusel (J. B., 1894, p. 351) point~ out that in the preceding sentence we find con~ti.fuit, and that item requires that the next verb should be in the same tense.

~, ~ 1. ut impeditos...erant. Kraner and other editors affirm that parati is used absolutely, as in ~ii, 59, \S 5, and that ut adgrederentur does not depend upon it, but upon parati . . . erant. I believe that they are right, although in vii, 19, \S\S 2 and ~ sic parat~4s is used with ~t. The sense of course is ' our men, weapons in hand, were ready to attack them ', &c. lo, \S 1. ponte~n. ~eusel (J. B., 1894, p. 282) rejects the MS. reading in favour of R. Schneider's emendation, po~te, on the ground that 'one can say Jlumen, mare, fo.~sam, pall~dem, ~alle~- traducere, but not pontem. The pons is the means of crossing ' J~c. J. H. Schmalz (lV. J., clv, 1897, p. 211) is not convinced by this argument. Renlarking that Caesar nowhere else in the Bd~um ~allicum uses the instrumental ablative, ponte, he in- sists that a bridge has an extension equal to the breadth of the tream, and that Meusel is therefore wrong in comparing it, as _a means of crossing, ~vith naves. Why, then, should not one ~y that a general transported an army across a brid~e ? Cer blinly one can say 80 in English, though one ~ould not say ' he t~ns~orted his army across the ships ', but ' across the sea in dlip . I agree with Schmalz that there is not sufficient reason tor r~Jectulg the authority of the MSS.

\S 4. convenirent. Stephanus, whom Meusel follows, proposed as an emendation, conrenire; but I am inclined to think that Caesar may have written convenirent (perhaps under the in- fluence of introdu~cissent) just as in vii, 78, \S 1 he wrote consti- tulcnt ut ii...e~ccedant.

11, \S 2. speculatores (scouts) were not the same as e~ploratores (patrols), who were generally cavalry. Specldatores 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, n, 1; Z. G., 1911, pp. 711-

~ 4. :~i...conciderunt. Meusel (J. B., 1910, pp. 45-6) brackets these words, arguing that they are contradicted by the follow- ing clause, cum...sustinerent. He also asks whether the noo;s- simi were different from the ectremum agmen, and whether the priores of \S 5 were the vanguard and indeed the greater part of the fugitive column or only the leading division of the rear- guard (noo7s~imi). If, however, l~i...concid~rl~nt was not written b~r Caesar, ponerent (\S 5) is plainly wrong; and accord- ingly ~eusel aUers it into ponebant: but he is obliged to admit that in this case (priores) quod ought to be followed by the indicati~e. 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 ectremo agmine denotes the same men as novissi- mos; ptiores denotes all the rest; cum is causal and introduces two reasons for the slaughter which is described by magnam mu~titudinem...conciderunt; and the words which Meusel hrackets are justified by \S 6.

\S 5. viderentur. . . continerentur. See the note on i, 6, \S 3. Viderentur is equivalent to si1~ iderertur.

e7~audito ... ordinibus. In translating one should try to make it clear that the second ablative absolute is the result of the fi~t. I should say ' broke their ranks when they heard the distant cries '.

L Postridie. . . contendit. Confecto, as Nipperdey first saw, i~ certainly spurious; for, as no place is indicated as the terminus of the magnum ita; it has no meaning; and, moreover, postridie po e8 that Cae8ar reached Noviodunum on the same day on

hemade the magnum iter,--in other words, the terminus - -- ~the magnum ~tarwas Noviodunum. An editor who wished to - ~n conf~cto 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 fo]lowing day he pushed on for Noviodunum, would not tbe words magno itinere confeeto ad oppidum Noviodun~m ~onten~lit have expressed his meaning ? ' No; for in the case supposed he would have written Imagno itinere confecto) proximo (or alteno or postero) die (ad oppidum, &-c.).

lt is generally assumed that the starting-point of this forced march was (~aesar's camp on the Aisne (5, \S 4): if so, the length of the march was about 2~ 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 assumptiun, however, seems to me donbtful. The force which Caesar had detached in pursuit of the ~elgae ' returned, in obedience to orders, to camp ' (11, \S 6). Consider whatis involved in the supposition that they returned to the camp mentioned in 5, \S 4. If their pursuit had been directed down the valley of the Aisne, they were obliged, af'ter an extraordinarily long day's work and immediately beforc another prodlgious march, to return the whole distance which they had covered between dawn and sunset, while (~aesar, although he was anxious to reach Noviodunum as soon as pos- sible, needlessly ilnposed 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 ne~t 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 Sues- siones ?

~3ut why did he order the detachment to ietu1n at all ? If the pursuit was directed down the valley, along which he was himself about to march, this question cannot be answered; b~t if, on the other hand, the Suessiones fled northward down the road towards Laon, to f'etch ba~gage which they may have left at the place where the Belgae had concentrated (5, \S 4), the answer is obvious. While Caesar moved a ~w miles down the valley, and thus shortened the inevitable magnum iter, the do- tachment rejoined him (by a road leading to 13eaurieu~ ?). 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 outstrip- ping them (12, \S\S 2-4), and why should they have allowed him to do so (C. G~., p. 670) ?

\S 3. ~ineas agere. Vineae were sbeds used to protect soldiers who were engaged in constructin,, earthworlks, &c., or, as on this occasion, in filling up a moat. The Dinea, as described by Vegetius (De re mil., iv, 15), was :3 movable hut, 16 feet long,

8 feet high, and 7 feet wide, the sides of which were defended by wickerwor~, while the roof was protected against fire by raw hides; but of course the dimensions and the strength of the matelials would vary according to circumstances. Caesar's ~neae were evidently placed end to end: therefore, in order to enable men to move from one to another, they must have been open at tho ends (C. G., p. 608).

~ 4. Inte~im...pro~itna nocte. The last two words fi~ 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 ne2~t day. Do not translate interim by meanwhile': it will not bring out the meaning. Try whether you can i~prove upon this:--' On the following night efore he could resume operations, the whole host,' &c.

\S 5. a~gere here does not mean ' an agger', or terrace, though it does In 30, \S 3. Ag7e~- 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. (~aesar uses the word in varioUc kindred senses, which can always be distinguished i out a dietionary, by a little thought.

tunibus,--wooden towers, from the stories of which archers

~rs, and artillery showered missiles among the defenders of

ù Eneged town. The~ were moved on rollers. Occasionally y were very high, containing as many as ten stories (viii,

14, \S 5. sua is evidently emphatic; but to render it by ' his ' would be very weak. One mi~ht translate ut...utatl~r by ' to treat them with the forbearance and humanity for which he was distinguished '.

15, \S 4. eorum is suspicious. Schneider remarks that if it is deleted, his rebus...virtutem must be t~lken as applying to mankind in general, not to the Nervii in particular ù 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 Wa1; II and III, p. 61), 'we are to understand that the pre-

cautions were taken by the chieftains to protect the people.' In other words, he believes that the implied subject of e~cisti- marent is duces, and that eorum means the Nervii in general. I may add that Caesar does occasionally use eorum, iis, &c. in tead of a reflexive pronoun. See l, \S 2; i, 5, \S 4; 6, \S 3.

~ 5. dedidissent;...proiecisse~t. See the note on i, 36, ~ 4.

li~j\S l. in~eniebat. The learner should ask himself why used the imperfect

~;lil)us. The MSS. have milia: but if it was not written by , this is the only passage in the Bellu~ Gallic~m in ~heh ù-on amplius abesse is not used with the ablative and the ~t~pe probably had the abbreviation mil. (J. B., 189i, p. 282). ~,y 2. hanc...adoriri. If the legion were to be attacked on

_ rch ~hen the men were carrying their heavy packs

(which included their entrenching tools), it would be at a serious disadvantage. Cf. i, 24, \S 3.

\S 4. te~e~is...enatis is the accepted reading: a has teneris . . . atque in latitudi~em ~umis e~atis; 13 tenel is...atque il~e~cis crebi isque in latitl~dinem ramis. l~lot~ (C. S., p. 48, n. 1) objects-- captiously, I think--that in ,B crebr~s simply means m~7tis. Accordingly he regards i~e~is crebrisque as an interpolation. On the other hand, he condemns enatis in n, because it does not harmonize with effecerant. Thus, he sa~s, the genuine part of the text is teneris arboribus incisis atque in latitudinem ramis, which he comp]etes by adding irflexis. But if, as he supposes incisis means ' pollarded ', in~exis is objectionable, for branches would naturally have shot out sideways; and Meusel has pointed out that if we omit et, e1latis is unobjectionable. If incisis means ' cut into ', the accepted reading describes the operation of ' plashing ' (Erl.cy. Brit., l~iii, 1910, p. 101).

18, \S 1. Loci natura...dele~erant. 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 e~actly. 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, \S 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. 1~., iv, 59)J ' are not accessible at Boussieres, but may be scaled lower down ' (see the plan facing p. 83). These are the ' hiRh banks ' (altissimas ~ipas) which Caesar mentions (27, \S 5). Evidently the battle was fought at a place where Caesar wa~ obliged to cross the ~ambre, 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 e~cept that, according to (~aesar (18, \S 3), the Sambre opposite the battle-field was only 3 feet deep, whereas the depth opposite ~autmont is much more. But the depth has increased since C~aesar's time, because the river has been canalized (C. G., pp. 671-5).

\S 2. adver~us...contra~ius,--' 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 a~is of the other--it would have been con- tranus, but not adversu~. The reader will notice that in my translation I have deliberately inverted the order,--for a good reason.

inJimus. Klotz (C. S., pp. 244-5) objects to the MS. reading on the ground that Caesar regularly places i~fimus and inferior before the substantive- and accordingly, referring to 18, \S 1 and vii, 78, \S 6 (ab summo), iii, 19, \S 1 and iv, 17, \S 3 (ab Imo), vii, 19, \S .1 and 73, \S 3 (ab in1imo), he suggests that we should read ab in~mo here. The conjecture may be right; but I follow the MSS.,for in v, 44, \S 12 and vii, 35, \S 4 inferiorfollows its noun.

~ 3. sta~iones here means ' piquets '.

l~, \S 2. r~peditas. 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 e~pediti (vii, 11, \S 8 ù 40, ~1; B. C. iii, 85, \S 4, ~c.), we are to infer that they were free from everj burden that would have interfered with their fighting. But these six legions were at all events carrying their entrenching toolc (\S 8), if not also their packs. E~peditas 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.

\S 6. ut...confirmaverant denotes both the formation in which the Nervii darted forth (pro~olaverunt) and the immediate cause of their doing so, and ut includes the senses of q~lando- quidein, 'inasmuch as', and quem ad modum. Its force might be expressed by the following translation:--' suddenly, in the f~xact order in which, with mutual e~hortations, they had formed their line within, the whole force darted forth,' 8~c.

7. ~t iam...nostris. If these words are genuine, in ~n~lniblls 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, J~gl~rtha~ ~7, ~ 4, where the text is uncertain. See J. B., 1910, p. 49.

20, ~ 1. quod...dandurl. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp. 41-2) regards this a~ an interpolation: for, he says, every Roman I reader knew why the ve~cil//~m was displayed; the words quod | . . . oporteret nee~lessly interrupt the narrative; Caesar would have written oportebat, not oporteret, and signuin, not insigne; ! and siynu~l d~lnduin is already in its proper place at the end of the sentence. If any one will refer to i, 23, \S 1 and vi, 24 ~C 1 he will, I think, doubt whether Caesar would have written

~, ~; and l~lotz (C.S., pp. 245-6) defends the words quod e maintains that Caesar was not writing only ,,, ~, but also for readers who were ignorant of mllitary P. ~ the same time he points out that ~ignum tuba ~, ~here it stands in the MSS., is out of place, because

ù~ ~h~ troops who were recalled from the trenches (ab opere ~oeand; milites) saw the ~exillum, and because the sound of the trumpet would have been inaudible to the men who had ~on~ further a6eld and ~vho therefore had to be fetched by ae~llopers (qui paulo longius...arcessendi). Accordingly he

,. =~ooes to remove signum tuba dandum. from its MS. position ~lto substitute it for signum dandum. (see the note on 12, \S 5,--aggere iacto) evidently means

1. quam [in] partem fors obtulit. An attempt has been ~b to e~plain these words as equivalent to in eam pa~tem ~c~it) ~uamfors obtulit; but, as Meusel (J. B., 1910, p. 59)

~, tbls Is Impossible. They can only mean in eam pa~t~m in for~ obtulit, which is non~ense; and, moreover, Caesar

~_Id hare written ad, not in. Meusel, therefore. deletes in. ~L. Elemember that alte,am means ~he other'--in other

~, the right wing--not ~ another '.

\S 5. insignia. See the note on i, 22, \S 2 (insi~7nibl~s) defi~e~ it. See the note on i, 26, \S 2 (2~ugnatum sit). 22J \S 1. delectu.so~l~e collis--the MS. reading--was certainly I not written by Cae~ar, aJnd Meusel (J.B., 1910, p. 39) has no doubt that the words represent a marginal note, written by a reader who had remarl~ed quem locum nosti-i castris delegerant in 18, \S 1. Perhaps, however, Caesar wrote deiectusque collis-- ' the slope of the hill ' (cf. 8, \S 3)--which is in the first printed ed~tion of the Commentaries. d iV! ersae means that the legions were isolated; but whetber it also means that the~v faced in different directions I am not sure - 23, \S 3 suggests that it does not. ce~tus is here used, as often, in the sense of constitutus or definitus: so ce~ta subsidia means reserves posted at fired points. 23, \S 1. ut. See the note on 19, \S 6.

\S 3. ex loco superioie must, I think, be taken with pro~igatis but von Gfoler (~.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. \S 4. ~ab~ aperto latere. See the note on i, 25, \S 6 (<ab> latere aperto). summum castroruill locum does not me&n 'the highest part of the camp ', but ' the summit of the hill on which the camp stood ': it is equi~alent to sumr,tum locum, u~i castra posita erant 24, \S 1. Ievis...pedites,--the archers and slingers mentioned in 7, \S 1 and 10, \S 1. 3 dixeram See the note on 1, \S 1 (dixeraml~s). 2. ab decl~mana...collis. Ac...collis defines ab decu- 1nana porta, and shows that the sl~mmum iugum and the site of the rear-gate were identical. One might translate by ' from the rear-gateJ situated on the crest of the ridge '. transire is the reading of ~: a, which Meusel follows, has tran81sse. l~e 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 Dot seen that the legions had crossed the stream, they had seen them cross- ; and the present infinitive is supported by 24, \S 4 (fugere ent)~ 25, \S 1 (excedere...vitare...intermittere...instare \S -2; ~dit), 31, \S 1 (adpropinquare...viderunt), vi, 8, \S 6, vii, 28,

~ 4. cast~u [~ostra]. The reading of a is castra compleri, i~ostras; of 13, castra nostra co~npleri. Meusel (J. B., 1910, p. 65) infers that nostra(s), which, following nosti is castris (\S 2), is super- fluous, was a marginal addition.

25, \S 1. signiferoque inte~fecto. 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, wh ose position was always exposed, that Caesar wished to emphasize, but the loss of the standard. By coupling signifero i~tei~ecto with signo amisso he showed that the standard-bearer was not to blame.

~ri~lipilo,--the first centurion of the lst 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 organization, formed the third and most important line of the army in battle array (triple~ acies). The chief centurion of the triarii was called primi pili, ce1~turio 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. l~iii), each cohort contained three maniples, the first of which consisted of triarii, and each maniple contained two centuries. The first of the tvvo centurions of the first maniple of the lst cohort, who was, as such, the chief centurion of the legion, wa~ calledprimipilus.

ab 110Vissimis here and in \S 2 does not mean 'from the rear ranks', but 'in the rear ranks ' ù in other words, al~ has the same force as in a fronte (' in front ') and ab ~tro~e latei-e (' on either flank ').

subeuntes and int~?r~littere are closely connected in sense.

\S 2. ma~ip~4los laxare. In regard to the maniples see p. Ixiii. The three maniples of each cohort probably alwags stood side bg side, not one behind another (C. G., p. 588). As the cohorts were huddled together (\S 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.

2~, \S l. et co~ve~sa si~na...infe~ rent. The e~act meaning of these words is uncertain. In 24, ~ 4 Caesar says that the 7th and 12th legions were almost ~urrounded, and in 25, ~ 1 that the Nervii were attacking the 12th in front and on either tlank. 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 sa~s (26, \S 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 onlg necessary for the rear companies of the two legions to turn round aud for the wing companies to make a quarter-turn, thus .forming a closed parallelogram. Probably he is right; but it s enough to get a clear general idea of Caesars meaning c. a., pp. 676-7).

\S 5. Q//i. The antecedent is ~nilites, implied in X legionem. (~f. i. 15, \S 1, and see J. B., 1894, pp. 263-4.

nihil...fecerurt is equivalent to nihil ad celer~tatem re- liql~erunt--'they left nothing undone that could conduce to speed'--and might be translated by ' t~ey put forth their utmost speed '.

27, \S 1. nostri is equivalent to nostro~cm, but is used, as in i, 52, \S 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:--("rheir arrival wrought such a com- plete change that,) on our side (, even men who,' &c.).

procubuissent. The force of this subjunctive and of supe~ essent (\S 4) has been e~plained thus:--if ( aesar 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 thinl~, however, that Meusel (L. C., iii, 1~06 ù J. B. 1894, p. 379) is right in attributing both subjunctives to Attraction of Mood,--in other words, to the influence of red- integrarent and of coicerent respectively. \S 2. pugnae is the reading of ,~: a has pugnant quo. Meusel, who now accepts ~ leist's conjecture--pugnandi studio-- I formerly (J. B., 1894, p. 386) agreed with Schneider in defend- | ing ~. Pugnae does not mean 'the battle-field', but 'the I battle'; but Meusel thought that locis might be used loosely | with pugnae.

~8, \S 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. Thig word, which is connected with aestus (' tidal 8tream'), cannot be used of marshes formed by a riYer which does not flow into the sea; so we must conclude that the marshes in question bordered on the estuary of the Scheldt (C. ~., pp. 674-5).

-dixeramus. See the note on 1, \S 1 (diceramus).

\S 2. ex DC...dicerunt. See the first note on \S 1.

~x ad D. Caesar may have intended to emphasize vix (~8 m i, 6, \S 1), but anyhow he could not have written ad

:~d D- Ad reliqui temporis pacem (vii, 66, \S 4) is good Latin, _ 80 18 ad bene ~i~endum, but except in such phrases a word ~not be placed between ad and its object. ~jl 8- ut. . . ~ideretur (see the second note on i, 40, \S 5) may ~nslated by ~wi~hing to establiBh his character for', &c.

29, \S 2. castellis, as distinguished from oppid is, probably means strongholds which, in time of peace, were uninhabited or only sparsely inhabited. Cf. A. B., p. 13~.

unum oppiduin...n~unitum. See the article on Atuatucorum oppidum (p. 409).

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

arnplius...CC. See the note on i, 38, \S 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 wall's

(C G-, p. 80, n. 4).

duplici. See the note on i, 18, \S 10.

tu~ 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.

\S 4. ir,/pedimentis, as agere shows, does not here mean 'baggage ' only, but 'stock'--that is to say, catt]e--'and baggage '. Remember the original meanin~ of the word.

\S\S 4-5. reliquer~nt...delegerant. The MSS. have the perfect but the old emendations ~hich I have adopted seem necessary. See J. B., 1894, p. 351.

30, \S 2. v~llo yedum XIL Klotz (C.S., pp. 220-1) oddly thinks that this rampart was the town-wall of the Atuatuci.

XV ~ is certainly wrong, for to construct a contra- vallation 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 readin~ of ..-- ~allo pedum i~ ci1cl~it~b X~ miliu~n--will not do either, for Caesar never reckoned miles in terms of feet. Possibly he wrote T' (C G., pp. 390-1).

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

c~rcummuniti means ' shut in'. Cf. B. C., i, 81, \S 5 ù 84, \S 4. \S 3. aggei-e extructo. The word agger is here used in the sense of an oblong mound or terrace, such as was commonly con- structed by (~reeks, 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, \S 4). The agger was made largely, if not mainly, of wood,--the lightest suitable material ù while earth and rubble were used to fill up interstices and to make the structure com- pact. 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, \S 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 miggileg by sheds called vi~eae (see the note on 12, \S 3). The evidence ~or this descliption will be found in B. C., ii, 2, \S 4; Thucydides, ii, 75, Lucan, iii, 394-8, 455; Appian, Mithr., 30, and Silius Italicus, xiii 109-10.

In vii, 22, \S 5 Cae9ar says that during the siege of Avaricum the Gauls endeavoured to prevent the Romans from bringing their cunic~li up to the wallg (apertos c?miculos. . . mo~lbantq~i moeni- busque adpropinquare prohibebant), and accordingly sorne writers believe that there were galleries in the agger. The passage will be considered in the right place, but c~niculos can only mean 9ubterranean gallerie9, or mineg. The ag~7erwas certainly solid; for there is direct evidence that some aggeres were (Thucydide~, ii, 75, \S 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 ]abour that would have been entailed by making such an a~ger 8trong cnough to carry the hogt of soldiers, the sappers' huts aDd the huge towers that gtood upon it. Indeed, without

ncks it could not have been built.

~19gaes were alwayg in danger of being set on fire by the eDemy (Vii, 22, \S 4 ; 24, \S 2), but the great difficulty began ~rhen they were getting quite close to the enemy's wall. It u bardly have been poggible then to continue rearing a

compact and uniform structure, for the enemy could pitch down heavy stone~ and other missiles, although the artillerymen in the towers which stood upon the agger (see the second note on 12, \S 5) doubtless did their best to keep them at a distance. Sapper~' huts of extraordinary strength, the sloping roofs of which were protectcd against fire by bric~s, clay, and raw hides soaked in water (see the last note on v, 42, \S 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, \S 1); but when, as in the siege of the stronghold of the Atuataci (ii, 32, \S 1), at Uxellodunum (viii, 41, \S 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. ~he 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, \S 3); but whether vineae were used by the men ~vho 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 i running on rollers (see the first note on vii, 25, \S 1). See C. pp 599-607.

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

\S 4. plerumque...contemptuiest. AmodernItalian,travelling I for the first time in France, would not be impressed by the stature I of the inhabitants, except here ~Lnd there in certain depart- I ments, especially of the north-east. I have tried to account for this in the article on the Ethnology of Gaul (pp. ~xvi-xxvii).

31, \S 4. deprecari is not distinct in sense from petere, but defines it: one might translate ur~vum...deprecai-i by ' One thing only t they would beg him not to do '.

sua. Cœ the note on 14, \S 5. 3~, ~1. aries. The battering-ram was a long beam, armed with I a hea~l of iron or bronze. It was suspended from the roof of

~appers~ hut, so that both the engine itself and the men who worked it were screened from attack ù and the momentum was obtained by pulling the beam backwards, and then letting it ~ing forwards.

2. in Neruiis means ~ in the case of the Nervii '. Cœ i, 47, ~ 4. ~ ~ ùfacereis strongerthan ract~rosesse: themeaningof illi .. E ~nt is ' they professed themselves ready to obey his com- ~ ~ds . So one says ' I'm coming ', meaning ' I'll come at once '.

33, \S 2. praesidia. See the note on i, 8, ~ 2.

denio~ue here points to that which comes last in thought; and I so it means ' at any rate '. I

viminibus inte~ctis. Kraner and Meusel blke these words not | as depending upon evc, but as ablative absolute. Schneider makes intectis agree with scutis. I am inclined to agree with I Kraner. I

~ellibus indu cerant. Readers who have begun to feel interested in the stOly will, I hope, bave already inferred from thesel words that the Atuatuci had plenty of cattle in the fortress. I Cœ vii, 71, \S 7.

\S 4. t~7-ibus. This shows that towers were erected not only on | the a~ge~; but also along the rampart which formed the contra- | vallation. Cf. vii, 72, \S 4.

iacerent. The mood is, I think, to be accounted for byl supposing that Caesar meant (those who) were in such circum- | stances that they threw, &c

5. ad. See the first note on i, 4, \S 2. - |

~ 6. sectionem. Sectio bonorum was the legal term denotin~JI the public sale of the property of a person condemned oll| a capital charge or under a proscription, such as that of Sulla.| Those who bought such property on speculation were called~ sectores. ~y translation of sectionem...vendidit is, ' Caesar sold by auction, in one lot, all the booty of war found in the town.' \S 7. iis qui emerant. See p. I~v.

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

35, \S 1. pacata. The pacification did not iast long.

incolerent~ See the second note on 27,\S 1. Meusel,who explain~ the subjunctive as due to the attraction of mitterertut; 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~ e~en when one would ha~e e~pected to find the indicative. EXceptions~ however, occur; for instance, in v, 10, \S 1,--ut eos qutfugerant petgequerentur.

Ie9ationes~ The reading of Q is mitterentur legati ad Caesarem - of ~, legati ad Caesarem mitterentut-; while in B 2L ~ tnittetentur s fOllowed byquae instead of qui, which is found in Q. G. Sauppe

øm ~eusel follows, concludes that Caesar wrote legationes.

he wrote legati, the use of ~e is e2~traordillarily strained.

\S 2. Illyricum. See p. 419.