20, \S 5. tanti .~.~. co1ldonet. Caesar could not yet afford to
punish Dumnori2l: (he found an opportunity of doing so four
years later [v, 6-7]) for fear of offending the patriotic larty

· la8mo\S n3g) thes Aedui, with whom Dumnori~ was popular (3, \S 5;

21, \S l. sub mo11te. This hill must be identified with Sanvigne,
~bout 6 miles east of the river Arroux: for, as we shall see in
the note on 24, ~ 1, Caesar's ne2~t camp was hard by Toulon-sur-
Arrou~; the march by which he reached it was very short, a~
we may infer from the fact that the ~elvetii, whom he followed
took a fortnight or more to advance with their unwieldy wagon-
train from the point where they crossed the Saone to the
neighbourhood of Toulon (15, \S 5); and Sanvigne is the only hill
east of the Arrou~ and within a short march of it which answel~
to the descliption in 21, \S 1 and 22, \S 3. See Stoffel's Hist. de
Jules C~sa1;--Gue17e Civile, ii, 1887, p. 445.

\S 2. Iegatum pro praeto1e. Labienus was not only the ablest
of Caesar's generals, but the highest in rank. As legatus p1'0
praetore, he would be Acting Governor of Gaul and Commander-
in.Chief in the winter, when Caesar v~ as in Italy. See 54, \S 2.
\S 4. L. Sulla was the famous dictator who overthrew Marius.
M. Crassus ~as the millionaire of Rome, who, with Caesar and
Pompe~, formed the first Triumvirate, and who had defeated
Spartacus, the leader of the rebel s]aves, in 71 B, C.

22, \S 2. a (Gallicis armis) in this sense is estraordinary and
perhaps was not in the original manuscript. Indeed it is omitted
in L. If Caesar followed the usage of classical prose, he wrote
either (~allicis ar~is or ex ~allicis armis. Insig~ibus here means
' crests '.

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

r~etiri. See the note on 16, \S 5.

e~istimavit, If the MS. reading is right, itao~Me, which Meusel

inserted in 1894, is evidently required, but he now adopts an
old emendation,--existimails.

\S 2. e~uitl~m Ga~lorum. The adjective of G'allus is Gallicus,
but Caesar never uses it as an epithet of living beings. The
phrase equites Gall~ is like mare Oceanus.

\S 3. e~lstimarent .~.~. co~derent. See the note on 6, \S 3.
Meusel (J.B., 1894, p. 332), remarking that both Caesar and
Cicero often use such verbs in the subjunctive where logically
the indicative might seem preferable, says that, strictly speak-
ing, the clause should run either seu quod .~.~. existi~labant or
seu quod, ?~t existimabant, Romani discederent.

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

account for its not }~aving been completed and made into an
enclosure.

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

\S 2. in colle medio,--' half-way up the hill '.

trlplice~ aciem inst~uisit. This was the normal formation
though Crassu~ in Aquitania formed his army for battle in two
lines (iii, 24, \S 1), probably because his troops were compara-
tively few; while Caesar in Africa once deployed only a single
line (~ell. Afi:, 13, \S 2), and in the battle of Pharsalia, for a
special reason, improvised a fourth (B. C., iii, 89, \S 3). In that
battle, according to Frontinus (ii, 3, \S 22), each line in Pompey's
army was tcn men deep. Frontinus seems to mention this as
e~ceptional; and accordingly it has been conjectured that the
normal depth of a cohort was eight men (C. G., pp. 587-8).

The thou~htful reader will probably ask himself certain
questions, which are suggested by (~aesar's account of the battle
with the ~elvetii, but which he does not answer, I suppose
because he ~vrote for his contemporaries, most of whom perhaps
knew enough about warfare to understand his book. Thc
soldiers in the front rank of the fighting line must have become
tired after, say, twenty minutes of hand-to-hand fighting. How
were they relieved? When and how did the second line come
into action ? What was the use of the third line ? The first
question and the last can be answered easily. When the fore-
most ranks became tired, or thinned by the loss of individual
soldiers, the rear ranks advanced between the file~ of those in
front, and relieved them. Superintendent Froest tells me that
this method would be adopted by the police in street fighting;
and indeed no other method appears practicable. The third
line served as a reserve: how it was used in this battle will be
seen in 25, \S 7; generally, when its services were required, as,
for instance, in the battle with Ariovistus (S2, \S 7), tbe cohorts
that composed it may have been directed against one or both
of the enemy s flanks or on his rear. It is the second question
that has most perplexed the commentators. Rudolf Schneider
has tried to prove that as soon as the light-armed au~iliaries
had done their work and hand-to-hand fighting had begun, the
second line was regularly incorporated with the first. But in
fhe battle with the ~elvetii the auxiliaries were far removed
from the fighting line: if, then, the second line wa~ from the
commencement of the battle incorporated with the first, why
was it formed at all, and what was the sense of the e2~pression
t~ iplicem acie~n ? It is clear from Caesar s narrative (25, ~ 7) that
even after the first stage of close fighting was over tbe firsttwo
lines still remained distinct. My own belief is that the second
line as well as the third acted as a reserve, that if and when
the fir~t line needed support, the second was incorporated with
it, and occasionally perhaps the third also. In the first stage
of the battle each cohort of the first line probably formed a
separate group: it would have been dangerous for the enemy
to attempt to penetrate the spaces between the groups, for they
would have been liable to be attacked and cut off by the fresh
cohorts in reserve; and, on the other hand, these could ad~lance
when they were wanted into the spaces and reinforce the first
line. It is not my business to give reasons for this opinion
here, for in doing so I should have to discuss many passages
which are not in Caesar's text: bnt the whole problem, which
is interesting, is thoroughly worked out in C. G., pp. 588-99.

\S \S 2-3. ~ s14mmo i~go .~.~. sarcinasque. The MS. reading,
which is untranslatable, is (ipse interim .~.~. veteranorum) ita ~ti
s~pra se [v. 1. sed] in summo i?~go .~.~. auxilia conlocar1, ac totu~
mo~item hominib~s comple~i et ~nterea sarcinas (in unum locum .~.~.
iussit). An attempt has been made to amend this by changing
conlocari and compleri into co~locaret and compleret. Meusel
deletes ita ~ti supra se and brackets ac totum .~.~. interea, which,
as ll~lotz remarks (C.S., p. 239), is a desperate remedy. I have
adopted Klotz's conjecture, which is at all events ingenious.
Fortunately the general sen~e of the passage is in any case
clear.

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

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

25, ~1. om)~iur~l evidently means only the mounted officers of
the legions, not the cavalry.

2. pllis. See p. Ixiv and C. G., p. 599.

~ 3. cl~m .~.~. in~e~i~set. See p. Ixiv. When cum is used in describ-
ing repeated action, it is generally coupled with an indicative.
The subjunctive, as Meusel observes (J. B., 1894, p. 371), is here
not only iterative but causal. Caesar does, however, occasionally
use the subjunctire in a purely iterative sense, e.g. in B. C., iii,

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

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

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

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

\S 7. Mommsen (J. B., 1894, p. 201) gives a sufficient reason
for regarding conversa ai an interpolation:--' the first two lines
did ilot change front.'

2~, ~ 2. ab hora septima. The Romans divided the period
between sunrise and sunset into 12 hours, ~vhich of course were
only equal to our hours at the equino~.

pugnat~ sit. If Caesar had written pilgnaretu~; he would, so
to speak, have been placing the reader at the standpoint of a
spectator of the battle; whereas the perfect nnerel~r states that
the batt]e lasted seven hours without calling upon the reader to
form a mental picture of it. See J. B., 1894, p. 3S7.

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

\S 5. E~ eo proelio .~.~. perve~ unt. Meusel (J. B., 1910, p. 39)
rightly brackets nullam parte~n .~.~. ii~termisso. The words are
absolutely super~uous if noctis denotes the same night as ea tota
nocte; and if Caesar had meant to describe a succession of night
marches and to imply that the Helvetii rested by day, which is
more than improbable, he would have written not noctis but
noctiur~ (C. G., pp. 632-3). ~Ieu~el (J. B., 1910, p. 55) also
regards the words triduum morati as interpolated, because,
being followed in the next sentence by triduo intermisso, they
are unnecessary. Suspicious they certainly are- but I can
conceive that, after writing them, Caesar wrote tr~duo inter-
tnisso, and forgot that he was repeating himself.

In translating die ~uarto we must remember that the Romans
as a rule reckoned inclusively. Thus if the battle was fought
on a Sunday, the Il:elvetii reached the country of the ~ingones
on Wednesday; but it is impossible to tell what point in that
country they had reached when Cae~ar overtook them. They
may have retreated to Dijon, the place which they would
naturally have made for if as is probable, they already
intended to return to Switzeriand. See the note on 30, \S 5, and
~. G., pp. 631-4.
27, \S 4. ea. See the note on 29, \S 2.

conquirl~ntur refers to obsides and servos, conferuntur to a~ma.

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

in ta~lta ml~ltitudine is virtu ~ equiva]ent to cum tanta multi-
tudo esset.

e~istimarent. See the note on 23, ~ 3.

28, \S 1. in hostiurl ll umero habuit- Probably the 6,000 fugitives
were put to death. Cf. Cicero, Veiv:, ii, 5, 25, \S 64; 28, \S 73;
Cat., iii, 10, \S 25.

\S 5. petentibus Haeduis is not dative, but ablative absolute.
C£ ii, 12, \S 5.
2~, ~ 1. litteris G1aecis. Greek characters were also used by
Druids (vi, 14, ~ 3). Some Gallic inscribed coins have a jumble
of Greek and Roman characters (C. G., pp. 730-1).

\S 2. Meusel (J. B., 1~10, p. 51) doubts whether Qu-l~vum o~nn~um
)e~-~c~l is an interpolation or a corruption. The words seem
superfluous. If they are genuine, they are used as the genitive
of ~uae om~ia, just as ea is used in 27, ~ 4.

milium .~.~. milil6in. The reading of X is milia; but Meusel
(J. B., 1891, p. 275) asks whether Caesar would have been guilty
of such a solecism as equitum nu~le~s fuit Vmilia. He refers
to iv, 15, \S 3--clo~ hostium n~merus capitl~m CCCCXXX m iliun
f?~isset--and many similar passages.

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

fue-Y~nt. Both the number and the tense are noticeable. In
\S 2 (~aesar wrote s~6mma erat, the plural here is due to the
infiuence of the predicate. In \S 2 Caesar probably used the im-
perfect because he was emphasizing the process of computation
which was gradual; whereas in f~ei~lnt we have the final result.

ad. See the first note on 4, ~ 2.

30, \S 1. totills fere Glalliae does not mean the whole of Gaul
in the wider sense,--the sense in which the word is used in 1, \S 1
for the Belgae made war upon Caesar in the following ~ear
and, moreover, it may be doubted ~hether the representatives
of the more distant tribes would have had time to reach him:
indeed for the same reason the words can hardly mean the
whole of that part of Gaul which was inhabited by the Celtae.
Probably, then, Momnnsen is right in supposing that Caesar
was loosely referring to Central Gaul. We nnust remenlber
that he said fere (C. G., p. 634).

~ 2. populi Ro~la~1i. The Aldine edition, which Meusel now
follows, has popull~s Ronlanus, but I do not see any sufficient
reason for rejecting-the authority of the MSS. In B. C., i, 7, \S 7
ini7~1 ias takes an objective genitive: the men of the 13tn legion
declared sese paratos esse imperato~YS sui trib1~nor~mql~e plebis
inii~i ias defendere.

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

~ 5. concilio. M. Jullian may be right in supposing that this
council was held at Bibracte; for, although Caesar's narrative
suggests that the place of meeting was in the country of the
Lingones, he does not £ay so, and political reasons may have
influenced him to go to the capital of his subservient allies, the
Aedui, and to emphasize by his presence there at the head of
his victOriQUS army the fact that he was now the master of Gaul.
Indeed, if the E[elvetii retreated to Dijon (see the note on 26, \S 5),
we luay be almost sure that the council was held at Bibracte

for the distance from Dijon to Besan,con (Vesontio) is much
too short to correspond with Caesar's account of his march
37, ~ 5- 38).

31; ~1. Meusel br;1ckets in occullo, which is omitted in the
first printed edition of the Co)~mentai ies. No doubt the words
are open to suspicion; but Schneider's defence seems to me
reasonable He thinks that Caesar intended to show how
anxious the chiefs were for secrecy, secreto implying that they
wishe(l irlquisitive persons to be excluded from the proposed
interview, i~i occl~lto that they wished it to be held in a hidden
spot

~ 3. Galliae lotius .~.~. A~vei ilos. See p. lix, and cf. vi, 12, \S 1,
where Caesar says that, uhe~ he a)~ived i1~ Gaul, ' one faction
was headed by the Aedui, the other by the Sequani.' There is
no inconsistency between the two passages. Probably the
Sequani, after they were reinforced by Ariovistus, usurped the
supremacy which had been exercised by the Arverni.

\S 5. ad. See the first note on 4, \S 2.
\S 6. clientes here means dependent tribes. A ~tate which had
'clients' e~ercised over them whatever power it could; and
some clients were less dependent upon the same state tha

others. Thus the Cadurci, the Gabali, and the Vellavii were
under the imperium of the Arverni, and therefore had to render
military service when required to do so (vii, 75, \S 2) and
probably also to pay tribute, as the Eburones did to the Atuatuci
(v, 27, \S 2); but the Carnutes, although they were clients of the
Remi, were evidently not under their iinpe~ for they rebelled
against Caesar when the Remi remained loyal (vi, 4, \S 5). Client
tribes certainly managed their own internal affairs, and, as we
learn from vi, 12, \S \S 6-8, occasionally transferred their allegiance
flom one powerful state to another (C. (~., pp. 517-19).

nobilitatern does not mean ' the nobility ' or ' the nobles', but
simply ' men of rank ': in other words, it does not denote a
definite class, like our peerage, but merely the most prominent
membcrs of the class which Caesar (vi, 13, \S 3) calls equites, or
knights. For in vi, 13, immediately after saying that in Gaul
there were only two classes which were held in any esteem, and
immediately before saying that ' one of the two classes consists
of the Druids, the other of the knights, he makes this remark:--
' Generally, when crushed by debt or heavy ta~ation or ill treated
by powerful individuals, they [the common people] bind them-
selves to serve men of rank (plelique cum aut aere a~ieno aut
magnitudi~le tributorum aut iniu~ia potentlorum premu~tur, sese
in se~itutem dicant nobilibus). If the nobiles had formed a
definite class, superior to the equites, ~aesar would have said
that there were only th~ee classes which were held in any esteem.

equitat~. I am not quite sure whether equitatum here means
'cavalry' or 'knighthood'--i.e. 'knights' (see p. lv and vi,
lS). Of course the Aedui 1ad not lost all their cavalry, as 15,
\S 1 proves, but doubtless Diviciacus e~aggerated.

\S 7. hospitio. The hospitiu~n between the Romans and the Aedui
(see p. ~li) was an example of what was called hospitium publi-
cu~n,--a friendly agreement concluded between the Roman
People and a foreigner or a foreign state. The articles of the
agreement were regularly engraved on stone or bron~e und
preserved in the Roman archives (D. S., iii, 300-1).
\S 8. yOtUe1'it. A beginner who had just made the acquain-
tance of Oratio ObliqUa might e~pect to find potui3set here;
but in relative c]auses of this l~ind Caesar often uses the perfect
conjunctive even when secondary tenses precede and follow.
Perhaps in this case the primary tense is used under the influence
of the present infinitive esse (J. B., 1894, pp. 362-3). In Oratio
Rect~ the verb would be pOtl~i.

\S 10. tertlamque parte11~ .~.~. occi~paDisset. This region was
evidently in the plain of Alsace (43, \S 1; C. G., p. 637).

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

~ 11. e~s Gal~iae Ji1iibus. J. Lange (l~.J., cli, 1895, p. 809)
conjectures that Caesar wrote (omnes)Galli eJ~nlbus (pellerentur)
symmetrically with omnes Germani Rhenum transi1ent, but that
a copyist mistook Galli e for Galliae. Perhaps · but it seems to
me more than rash to disregard the MS. tradition for such a
reason.

~ 12. semel is apparently opposed to semel atque iteru~n and
Gallorum to Haedlcos eorumq~e clientes in ~ 6 · so we may con-
clude that the Sequani, finding that they had gained nothing
by their victories (\S 10), had joined the Aedui and made a
desperate effort to get rid of Ariovist~ls. See 40, ~ 8 and
C. G., pp. 554-5.

quod proeli~m .~.~. Magetob~7gar~. This battle was probably
fought in 60 B. C.; for it appears from a letter of Cicero
(Att., i, 19, ~ 2), written on the 1st of March in that year, that
the Aedui had recently suffered a defeat (C. G., p. 554).
~ 12-16. The secondary tenses of the subjunctive, which
occur, according to rule, in \S ~ 3-11 (e~cept in \S 8), are followed
in these last five sentences by primary tenses of the sub-
junctive, which are due to the present infinitives, imperllre,
poscere, S~c. Diviciacus was hcre speakin~ of what had i ecentl~
happened and of what was actually going on. See the note
on 14, \S \S 5-6.

~ 12. obsides .~.~. f~cf~ sit e~plains superbe .~.~. i~per~re
and should be trans]ated by a participial clause:--' Ario-
vistus . .. was e~ercising his authority with arrogance and
cruelty, demanding from eYcry mau of rank his children as
hostages,' &c.

\S 14. ut. Sec the note on 5, ~ 1.
32, \S S. ta)~le/l is here used in what is called a concessive
scnse, and the meaning of reliql6is .~.~. da~et~r might be e~presscd
by ' the others had at any rate a chance of escape '.

quo~ n oppida .~.~. essent, as 38, \S l shows, was an e~aggeration.

33, \S l. beneficio s~o is explained b~l 35, ~ 2.

\S 2. Et is deleted by Meusel (J. B., 1 9lO, p. S9), on the ground
that Caesar could not have used it in the sense of ' also '. This
makes me wonder why he inserts Et at the beginning of 52, ~ 3.
He also deletes in (dicione), which, I may remark, is omitted
in l, because of about 170 passages in Caesar this is the only
one in which a preposition is repeated before the second of two
synonymous or nearly reL1ted concepts connected by a copula-
tivc conjunction.

fraf/es .~.~. allpellatos. See p. ~li, the first note on 3 \S 4 and
C.G.,p.Sl9.
\S 4 ut ante .~.~. fecissent is evidently to be taken not with the
preceding, but with the following clause, a1though in fact it
relates to the former as well.

Cimbri Tei~toni!lue. See pp. lviii~

praesertim.~.~. divideret. Schneider observes that Ariovistus
and his followers, who were settled in the countr~v of the
Sequani, would have been able to cross the Rhone easily
whereas mountains would have been to some e~tent a barrier
but in reality mountains are weak defences, and to cross a rive;
in tho face of a resolute enemy is difficult. Meusel (J. B., l9l0
p. ~4) argues that Caesar would have written ~hodanus solus
(or unus) and that after Se~uailos he would have added in quorum
finibus Ge~nani C0115ide~'ant. These reasons are hardly con-
clusive; but they justify Meusel in bracketing praesertim .~.~.
divide1 et.

34, \S l. ~ltrisque is a correction, made by C~iacconius, of
utriusql~e. The genitive would not be admissible e~cept in
poetry; and, as Meusel says (J. B ,1894, p. 285), even if it were
Caesar would bave written (medium) ipsius et Caesaris

\S 2. Ielit. Perhaps (:~aesar used the present in order to
show that the supposition was probable. In Oratio Recta (opus)
esset would remain esset; but l elit would become vis.
35, \S 2. in cons~latu, . . alipellat1ls esset. Cf. 43, \S 4. I be-
lieve that Caesar (and the Senate) had conferred upon Ariovistus
the titles of King and of Friend of the Roman People in order
to secure his neutrality in view of the threatened E~elvetian
invasion. Caesar foresaw that when he went to Gaul he would
have to deal both with the Helvetii and with Ariovistus; and
to dispose of two formidable hosts separately would be quite as
much as he could manage. Guglielmo Ferrero, the weli-known
Italian historian, does not agree with me: he has argued that
Caesar made an ' alliance ' with Ariovistus in order to purchase
his aid a~ainst the Helvetii. I need only say here that if Caes~r
conferred titles upon Ariovistus in order to obtain his aid against
the Helvetii, it is il~possible to explain why he never availed
himself of it. It was as much as he could do, unaided, to defeat
the Helvetii: why, then, did he not call upon Ariovistus to join
him? Obvious]y because he had never contemp]ated a pro-
ceeding which wou]d para]yse his policy. If he had accepted
the aid of Ariovistus against the Helvetii, it would have been
impossible for him to turn round afterwards and expel Ariovistus
from Gaul. And that was what he meant to do ( C. G., pp. 218 24).

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

\S 4. id is deleted by Meusel (J.B., 1910, p. 59), who remarks
that Caesar writes si ita fecisse(n)t or si id fecisset, but not si id
ita fecisset. Probably the id was due to ditto~raphy,--the
careless repetition of a word by a copyist in the same or nearly
thesameform. Schneider,however,defendsid,onthegroundthat
Caesar had to define his requirements as precisely as possible.

quo~iam .~.~. defe1ideret. See pp. Iix-lx. Messala and Piso
were consuls in 61 B.C. Quod is not a conjunction but a relative
pronoun, equivalent to ~antum; and the clause o~uod .~.~. posset
might be translated by 'so far as the public interest would
permit '. Commodo is ablative, not dative.

3~ ~ 4. I~ectig~lia .~.~.faceret. We may infer that the Aedui
relying upon (:~aesar's aid, had withheld, or threatened to with-
hold, part of the tribute. The subjunetive would be used even
if the speech were in Oratio Recta, for the clause qui .~.~.faceret
is caus~l.

~ 5. Io~l~e .~.~. afilti~ruin. These words are eas~ to understand
but hard to translate. Perhaps this will do,--(if not,) 'much
good would the title of " Brethren of the Roman People " do
them ! '

\S 7, qi~i inter .~.~. subissent. It ma~ be gathered from this
boast that Ariovistus arrived in Gaul in 71 B. C. ' for he afiirmed
(44, \S 2) that he ' had not left home and kinsmen without great
e~pectations and great inducements ', and these words are
har~ly consistent with the supposition that his wanderin~rs had
begun in German~ (C. G., pp 553-4)
37, ~ 2. eO1-i~m. See the first note on S, ~ 4.

\S 4. Sueborl~m, Accordinr, to Tacitus (Ge)m~ (, 38), Suel)i
was a general name, denoting a people whose several tribes
had pi1lticular names. The hundred pagi are noticed again

~ 5. r e fru~ne11ta~ i~ .~.~. co~nparata. These words, as one might
infer from 39, \S 6 and 40, ~ 11, are not identical in meaning
with fr~ ento .~.~. eo~1pa1-ato~ The sense is 'he arranged as
quickly as possible for a supply of corn '. The corn was to be
sent after him.

38,~1. fiidi~ique~iam.. .proct~ssi.~se. Meusel(J.B.,l910,p.44)
is, I tliink, right in bracketing these words, although I do not
accept all his arguments. Following (cum) tnidlli riam pro-
cessisset, the clause is suspicious. Moreover, it would seem to
imply that Ariovistus had already completed the three days'
journey 'from his own territor~'--that is, from the territory
which he had wrested from the Sequani (31, \S 10) when Caesar's
informant started on his errand. If so, Ariovistus would nearly
have reached Vesontio (Besancon) when the messenlrer reached
Caesar, andthe suspectedwordswould be inexplicable. There-
fore, althou~h I can frame no theory to account for the supposed
interpolation, I tentatively follow Meusel (C. G., pp. 637-8).

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

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

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

MDC, which represents the actual distance, is an emenda-
tion, due to Napoleon IIT, for the MS. reading, DC.

3~, \S 1. Kraner says that congressos can only be used of hostile
encounters, and therefore can only refer to Gallorum, not to merca-
torum. But in vi, 5, \S 5 cum Transrhenanis con~redi obviously
means ' to join the peoples beyond the Rhine '.

mentes animosque may be rendcred by ' judgement and nerve '.

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

praefectis. These were the officers of the au~iliary corps,--
the archers and slingers (see p. Ia~iii). The cavalry officers were
called piaefecti e~ouitum. They are not referred to here, as one
may gather from \S 5.

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

\S 3. di~eret. Schneider remarks that the mood is due to a
kind of attraction, quam .~.~. diceiet being equivalent to quae
sibi, q~t dicebat .~.~. necessaria esset. Cf. the note on 23, \S 3.

\S 4. T'ulgo .~.~. obsignabantur. Meusel (J. B., 1910, pp. 44-5)
argues that these words are an interpolation. The reasons
which he gives--that they break the context and, in their
e~isting position, can only refer to non nulli in \S 3, with which
they are inconsistent--appear to me inadequate. Any one who
reads the chapter in my translation of the Gallic War wi]l
I think, admit that the suspected words fit naturally into
their place- and I find it impossible to believe that they were
invented.
40, \S l. omniul1lqi~e ordinllq~l .~.~. ce1lti(~io~ us. Councils of
war were not attended by centurions except those of ' the first
rank',--the six centurions of the first cohort of each legion.
All the centurions were summoned to this council, which was
not a council of war, because all were, more or less, concerned.

~/dhil~itis ce~tl~rionil~us, vehementer eos incasavit. This con-
struction frequently recurs in Caesar, often apparently, as here,
for the sake of empha~is, sometimes perhaps as a mere man-
nerism. AdhiZ)itos ceiltui iolles incusal it would be much less
forcible than the expression which Caesar used.

putai~ent The learner should not pass on to the next sentence
until he is sure that he underst;3nds why Caesar wroteputare~t,
not putabant. When he really understands he vill never be
puzzled again. If Caesar had used the indicative, the meaning
would have been, 'Caesar accused them because they thought ';
in other words. 'Caesar's motive for accusing them was that
they thou~ht,' &c. But this is not exactly what he meant.
Ilis meaning was, ' Caesar accused them, and gave as his reason
for accusing them the fact that they thought,' ~c. To brin(r
out the meaning of such subjunctives in idiomatic English
requires hard thinking. This translatioll, I thinl~, will serve .--
' Observing the state of affairs, Caesar called a meeting, to
which the centurions of all grades were summoned, and rated
them severely for presuming to suppose,' 5~c.

\S 2. iudicalet. According to one of the rules formulated by
~rammarians, we should expect iudicaie: for the question is
what they call rhetorical,--that is to say, no answer is expected;
and in Oratio Recta iudicaiet would become iudicat. But I have
noticed that Caesar often violates so-called rules of Orl1tio
Obliqua; and since he was certainly a master of his own
language, one nnay bc allowed to suggest that the rulcs nced
revision. I find that Meusel (J.B., 1894, pp. 388-9) aorees
with me.
\S 4. Quod si. See the first note on 14, ~ 3. Here, however,
quod must be translated: its English equivalent is ' But ' (sup-
posing, ~zc.).

\S 5. Cimbi is .~.~. pul.sis. Sce p. li~.

cum non minorem .~.~. vid~batur. Meusel (J. B. 1910, p. 42)
rightly brackets these words, because vi(lebatur is ungram-
matical. In the MSS. cum precedes Cinib1 is; but as Factum .~.~.
menloria without the addition of Cimbris .~.~.y/~lsiswould hardly
have been intelligible to ignorant centurions, Cimbris... pillsis
must have been written by ~aesar, and accordingly I ~ollow
Meusel in transposing cum. Beware of translating videbatl~r
by ' seemed ': the meaning is that the army, as all could see (or
as ~oas evident), had earne~l, &c. One might translate by ' the
army confessedly earned '

se1vili tumultu. This insurrection, the leader of which was
the famous Spartacussoccurred in 73-71 B. C

sublevarint is an emendation, proposed by Morus, for sub-
levarent, the reading of all the MSS. el~cept f, which has
si~blevaret. The imperfect is evidently wrong, for in Oratio
Recta the verb would be sublevaverunt.

~ 7. slcperarint is the reading of a, which Meusel follows,
apparently against his own inclination (J.B., 1894, p. 366):
13 has sl~perassent. ~Ieusel thinks that the contracted form of
s?(peraveriilt is somewhat suspicious, and that if (~aesar had
written superarint, followed immediately by potuerillt, he would
most probably have used present tenses (com~noveat and
quae)ai/t) in ~ 8. Moreover, he adds, the relative clause quibus-
Cl~m . sllper~sse1~t is closely connected with what prece~les
and corresponds with the other relative clauses (\S \S 5-6) in
which we find the plupelfects accepissent and timuissent, and it
is more likely that the writer of 13 would have altered supel~
assent into supera~int than vice versa. I may remark that
Meusel himself reads perequitarit in vii, 66, \S 7; and I a~ree with
Prof. Postgate, who observes (C.R., 1903, p. 444) that (~aesar
used ' one tense [s~perai i11t] for the recent victory of the
Helvetii and another Lsuperassent] for the remote defeat ' of the
slaves.

\S 8. adDersuin... Galloi~lm refers to the battle of ~ageto-
briga (31, \S 12).

9. barbaros does not here mean 'barbarian', though it
~ plies some contempt, such as an average Englishman feels
when he calls Indians ' the natives'. Ho1nines .~.~. imperitos
may be translated by ' the simple natives '.

~ 10. The position of sul~m shows that it is emphasized.

desperare .~.~. viderentllr is the reading of a: 1~ has desperare
aut praescribere auderent which evidently will not do. I was
once tempted to adopt an ingenious emendation, proposed by
Mommsen (J.B. 1894, p. 201),--de.~perare viderentur al/t prae-
scribere auderent; but it seems to me that although the notion
of ' daring ' is implied in praescribere, viderentur is required with
both verbs.

\S 12. d-.cantu~: See the note on 31, \S \S 12-16.
~ 14. ia lo~lqio~enl di~m. See the ~rst note on 7, \S 6.

\S 15. sequatui: See the note on 34, \S 2, and J.B., 189~,
pp. 363-4.

dubitet is a correction, made by Meusel (J.B., 1894, p. 364).
The MSS. have dubit~uet, which, after sequatui; is out of
order.

praeto~iam coho~te)~u The praetorian cohort, or general s
bodyguard, was composed of the bravest men in the army.
The first general who formed a praetorian cohort was Scipio
Aemilianus in the siege of Numantia (133 B. C.).

41, ~  ata. I retain the MS. readin~, which seems to
me justified by Cicero (O.ff., i, 19, ~ 64--in hac elatione aninli
cllpiditas p~i~cipatus in~ascitu~) instead of J. Lange's
emendation, inlata, which is, however, supported by ii, 25,
\S 3andvi,43,\S 5.

\S 3. p~imorvrll ordinlcm ce~ltu~ionib~s. Who were the 'cen-
turions of the first rank ' ? No less than eight theories have been
devised about them, but it is, I believe, now generally admitted
that they were the si~ centurions of the 1st cohort in each
legion. For the ten cohorts in each legion were numbered;
the lst ranked above the rest (v, 15, \S 4); and it may therefore
be presumed that all took rank according to their numbers.
That this was the case under the Empire is certain, for the
10th cohort was the lowest. Moreover, a centurion was pro-
moted in the civil war ' from the 8th class to the ranlk of
primipill~s or chief centurion of the legion; and Modestus
a centurion who had served for eighteen years in four grades
of rank, held the position of hastat~ls posteriol in the 3rd cohort,
which accords with the supposition that the 3rd cohort ranked
below the first two, but above all the rest. A passage in Tacitus
(//ist. iii, 22) shows that in the time of the Emperor Galba
there were not less than six pri~10rU~I ordi~ centuriones in
the 7th legion. Lastly, it is proved by inscriptions that the
centurions of the 1st cohort known as pri~ s pilus prio~; primus
p~inceps prioi; and p~in~us hastatus prior were the first three
centurions of the legion; and the natural conciusion is that the
4th, 5th, and 6th centurions of the lst cohort also ranked above
all the centurions of the other cohorts.

I am, however, inclined to believe that hesides the si~ centu-
rions of the 1st cohort there were occasionally others who ranked
as prii)~orum ordin~n centulio~es. Caesar mentions three cen-
turions (v, 35, \S 6; vi, 38, \S 1; B.C. iii, 91, \S 1) who had been
the chief centurions of their respective legions; and he mentions
them in a way which shows that they were still respected by
the men just as much as if they had still been chief centurions.
Perhaps they were evocati, that is to say, m en who had completed
their term of service, and were serving again as volunteers: any-
how it seems not improbable that they would have ranked with
the prin~o~7~m ordinum centuriones (C. G., pp. 567-79).

\S 4. 1lt millum amplius .~.~. duceret can ODly mean that the
circuitous part of the m;3rch was 50 Roman miles long- and
this is just what it would have been if Diviciacus had conducted
Caesar bv the natural route which Stoffel indicated, namely, the
road that leads past Voray, l~ioz, Filain, and Vallerois-le-Bois
to Villerse~el. and thence to Belfort. In regard to amplius see
the note on 38, ~ 5.

\S 5. cum iter ;~on intern~itteret. Ag these words imply. it was
usual to give troops a day's rest occasionally- but evidently
Caesar wished to lose no time before encountering .~riovi~tus.

42, \S 1. ouod antea .~.~. existi~naret. See the note on 35, \S 2.
I cannot e~plain ~vhy Caesar wrote postu.laret, accessisset, and
existi11la~et instead of yostulal e) it, accessenit, and e cistimet, but
perhaps, as Meusel suggests (J. B., 1894, p. 362), mittit found its
way into the te~t owing to a copyist's blonder, and should be
replaced by misit.

~ 5. Notice that oi)l nibus equis is ablative, and Gallis equitibus
dative. Caesar says omniblls (equis) because the Gallic cavalry
had of course spare horses.

legionarios is used emphatically in contradistinction to eql /itibuS
and also to the au~iliaries, who were brigaded with the legions.

Meusel (J.B., 1910, p. 54) regards cui .~.~. conJ~debat as a n~ar-
ginal addition because in 40, \S 15 Caesar has already e~pressed
his confidence in the 10th legion. Perhaps the words are open
to suspicion; but Caesar may have forgotten what he had said
or may have desired to emphasize it.

~j 6. ad equl~m rescribeie means ' enter in the list of equites '.
In Caesar's time the Roman equites were the class engaged in
business--banking, money-lending, &c.--which senators werc
forbidden to take part in (though they found ways of evading
the law), and comprising all whose property exceeded in value
400,000 sesterces (about .£3,333)· but originally the equites
were the cavalry, who were selected from the wealthiest
citizens. I suggest this as a translation of plus qua~ .~.~. re-
scribere:--' Caesar is better than his word: he promised to mal~e
the 10th his bodyguard; and now he's knighting us.'
43, \S 1. Plailities erat Inagi1a. This was evident]y the plain
of Alsace. See 53, ~1.
t~lullcs terrenus. It is generally taken for granted that this
was a natural feature,--a knoll. But if so, why did Caesar
de~cribe it as te~renus (earthen) ? He mentions four other
t~muli ( vi, 8, ~ 3; 40, ~ 1; B. C., i, 43, \S 1; iii, 51, \S 8); but to
none of them does he apply the epithet terrenlls. It is true that
Livy (xx~viii, 20, \S 4) speaks of colles ter)e~los: but he is con-
tra~ting them with rocky heights; and if- the tumulus in
question was a knoll, it mattered nothing for the purpose of
Caesar's narrative whether it was rocky or grassy. It is
certainly possible that it was simply an artificial earthen
mound or barrow, which has disappeared. If it was a knoll,
there is only one with which it can be identified,--the ' tertre
de Plettig '. See the note on 48, \S 1 and C. G., pp. 639-40, 642,
~i48-9
\S 4 amplissime is the reading of <1. J. H. Schmal~ (B. ph. W
1912, col. 891-6) shows by many quotations that the Rornans
often preferred an adverb where we should use an adjective
\S 7. Beware of translating ut by ' that '.
omni tempo)e. This was a diplomatic e~alJgeration on the
part of Caesar. Towards the end of the second century B.C.
Bituitus, King of the Arverni, and not long before Caesar's time
another Arvernian, Celtillus, the father of the great Vercinge-
toril~ (vii, 4, \S 1), had exercised a loose supremacy over Gaul.
~ 8. velit. Meusel (J.B. 1894, p. 370) changes this into
Teliet, on the grouud that if Caesar had once adopted a prin~ary
tense after the preceding secondary tenses, he would in the
ne~t sentence have written possit. But, as Prof. Postgate
remarks (C. R., 1903, p. 443), 'a recognized use of the Primary
Tenses is the one in General ~la~ims or Universal Staten1ents.'

posset ? See the note on 40, \S 2.

\S 9. in mandatis does not mean 'among his instructions', for
tbe instructions referred to were the only ones which Caesar
gave, but is equivalent to ~nandato~m loco (or nomine).

44, \S 2. Notice that sua sponte does not mean the same here
asin9,\S 2.

corsuerint instead of consuessert after praedicavit is perhaps
to be e~plained by the fact that a present infinitive, ca~ere.
precedes (J.B., 1894, p. 362, with which cf. p. 360) · or the
primary tense may have been used because the statement is
general. See the notes on 31, \S 8 and 43, ~ 8 (veli~).

\S 3. ~1l0 proelio,--the battle of Magetobrlga. Cf. 31, \S 12.

\S 4. deceltare. Caesar olten uses para~Ms with an intinilive;
but, as in 5, \S 3 and 41, \S 2, he al£o uses it with ad a.nd Lhe
gerundive.
~ 5. atqlre is an emendation, proposed by R. Menge, instead
of the MS. reading, idque. Schneider e~p]ains id as eq-livalcnt
to ut populi Romani ai~licus esset.

\S 7. Jinibus egressuiil is tlle reading of a: Klotz ((~. S., p. 242)
prefers that of ~,--ffnes ingress~ He says that it is not ~er-
tain that a Ronlan army had never before crossed the northern
*ontier of the Province, and that if one had, Ariovistus would
not have cared; for all that mattered to him was that Caesar
should not invade his province,--the territory which he had won
from the Sequani. Klotz accordin~ly deletes prouiilciae, which

he supposes, crept into the te~t under the influence of the
following pnovincian~ s1~anl; and he remarks that when once
pnovinciae had found its way into the MSS. it became necessary
to alter ~ines in~ressun~ into Jinib~ls eg~essunl. The argument is
ingenious; but I should not feel justified in following Klotz. It is
practically certain that no Roman army had ever before marched
beyond the Roman Province; and it seems natural that Ario-
vistus should have complained that Caesar had done so. Be-
sides, Caesar would hardly have used ~falliae in this context in
the sense of Gaul miilus the Provilme.

\S 8. Quid .~.~. ve~ et? Schneider punctuates thus,--Quid
sibi ~ellet, cu~ .~.~. ueniret ? (' What did Caesar mean by invading
his dominions ? ').

\S 9. The reading of a is quod fratles Hafduos appellatos
dil enet, while 7r has ql~od a se Haeduos amicos appellatos dicenet,
and p has quod a se Haedi~os appe7latos amicos dice1et. All
editors are agreed that ~I se, which is here meaningless, is a
relic of a se~atu; and the different po~itions of amicos in thc
two families of 13 suggest that it is a gloss. Klotz (C. S., pp. 242-
3) supposes that in the archetype the te~t was quod a se Haeduos
appelhltos diceret, something having dropped out after se. He
proposes to fill up the gap thus,--quod a se <natu fratres populi
Romani> Haeduos appellatos dicenet; for, as he says,fr~tres alone
was not the offlcial title. But is it likely that Ariovistus would
have troubled himself about the official title ?

(tam) ba~ban~m might here be translated by (such) ' a dolt .

bello Allobrogum proximo. See 6, \S 3, an~ p. Ix.

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

\S 13. decessisset, compared with interfecerit (\S 12), is noticeable.
Meusel (J. B., 1894, pp. 360-1) thinks that the change of tense
is due to coinpertum habere (\S 12). I doubt this. Prof. Postgate
(C. R ,1903, p. 443) points out that ' when Ariovistus is threat-
ening Caesar .~.~. he use~ the Primary tenses [which are more
vivid~, when promising him rewards the Secondary '.
45, \S 2. Bello .~.~. Fabio ~lIaxii~/o. This war occurred in
121 B.C. See p. ~li.

4~, \S 1. H. J. Muller (W. ~1. Ph., 1894, col. 566) is perhaps
ri~ht in inserting et after ade~l~itare

\S 3. per~idem,--namely, a Caesa;e datam. The meaning is
that they had been surrounded 'through'--that is, through
their trust in--' Caesar's pledged word '. We might translate
thus,--'that he had pledged his word and then surrounded
them.'

~ ~. fecissent. Meusel adopts H. Kleist's emendation, fecisse.

ut. See the first note on 43, \S 7

47, \S 1. Professor J. C. Rolfe of the University of Pennsylvania
has suggested to me that Biduo post means ' On the next day '
and I believe that he is right. For triduo post certainly means post
tertium diem, it is admitted that post te~tium diem (iv, 9, ~ 1) is
equivalent to te~tio die, recl~oning inclusively; an(l therefore
biduo post is sure]y equivalent to altero die, which is substan-
tially the same a~ poste)o die.
eos. See the first note on 5, \S 4.

neque is evidently cquivalent to neq~e tamen,--' but not '.

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

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

\S 3. Meusel (J.B., 1910, pp. 55-6) deletes ex suis, on the
ground that, following e~ suis le~atis aliquem ad se mitte~et in
~ 1, legatum ec suis could only mean legah~m ex suis l~gatis,
which, he says, is impossible. I think, however, that Caesar
wrote ex suis in contrast to ~. Valerium Procillum (who was not
a Roman, but a provincial) in ~ 4 · and I find that Klotz (C. S.,
p. 238, n. 1) agrees with me, though he would alter legatis in

1 into le(7atuln.

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

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

hospitio. By the Roman institution called hospitium privatum
agreements were concluded between individual Roman citi~ens
and individusl foreigners,under which the former were entitled
to receive hospitality from the latter. It has been remarked
that this practice must have been very useful in places
~here the accommodation of inns was not available (D. S., iii,
298-9). Provincials upon whom the members of a governor's
C. Valerius Fhlccus was Governor of the Province in 83 B. C.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, after Roman citizen-
ship had been conferred, as a result of the Social war, upon all
the free population of Italy, eminent men had been authorized
to confer the civitas upon deserving foreigners- and Caesar
exercised this privilege on his own responsibility. See Cicero,
Pr(~ Archia, 10, \S 26; Pro Balbo, 21, \S 48; Fa~n., ~iii, 36, \S 1;
and Dion Cassius, xli, 24, \S 1.

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

The words sub ~1lonte conse~it, as Stoffel remarks, show why
Caesar did not attack Ariovistus while he was making the flank
march which is described in 48, \S 2. They prove th&t he
marched along high ground, where the Romans could not attack
him without heavy loss: for Caesar, who Wc1S economical of
words, would not havc told us that Ariovistus encamped at the
foot of a mountain unless the statement had been essential to
his narrative; nor would it have been esiential unless it had im-
plied that Ariovistus, after encamping there, ascended the slopes
in order to e~ecute his march without the risk of being attacked.

Accordin.J to Stoffel,Caesarmarched frornVesontio (Besancon)
at the rate of about sixteen miles a day, and encamped at the
end of his seven da~s' march (41, \S 5) on the left bank of the
Fecht, between Ostheim and Gemar: the tumulus terrenus ~a~is

andis (43, \S 1) was the 'tertre de Pletti~'- Ariovistus made
his flank march on the lower slopes of the Vosges between the
defiles of the Weiss and the Strengbach; and Caesar made the
smaller camp which he mentions in 49, \S \S 1-2 on a spur of
the Vosges between Bebelnheim and Mittelweier. The ' tertre
de Plettig' is the onl;y knoll which answers to Caesar's descrip-
tion; therefore, unless the tumulus was artificial (see the
note on 43, \S 1), this fact settles the question in favour of
Stoffel. Stoffel also affirms that the only part of the Vosges
along which the tlank march of Ariovistus would have been
practicable is the part between the two defi]es which I have
mentioned; but I am not sure that it would not have been
equally practicable further southward, between Cernay and
Roderen, where M. Jullian places it. M. Jullian thinks that
Caesar oliginally encamped about a mile and a half south-west
of Cernay; that Ariovistus encamped, in order to cut Caesarts
communication, at Roderen, near the 'benchmark' fixed by
the en~ineers who mapped the country; and that Caesar pitched
his smaller camp on the plateau between Michelbach and Guer-
wenheim. ~e objects that Stoffel places the battle-field too far
north , but Caesar's words (41, \S 5) show that he marched rapidly
from Vesontio and therefore probably pushed as far northward
as Stoffel thinks, and, moreover, it seems not nnlikely that
Ariovistus, after he had failed to seize Vesontio (38, ~ 2, 7)
may have thought it wise to lure Caesar as far as possible from
his base. Between Stoffel and .Jullian e~cavation alone could
decide; but Stoffel could not e~cavate, as the site was covered
by vineyards (C. G., pp. 63t~-52).

frumento .~.~. suppo~taretql r . Cf. 37, \S 5; 39, \S 1; and 40, \S 11.

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

\S 3. pro castr1s .~.~. habuit. Caesar did this in order to restore
the nerve of his soldiers, who had perhaps not quite shaken off
the effect of their recent panic (see 39-40). We may infer fro

B. C., iii, 55, \S 1, 84, \S 2 that artillery (see p. Ixiv), of which
Ariovistus bad none, were mounted, ready to l)rotect them.
Ariovistus might attack if he liked: but if he attacked, it would
be at his peril, if he declined the challenge, the legionaries
would be assured that the Germans were not invincible.

?~t .~.~. non deesset. Though l~t hore e~presses a purpose, and
the learner knows that in final sentences he must not write
~t non, but ne, he will not suppose that ~aesar wrote bad Latin.
Ne here would be very weak, and 11t .~.~. non deesset is justi-
fiable, because non deesset is virtually equivalent to ade.~set.
Meusel, indeed (L. C., iii, a410), and other editors take /~t as
consecntive; but Schneider agrees with me.
4~, \S 1. castris .~.~. delegit. See the note on 48, \S 1.

g 3. Hic loc?bs.~.~. aberat. Meusel brackets these words on
the ground that it is incredible that l~aesar would have repeated
the clear statement which he bad nuade three lines before.

\S 5. a~ ciliorum. These auxiliaries were archers and slingers.
See p. ]~iii.

50, \S 2. meridiem. H.J. Muller proposed meridie, an emendation
which Meusel adopts (J.B, 1894, p. 289), on the ground that
in Caesar and all careful writers circiter is invariably an adverb.
The emendation may be right, for in MSS. m is frequently added
by mistake at the end of a word; but ~icero several times used
circiter as a preposition. See Att., ii. 17, ~ 1 (circiterId. Maias),
Far~., iii, 5, \S 4, xv, 3, \S 2 (circiter Idl~s Se~ctiles), and for other
instance9 ~.l. L, iii, 1100.
\S 4. matres f~n~iliae. Cicero, in connexion with pater mater
and filius, uses the form familias. See H. Merguet, Handle~cikon
zu Cicero 1905, pp. 500-1.

\S 5. non esse fas--' it was not fated '. Fas est is here equiva-
lent to el~aprQI (llf~po~al).

novam lunam. This, as we may infer from 40, \S 11 (iamq~e
esse ~n agr~s frumenta matura), was the new moon of Septem-

51, \S 1. alanos is another word for au~tlia. They were
so called because they were commonly posted on the wings of
the regular army.

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

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

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

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

\S 5. complures nostri does not mean e~actly the same as com-
pl~res nostroruiil, but is equivalent to complures, qvi era71t nostri.
The sense is ' on 07/r side many ', &c.

manibus is ablative.

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

but in Att., ii, 18, \S 1 adulesce1ls Cu1-io probal)ly means 'the
younger Curio '.

53, ~ 1. o ~ es .~.~. ve~teru1lt. We have seen (51, \S 2) that
before the battle, the Germans closed their rear with cl semi-
circle of wagons, 'to do away with all hope of escape.' Yet
they now fled. Frontinus (ii, 3, ~ 6) explains tllis apparent
inconsistency, but we cannot tell on what authority. 'As the
Germans,' he says, ' being h~mmed in, were fighting with the
courage of despair, Caesar ordered that they should be allowed
an exit, and fell upon them when they were fleeing' (CaeSa1
Ge~nanos inclusos, ex desperatione fortius pl~na~tes, emitti
iussit fugientesque aggressus est).

L. The MS. readings are ~6i11qlle and V; but Plutarch
(Caesa~; 19) writes arn~;luu~ ~rp(lKo~rlovs (50 Roman miles), and
Orosius (vi, 7, \S 10) and Eutropius (vi, 17) quinqua~inta ~ if~
passuum. We may infer that MSS. of Caesar, several centuries
older than any which are now e~tant, had the reading L; and
as the battle-field was certainly much more than five miles
from the Rhine, I adopt that reading,--very doubtfully. Doubt-
fully, because it is hardly credible that the Germans, after
a desperate battle. fled 50 miles in one heat (even the exhaust-
ing retreat from Waterloo to Charleroi was not more than 25
miles), still less that some of them then swam the Rhine · and,
moreover, I cannot see why they should have fled 50 miles when
the Rhine was not more than 12 to 15 miles away. I have
suggested elsewhere ( C. G., p. 657 ) that ( aesar may have written
XV; and Meusel (J.B., 1912, p. 88) thinks that this emendation
is admissible. It has also been su~gested that the Ill was then
regarded as an arm of the Rhine; but this is unlikely, for
when Caesar ~poke of the ~he~,us in 54, \S 1 he certainly meant
the main stream of the Rhine. May we suppose that some of
the Germans fled across the Ill to the nearest point of the
Rhine, and others, who escaped pursuit, towards Strasburg ? If
all fled ~iO miles, fu~itives and pursuers must both have rested
in tlle night, of whlch Caesar says nothing (C. ~., pp. 655-7).

\S 5. t~inis. The distributive is necessary, becausc Caesar only
uses catenae in the plural.

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

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

54, \S 2. in hiberna .~.~. dedu~cit. The battle-field, from which
Caesar led his army in Sequano$ was itself in territory which
had belonged to the Seqnani, bnt which Ariovistus had wre~ted

fiom them (31, ~ 10). Presumably Caesar now restored it to
the Sequani. By quartering his legions in the country of the
Sequani instead of withdrawing them into the Province he
made it evident that his purpose was nothing less than to
conquer Gaul.

\S 3. ad convent~s agendos. The word con~entl~s iS used by
Caesar in the sense of an assembly or meetin~ (18, ~ 2), of the
commullity of Roman citizens living in a provincial town (B. ~
iii. 29, ~ 1, &c.), and, as in this passage, v, 1, ~ 5, 2, \S 1, vi, 4i,
~ 3, and vii 1, \S 1, of judicial or administrative busiuess per-
formed by Limself, as Governor, in an assembly of Roman
citizens or provincials. As he went on circuit, like a judge
through Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum to discharge these duties,
we may translate ad conventl~s agendos by ' to hold the assizes '.
He used to go to North Italy for the winter, partly with this
object, partly to keep in touch with Italian politics, and to look
after his ovvn interests.