% tex2asc-version: 1.0
%
%    T. Rice Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    Book II.
%
%    Contributor:   Konrad Schroder <perseant@u.washington.edu>
%
%    Original publication data:
%         Holmes, T. Rice. _C._Iuli_Caesaris_Commentarii_/_
%              _Rerum_in_Gallia_Gestarum_VII_/_A._Hirti_Commentarius_VIII._
%         Clarendon: Oxford University Press, 1914.
%
%    Version: 0.01 (Beta), 29 August 1993
%
%    This file is in the Public Domain.
%
\input ks_macros.tex
\docversion=1.0pt \warnifold
{\bf
\centerline{C.~IULI CAESARIS}
\centerline{DE BELLO GALLICO}
\centerline{COMMENTARIUS SECUNDUS}}
\bigskip
{\bf 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 $\ldots$ Gallia) {\it legionesque
essent conlocatae\/} (in hibernis), \&c.

{\it 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. {\it 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.

{\it 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. {\it partim $\ldots$ 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 $\ldots$ 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. {\it in Gallia $\ldots$ occupabantur:\/} See pp. liv--lv.

{\bf 2}, \S 1. {\it duas $\ldots$ 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.

{\bf 3}, \S 2. {\it 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. {\it paratosque esse $\ldots$ iuvare}. See the note on i, 44, \S 4

\S 4. {\it Germanosque $\ldots$ incolant}. See 4, \S 10.

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

\S 5. {\it fratres $\ldots$ 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.

{\it qui $\ldots$ 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 $\ldots$ an opportunity to shake off the rule' of
the Suessiones.

{\bf 4}, \S 1. {\it plerosque Belgas $\ldots$ Germanis}. See pp. xxx--xxxi.

\S 2. {\it Teutonos $\ldots$ 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 $\ldots$ 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. {\it cognoverint}, following {\it dicebant. is}, as Meusel remarks
({\it J. B.}, 1894, p.~368), surprising: one might have expected
{\it 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. {\it Apud eos $\ldots$ 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.

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

\S 10. {\it qui $\ldots$ 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 {\it 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 the various tribes had promised to furnish
amounted to 296,000 men. Caesar does not guarantee the accuracy of this
number; but neither does he question it. Various critics have insisted
that it is grossly exaggerated; and there is some ground for their
scepticism. For, supposing that the proportion of fighting men to women
and children was about the same as in the Helvetian host (i, 29, \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 number much more than 40,000 men. See the note on i, 7, \S 2.

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

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

{\it 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. {\it in unum locum coactas}. Where did the Belgae concentrate? It
is not certain whether they marched against Caesar up the valley of the
Aisne---the Axona which Caesar mentions in this sentence---or towards
the Aisne from north to south.  M.~Jullian decides for the former,
because it was the natural route for the Bellovaci and the Suessiones,
who furnished the strongest contingents to the confedelate army. But if
they had taken this route, it is unlikely that they would have marched
on the north of the Aisne, as the narrative (5--7) proves that they did,
to attack Caesar, who was still on the south: for if they had marched on
the south, they would have compelled him either to fall back or to march
westward against them, for fear his communications should be cut; and
M.~Jullian himself admits that if they had concentrated on the Aisne,
their natural line of march would have been the road from Soissons to
Reims. Besides, it is impossible to find a satisfactory site for Bibrax,
the stronghold which they attacked when they were marching against
Caesar (6, \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).

{\it 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}.

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

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

\S 6. {\it 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.

{\it 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.

{\bf 6}, \S 2. {\it testudine}. See the note on i, 24, \S 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\S 4. {\it ad extremas $\ldots$ constituit}. Unless there had been a {\it
castellum\/} at the southern as well as at the northern extremity of
each trench, the southward prolongation would have been almost useless.

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

\S 5. {\it duabus $\ldots$ relictis}. I need not explain why Caesar tells
us that the legions which he left in camp were the two newly raised
legions.

{\it quo}. Perhaps the reader has already seen that this word depends
upon {\it duci\/} mentally supplied from the next clause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

\S 5. {\it viderentur $\ldots$ continerentur}. See the note on i, 6, \S 3.
{\it Viderentur} is equivalent to {\it sibi viderentur}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{\bf 15}, \S 4. {\it eorum} is suspicious. Schneider remarks that if it is
deleted, {\it his rebus $\ldots$ virtutem} must be taken as applying to
mankind in general, not to the Nervii in particular; but Meusel ({\it
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) {\it eorum} but (animos)
{\it suos}. Rutherford, however, says (Gallic War; II and III, p.~61),
`we are to understand that the precautions were taken by the chieftains
to protect the people.'  In other words, he believes that the implied
subject of {\it existimarent\/} is {\it duces}, and that {\it eorum\/}
means the Nervii in general.  I may add that Caesar does occasionally
use {\it eorum}, {\it iis}, \&c.  instead of a reflexive pronoun. See 1,
\S 2; i, 5, \S 4; 6, \S 3.

\S 5. {\it dedidissent $\ldots$ proiecissent}. See the note on i, 36, \S
4.

{\bf 16}, \S 1. {\it inveniebat}. The learner should ask himself why Caesar
used the imperfect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

\S 3. {\it stationes\/} here means `piquets'.

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

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

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

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

{\it aggeris\/} (see the note on 12, \S 5,---{\it aggere iacto\/})
evidently means `wood'.

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

\S 4. Remember that {\it alteram\/} means `{\it the\/} other'---in other
words, the right wing---not `another'.

\S 5. {\it insignia}. See the note on i, 22, \S 2 ({\it insignibus\/}).

{\it defuerit}. See the note on i, 26, \S 2 ({\it pugnatum sit\/}).

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

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

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

{\bf 23}, \S 1. {\it ut}. See the note on 19, \S 6.

\S 3. {\it ex loco superiore\/} must, I think, be taken with {\it
profligatis\/}; but von G\"oler ({\it G.K.}, p.~80, n.~3) couples the
words with {\it erant congressae}. Obviously the general sense of the
whole sentence is, in either case, the same.

\S 4. {\it $\langle$ab$\rangle$ aperto latere}. See the note on i, 25,
\S 6 ({\it $\langle$ab$\rangle$ latere aperto\/}).

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

{\bf 24}, \S 1. {\it levis $\ldots$ pedites},---the archers and slingers
mentioned in 7, \S 1 and 10, \S 1.

{\it dixeram}. See the note on 1, \S 1 ({\it dixeramus\/}).

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

\S 4. {\it castra [nostra]}. The reading of $\alpha$ is {\it castra
compleri, nostras\/}; of $\beta$, {\it castra nostra compleri\/}. Meusel
({\it J.B.}, 1910, p.~65) infers that {\it nostra\/}({\it s\/}), which,
following {\it nostris castris\/} (\S 2), is superfluous, was a marginal
addition.

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

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

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

{\it subeuntes} and {\it intermittere\/} are closely connected in sense.

\S 2. {\it manipulos laxare\/}. In regard to the maniples see p.~lxiii.
The three maniples of each cohort probably always stood side by side,
not one behind another ({\it 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.

{\bf 26}, \S 1. {\it et conversa signa $\ldots$ inferrent}. The exact meaning of
these words is uncertain. In 24, \S 4 Caesar says that the 7th and 12th
legions were almost surrounded, and in 25, \S 1 that the Nervii were
attacking the 12th in front and on either flank. It seems clear, then,
that the object of the formation which he describes was to enable the
two legions to face the enemy on all sides. They certainly had to repel
attacks in front and on either flank, and Caesar says (26, \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 only
necessary for the rear companies of the two legions to turn round and
for the wing companies to make a quarter-turn, thus forming a closed
parallelogram. Probably he is right; but it is enough to get a clear
general idea of Caesar's meaning ({\it C.G.}, pp.~676--7).

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

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

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

{\it procubuissent}. The force of this subjunctive and of {\it
superessent\/} (\S 4) has been explained thus:---if Caesar had written
{\it 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 {\it etiam qui procubuissent} means `even those, whoever
they were, who had lain down'. I am inclined to think, however, that
Meusel ({\it L.C.}, iii, 1506; {\it J.B.}, 1894, p.~379) is right in
attributing both subjunctives to Attraction of Mood,---in other words,
to the influence of {\it redintegrarent\/} and of {\it coicerent\/}
respectively.

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

{\bf 28}, \S 1. {\it prope $\ldots$ redacto}. This, though Caesar may not have
known it when he reported his victory to the Senate, was an
exaggeration. See pp.~ix--x.

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

{\it dixeramus}. See the note on 1, \S 1 ({\it dixeramus\/}).

\S 2. {\it ex DC $\ldots$ dicerunt}. See the first note on \S 1.

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

\S 3. {\it ut $\ldots$ videretur} (see the second note on i, 40, \S 5) may
be translated by `wishing to establish his character for', \&c.

{\bf 29}, \S 2. {\it castellis}, as distinguished from {\it oppidis}, probably
means strongholds which, in time of peace, were uninhabited or only
sparsely inhabited. Cf. {\it A.B.}, p.~138.

{\it unum oppidum $\ldots$ munitum}. See the article on {\it Atuatucorum
oppidum} (p.~409).

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

{\it amplius $\ldots$ CC}. See the note on i, 38, \S 5.

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

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

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

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

\S\S 4--5. {\it reliquerunt $\ldots$ delegerant}. The MSS. have the
perfect but the old emendations which I have adopted seem necessary.
See {\it J.B.}, 1894, p.~351.

{\bf 30}, \S 2. {\it vallo pedum XII}. Klotz ({\it C.S.}, pp.~220--1) oddly
thinks that this rampart was the town-wall of the Atuatuci.

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

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

{\it circummuniti\/} means `shut in'. Cf. {\it B.C.}, i, 81, \S 5; 84,
\S 4.

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

In vii, 22, \S 5 Caesar says that during the siege of Avaricum the Gauls
endeavoured to prevent the Romans from bringing their {\it cuniculi\/}
up to the walls ({\it apertos cuniculos $\ldots$ morabantur moenibusque
adpropinquare prohibebant\/}), and accordingly some writers believe that
there were galleries in the {\it agger}. The passage will be considered
in the right place, but {\it cuniculos\/} can only mean subterranean
galleries, or mines. The {\it agger\/} was certainly solid; for there is
direct evidence that some {\it aggeres\/} were (Thucydides, 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 labour that would have been entailed by
making such an {\it agger\/} strong cnough to carry the host of
soldiers, the sappers' huts and the huge towers that stood upon it.
Indeed, without bricks it could not have been built.

{\it Aggeres\/} were always in danger of being set on fire by the enemy
(vii, 22, \S 4; 24, \S 2), but the great difficulty began when they were
getting quite close to the enemy's wall. It could hardly have been
possible then to continue rearing a compact and uniform structure, for
the enemy could pitch down heavy stones and other missiles, although the
artillerymen in the towers which stood upon the {\it agger\/} (see the
second note on 12, \S 5) doubtless did their best to keep them at a
distance.  Sapper's huts of extraordinary strength, the sloping roofs of
which were protectcd against fire by bricks, clay, and raw hides soaked
in water (see the last note on v, 42, \S 5), would therefore be placed
on the {\it 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 {\it agger\/} must have depended upon its object.  At
Avaricum the object was to take the town by escalade (vii, 27), and
therefore the {\it 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 ({\it 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 {\it vineae\/} were used in constructing an {\it agger\/} is a
difficult question. The men who brought up the material for the original
{\it aggeres\/} at Massilia passed it, like bricklayers, from hand to
hand under the protection of {\it vineae\/} ({\it B.C.}, ii, 2, \S 3);
but whether {\it vineae\/} were used by the men who actually reared the
fabric, we are not told. As they were still nearer to the enemy, they
must have been protected somebow; but inside {\it vineae\/} they could
not have worked. We must suppose that they were screened by the
defences, called {\it plutei}, which Vegetius ({\it De re mil.}, iv, 15)
describes,---high convex wooden shields running on rollers (see the
first note on vii, 25, \S 1). See {\it C.G.}, pp.~599--607.

{\it quod $\ldots$ institueretur.} If Caesar had intended merely to give
the reason why the Atuatuci jeered, he would have written {\it
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 23, \S 3.
Translate by `at the idea of such a huge machine being erected'.

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

{\bf 31}, \S 4. {\it deprecari\/} is not distinct in sense from {\it petere},
but defines it: one might translate {\it unum $\ldots$ de\-pre\-cari\/} by
`One thing only they would beg him not to do'.

{\it sua}. Cf. the note on 14, \S 5.

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

\S 2. {\it in Nerviis} means `in the case of the Nervii'. Cf. i, 47, \S
4.

\S 3. {\it facere} is stronger than {\it facturos esse\/}: the meaning
of {\it illi $\ldots$ dixerunt\/} is `they professed themselves ready to
obey his commands. So one says `I'm coming', meaning `I'll come at
once'.

{\bf 33}, \S 2. {\it praesidia}. See the note on i, 8, \S 2.

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

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

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

\S 4. {\it turribus}. This shows that towers were erected not only on
the {\it agger\/}; but also along the rampart which formed the
contravallation. Cf. vii, 72, \S 4.

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

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

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

\S 7. {\it iis qui emerant}. See p.~lxv.

{\bf 34}. {\it una}. R.~Schneider ({\it 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.~{\it legione VII\/}$^a$, and that
{\it VII\/}$^a$ might easily have been altered by a copyist into {\it una}.
Klotz, however ({\it C.S.}, p.~162, n.~4), rejects Schneider's
conjecture, and it seems to me unnecessary. Cf. i, 7, \S 2 , vii, 45, \S
5, \&c.

{\bf 35}, \S 1. {\it pacata}. The pacification did not last long.

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

{\it legationes}. The reading of $\alpha$ is {\it mitterentur legati ad
Caesarem\/};
of $\beta$, {\it legati ad Caesarem mitterentut\/}; while in $B^2L\beta$
{\it mitterentur\/} is followed by {\it quae\/} instead of {\it qui},
which is found in Q. G.~Sauppe, whom Meusel follows, concludes that
Caesar wrote {\it legationes}.  If he wrote legati, the use of {\it se} is
extraordillarily strained.

\S 2. {\it Illyricum}. See p.~419.
\bye
