% tex2asc-version: 1.0
%
%    T. Rice Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    Book III.
%
%    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: 0.02 (Beta), 3 November 1993
%
%    This file is in the Public Domain.
%
\input ks_macros.tex
\docversion=1.0pt \warnifold
\greekfollows
{\bf
\centerline{C.~IULI CAESARIS}
\centerline{DE BELLO GALLICO}
\centerline{COMMENTARIUS TERTIUS}}
\bigskip
1, \S 2. {\it iter per Alpes},---evidently the route over the Great
St. Bernard.

\S 4. {\it castellis}, `forts'. See the first note on ii, 29, \S 2.

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

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

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

2, \S 1. {\it exploratores}. See the note on ii, 11 \S 2.

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

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

\S 3. After {\it legionem\/} Meusel, following Jurinius, supplies
{\it unam}, in my opinion unnecessarily.

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

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

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

\S 2. {\it omnia fere $\ldots$ conspicerentui\/}: Probably the natives were
posted on both the parallel ranges of mountains which dominate
Martigny, in order to cut off the Romans from all possibility
of escape ({\it C.G.}, pp.~677--8).

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

4, \S 1. {\it constituissent}. See the note on ii, 35, \S 1.

{\it conlocandis}. If the MS. reading is right, the meaning of {\it iis
rebus $\ldots$ conlocandis\/} is `for making the dispositions which had
been resolved upon'. W.~Nitsche suggests that Caesar wrote
{\it comparandis}.

\S 2. {\it quaecumque $\ldots$ videbatur\/}: The explanation is suggested
by 2, \S 3.

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

{\it sui recipiendi\/} does not mean `of retreating', which would be
tautological, but `of recovering himself'.

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

\S 2. {\it primi pili centurio}. See the note on ii, 25, \S 1.

{\it extremum auxilium\/} may be translated by `a forlorn hope'.

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

6, \S 1. {\it portis}. See the note on 19, \S 2 ({\it duabus portis\/}).

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

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

{\it milibus amplius XXX\/} is certainly a gross exaggeration. In
1861 the entire population of the country occupied by the
Nantuates, Veragri, Seduni, and Viberi was only 81,559; and it
is therefore unlikely that the Seduni and Veragri (2, \S1) could
muster more than 10,000 fighting men. Galba, says Ernest
Desjardins, must have misled Caesar. I should say that he was
also misled himself (see the note on 26, \S 6 and {\it C.G.}, p.~678).

\S 3. {\it armis\/} does not agree with {\it exutis}. Cf. v, 51, \S 5.

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

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

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

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

\S 3. {\it praefectos}. See the note on i, 39, \S 2 ({\it praefectis\/}).

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

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

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

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

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

\S 3. {\it principes\/} here seems to mean simply `leaders'.  Cf. the
notes on i, 3, \S 5 and ii, 5, \S 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\S 7. {\it concluso mari\/}---`a land-locked sea'---of course refers to
the Mediterranean.

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

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

{\it rebellio\/} does not here mean `rebellion'. Think of the derivation.

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

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

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

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

{\it reliquisque pacatis regionibus}. What `the other settled districts'
were I cannot conjecture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\S 5. {\it vasto $\ldots$ portibus}. All these ablatives are evidently
absolute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{\it comprehensi $\ldots$ erant}. In regard to the mood here and in
15, \S 1 ({\it circumsteterant\/}) see the second note on 12, \S 1.

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

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

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

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

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

{\it maximae $\ldots$ oportunitati\/} is the reading of $\beta$: that of
$\alpha$ is
{\it maxime $\ldots$ oportuna}.  Klotz ({\it C.S.}, p.~247) points out that in
every instance in which Caesar uses maxime with an adjective, 
the adjective has no superlative. 

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

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

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

\S 3. {\it auctores}.  Remember that {\it auctor\/} does not always mean
`author' or `originator', but is sometimes equivalent to {\it qui
probat aliquid}.

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

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

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

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

\S7. {\it non prius $\ldots$ contendant}. These words prove that
Viridovix and his officers could not restrain their undisciplined
followers; but any one who will take the trouble to think will
see that they are not necessarily inconsistent with the statement, which
Caesar makes in vi, 13, \S 1, that everywhere in
Gaul `the masses are regarded almost as slaves, never venture
to act on their own initiative, and are not admitted to any
council'.  Even disciplined troops have been known to mutiny
in countries where democracy did not exist ({\it C.G.}, p.~532).   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\S 4. {\it Hi}. J.~Lange may be right in proposing {\it His}.

21, \S 2. {\it oppidum Sotiatium}. See the article on Sotiates (p. 429).

{\it vineas $\ldots$ egit}. See the note on ii, 12, \S 3.

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

{\it aggerem}. See the note on ii, 30, \S 3.

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

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

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

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

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

\S\S 2--3. {\it dediderint $\ldots$ decovisset}.  See the note on ii,
35, \S 1 (incolerent).

23, \S 3. {\it citerioris Hispaniae}. The Roman proviuce of `Hither
Spain' lay between the Ebro and the Pyrenees.

\S4. {\it magna $\ldots$ multitudine}. Meusel ({\it J.B.}, 1894, p.~318;
1910, p.~61) deletes {\it cum}, because (1) in Caesar {\it cum}, placed
between an adjective and a substantive, always has a modal
sense, as in {\it magna cum auctoritate\/}; (2) {\it bellum gerere cum magna
hominum multitudine\/} would mean `to carry on the war against
a large number of men'; and (3) even if {\it cum\/} here could mean
{\it uno cum}, it would yield no sense, for the {\it magna multitudo\/}
included the Aquitanians themselves.  This last argument ie
weak.  In vi, 10, \S 4 we read that {\it Suebos omnes $\ldots$ cum omnibus
suis sociorumque copiis $\ldots$ se recepisse}. Here {\it omnibus suis
copiis\/} are identical with {\it Suebos omnes\/}; hut tbe expression is
justifiable
because the writer is thinking of the leaders of the Suebi.  Cf.
i, 2, \S 1 ({\it Orgetorix $\ldots$ civitati persuasit ut de finibus suis cum
omnibus copiis exirent}. So %%%%%%% Holmes has ``Se''---an error.
we might say `in 1870 the Germans invaded France with a large force'.

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

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

Meusel is, perhaps, right in supplying {\it et\/} after {\it relinquere}.
Cf. i, 46, \S 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\S 4. If {\it impugnare\/} is right, the object, {\it castra}, must be
supplied from the context.  Meusel adopte an emendatIon, {\it pugnare}.

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

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

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

29, \S 2. {\it diutius $\ldots$ possent}. We might infer that the troops
lived in huts in the winter, even if the fact were not expressly
stated in v, 43, \S 1.

{\it et $\ldots$ non}. See the note on 25, \S 1 ({\it ac non\/}).
Doubtless Caesar wrote {\it et$\ldots$ non\/} instead of {\it neque\/}
in order to emphasize the negation.

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