% tex2asc-version: 1.0
%
%    T. Rice Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    Geographical Index.
%
%    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\raggedbottom
%
\centerline{\bf GEOGRAPHICAL INDEX}
\bigskip
T{\sc HE} {\it Itinerary of Antonine\/} and the {\it Table of
Peutinger\/} are often referred to in this Index. They were road-books,
compiled under the Roman Empire, which stated the distances, reckoned in
Gallic leagues, each of which was equivalent to one Roman mile and a
half, from town to town. The edition of the {\it Itinerary\/} from which
I shall quote is that of Wesseling; of the {\it Table\/} that of Desjardins. I
shall also refer occasionally to O.~Seeck's edition of the {\it Notitia
provinciarum}.

It must be remembered that the Roman mile was shorter than
the English mile. Its length, neglecting a small fraction, was
1,617 yards, so that 13 Roman miles were nearly equal to 12
English ones ({\it C.G.}, p.~350).

At the time when the {\it Itinerary of Antonine\/} was compiled most of
the chief Gallic towns had two names,---the old Gallic name and the name
of the tribe in whose territory the town was situated. In the {\it
Itinerary\/} the old names were used, but it was from the others that
the modern names were derived ({\it C.G.}, p.~407, n.~3). Thus {\it
Paris}, the old Gallic name of which was {\it Lutecia}, is derived from
the tribal name, {\it Parisii\/}; {\it Bourges\/} is derived from {\it
Biturgies}, but its old name was {\it Avaricum\/}; {\it Amiens}, the old
name of which was {\it Samarobriva}, is derived from {\it Ambiani}.  The
great Gallic towns having been thus identified, it becomes easy to
identify many of the lesser towns mentioned in the itineraries. For
instance, a town called Brivodurum is mentioned in the {\it Itinenary of
Antonine\/} (p.~367), and its distance from Cenabum was 38 Gallic
leagues. Cenabum, otherwise called Aureliani, is known to have been
Orl\'eans; and the distance identifies Brivodurum with Briare.

When the reader looks at the map he will see that the boundaries of most
of the tribes are traced, and if, as I hope, he is
determined to test, as far as he can, the truth of what I say, he
will ask himself, How does Holmes know what the boundaries
were? Well, I frankly admit that, except in a very few cases,
where there is direct evidence, I do not know,---precisely: but
I can give satisfactory reasons for believing that the frontiers
which I have traced are approximately correct; and I thought
that this amount of information would be better than none.
When the provinces of Gaul were organized by Augustus, sixty
tribal cantons, or civitates, were recognized; and, generally
speaking, the boundaries of these {\it civitates\/} were the same as
they had been in the time of Caesar. At a later time, when
Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Gauls, the boundaries of
the {\it civitates\/} generally became the boundaries of the
episcopal dioceses, though here and there a large {\it civitas\/}
comprised more than one diocese. The reader will understand that;
these general rules were subject to exceptions: indeed he will
see on the map that in some places boundaries are wanting.
That means that there is not enough evidence to define them
In this little book it would be out of place to discuss the exceptions;
but that has been done in {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul}.
However, one instance will show how difficulties arise. Caesar
(vii, 75, \S 2) mentions the Aulerci Brannovices, who were dependents
({\it clientes\/}) of the Aedui, and of course possessed territory.
This territory was afterwards included in one of the dioceses
which were formed out of the territory of the Aedui; but we
cannot find out how much of the diocese belonged to the
Brannovices.

{\bf Agedincum}, the chief town of the Senones, stood upon the
site of Sens, which preserves their name, and which tourists pass
on their way to Dijon ({\it C.G.}, pp.~353--4).

{\bf Alesia\/} covered the plateau of Mont Auxois, on the southwestern
slope of which stands the village of Alise-Saint-Reine, about 32 miles
north-west of Dijon. Although seven other sites have been proposed, this
identification is regarded as absolutely certain by all competent
inquirers. I will state as briefly as I can the principal reasons upon
which it is founded.

First, Mont Auxois is the only hill the geographical position
of which agrees with what Caesar says about his own position
on the day before he reached Alesia and with what he says about
his distribution of the legions after the capture of Alesia (vii, 90
\S\S 1--4). On the day before he reached Alesia he fought a battle
with Vercingetorix (67); on the night before this battle, when
he was marching `through the furthest part of the country of
the Lingones towards the country of the Sequani, that he might
be in a better position for reinforcing the Province', he encamped
10 Roman miles from the encampment of Vercingetorix (66,
\S\S 2--3). It follows that the encampment of Vercingetorix, close
to which the battle was fought, was either in `the furthest part
of the country of the Lingones' or in the country of the Sequani,
less than 10 Roman miles from the Sa\^one, which separated them
from the Lingones. The beaten Gauls fled to Alesia. Caesar
pursued them till nightfall and reached the outskirts of Alesia
on the next day. It is therefore evident and is universally admitted
that Alesia could not have been more than 35, or perhaps
at the very outside 40 miles from the battle-field. South of the
Sa\^one the only conceivable site---the only site that has ever
been suggested---answering to these conditions, is Alaise. North
of the Sa\^one the only conceivable site---the only site that has
ever been suggested at all is Mont Auxois. Alesia had been
provisioned by Vercingetorix in advance (see the second note on
vii, 68, \S1). Therefore, supposing that Alesia was Alaise, he
must not only have known several weeks beforehand that Caesar
intended to march through the country of the Sequani, but must
have left the all-important city of Bibracte exposed to Caesar's
attack. At Mont Auxois, on the other hand, he would have been
in a central position, from which he could strike at Caesar,
whatever route Caesar might take. Furthermore, on the south
of the Sa\^one it is impossible to discover any satisfactory site for
the battle that immediately preceded the blockade of Alesia.
Again, after the fall of Alesia Caesar `directed Labienus to
march $\ldots$ into the country of the Sequani'. If Alesia was Mont
Auxois, this order is intelligible: if Alesia was Alaise, Labienus
received orders to go from the country of the Sequani into the
country of the Sequani, and we are forced to suppose that the
country of the Mamlubii, in which Alesia was situated, was part
of the country of the Sequani!  Secondly, Mont Auxois corresponds
exactly with Caesar's description of Alesia: any one can
see this for himself if he will study the plan which faces page 339,
and better still if in his holidays he will take the train from the
Gare de Lyon in Paris to the station of Les Laumes-Alesia and
walk up to the top of Mont Auxois. Neither Alaise nor any
other hill within two days' march from any point in the `furthest
part of the country of the Lingones' corresponds in the least
with Caesar's description. Thirdly, excavations which were made
fifty years ago round Mont Auxois and others which have been
made on Mont Auxois within the last few years have revealed
(a) remains of a Gallic town, (b) traces of two lines of earthworks
which correspond with Caesar's description (69, 72--4) of the
works that he constructed during the blockade, (c) various
weapons both Roman and Gallic, as well as numerous bones of
men and of horses, (d) five barbed spikes such as Caesar describes
under the name of {\it stimuli\/} (73, \S 9), (e) Gallic pottery, and (f)
619 coins, one of which bears the image and superscription of
Vercingetorix. Of these coins 132 were Roman, 487 Gallic.
None of the former are of a later date than 52 B.C., the year of
the siege. The latter include specimens belonging to twenty-four
tribes,---more than half of those that sent contingents to
the army which attempted to relieve Vercingetorix (75, \S\S 2--4);
no less than 103 belonged to the Arverni,---the countrymen of
Vercingetorix; and, like most of the bones, all the coins were
found in the trenches of the camp on Mont R\'ea, which, assuming
that Alesia was on Mont Auxois, must have been the scene of
the final struggle (83, \S 2). Fourthly, a Gallic inscription, in
which occurs the word A{\sc LI/SIA}---the Gallic form of the name
which Caesar called {\it Alesia\/}---has been discovered in
Alise-Sainte-Reine. Lastly, in the territory which, assuming that Alesia was
on Mont Auxois, belonged to the {\it Mandubii\/} (68, \S1), there has
been found an inscription, now preserved in the museum of
Dijon, containing the name {\it Mandu-bilos}, a spelling which
agrees with the {\greek Mandibo'ulwn} of Strabo, iv, 2, \S 3 ({\it
C.G.}, pp.~354--63).

{\bf Allobroges.}---The Allobroges, as we learn from i, 6, \S 2,
were separated from the Helvetii by the Rh\^one; they possessed
certain lands on its right bank between the Lake of Geneva
and Lyons (11, \S 5); their territory was conterminous with the
territories of the Vocontii, the Segusiavi, and the Nantuates
(6, \S 3; 10, \S 5; iii, 1, \S1; 6, \S 5); and their chief towns were
Geneva (i, 6, \S 3), Vienna, or Vienne (Ptolemy, {\it Geogr}, ii, 10, \S 7),
and Cularo, or Grenoble (Cicero, {\it Fam}., x, 23, \S10). It is clear,
then, that the greater part of their territory lay between the
Rh\^one, the Is\`ere, and the Lake of Geneva. The boundary which
separated them on the southern bank of the lake from the
Nantuates (iii, 1, \S 1) coincided, at least approximately, with
the eastern boundary of the diocese of Geneva ({\it C.G.}, pp.~363--5).

{\bf Ambarri.}---The name {\it Ambarri\/} is probably derived from
{\it Ambi-arari}, which means `those who dwell on both banks of
the Arar', or Sa\^one; and any one who has carefully read
Caesar's narrative (i, 10, \S 5--12, \S 2) will have seen that they
dwelt between the Rh\^one and the Sa\^one. Their neighbours on
the south were the Segusiavi and the Allobroges; on the west
and north the Aedui; and on the north-east and east the
Sequani. Their territory, then, corresponded approximately
with the department of the Ain ({\it C.G.}, pp.~365--6).

{\bf Ambiani.}---The chief town of the Ambiani was Samarobriva (v, 24,
\S1; 47, \S 2; 53, \S 3; {\it La Table de Peutinger}, p.~14,
col.~2--3; p.~15, col.~3), which in the {\it Itinerary of Antonine\/}
(pp.~362, 380) is called Ambiani (see p.~403); and we may infer
that their territory embraced the diocese of Amiens (see p.~403),
which nearly corresponds with the department of the Somme.
({\it C.G.}, p.~366).

{\bf Ambibarii.}---The Ambibarii are included in Caesar's list of
the Aremorican, or maritime, tribes (vii, 75, \S 4), which dwelt
between the Seine and the Loire; but this is the only passage
in ancient literature in which they are named. Their position
is therefore uncertain; but it is generally believed that they
were identical with the Abrincatui, who are mentioned by
Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 8, \S 8), but not by Caesar, and who occupied
the diocese of Avranches ({\it C.G.}, pp.~366--7).

{\bf Ambiliati.}---B.~G., iii, 9, \S 10 is the only passage in ancient
literature in which the Ambiliati are mentioned; and for want
of evidence I have not marked them on the map.

{\bf Ambivariti.}---The geographical position of this tribe is
unknown ({\bf C.G.}, pp.~367--8).

{\bf Ambivariti.}---This tribe is mentioned by no ancient writer
except Caesar, and its whereabouts cannot be determined: we
only know that it was west of the Meuse. This much is certain,
because the Usipetes and Tencteri, who sent their cavalry
across the Meuse ({\it trans Mosam\/}) into the country of the
Ambivariti (iv, 9, \S 3), were then in the territories of the
Eburones and Condrusi (6, \S 4), of whom the former dwelt
mainly and the latter wholly on the east of the river ({\it C.G.},
pp.~368--70).

{\bf Anartes.}---The Anartes dwelt in Dacia, on the northern bank
of the Theiss.

{\bf Ancalites.}---The Ancalites, the Bibroci, and the Cassi do
not reappear in history after the time of Caesar. They were
evidently dependent tribes, and nothing is known about their
geographical position except that they lived somewhere in the
basin of the Thames, probably west of Essex, which belonged
to the Trinovantes. Professor Haverfield suggests that the
Bibroci may have been in Berkshire ({\it A.B.}, p.~346 and n.~4).
I am inclined to believe that all three lived south of the
Thames; for otherwise they would have been dependants of
Cassivellaunus, whose territory (v, 18, \S 1) was on the northern
bank, and would probably have been prevented by fear of
Cassivellaunus from surrendering.

{\bf Andes.}---Their chief town was Juliomagus, or Angers
(Ptolemy, {\it Geogr.}, ii, 8, \S 8); and their territory corresponded
approximately with the diocese of Angers, that is to say, the
department of the Maine-et-Loire and part of the Sarthe ({\bf C.G.},
p.~370).

{\bf Aquileia\/} was on the northern coast of the Adriatic, about
25 miles west by north of Tergeste (Trieste).

{\bf Arar.}---The river Sa\^one.

{\bf Aremoricae (civitates)}. {\it Aremoricus} means `maritime'.  In
vii, 75, \S 4 Caesar says that the Aremorican states bordered on the
sea, and mentions eight of them---the Coriosolites, Redones, Ambibarii,
Caleti, Osismi, Veneti, Lexovii, and Venelli---all of whom, except the
Caleti, who were on the right bank of the estuary of the Seine, dwelt
between the Seine and the Loire. Caesar did not count any of the
maritime tribes south of the Loire as Aremorican, for in 75, \S 3 he
mentions the Pictones and Santoni, who possessed the seaboard between
the Loire and the Garonne, separately; nor, apparently, did he include
under this head any tribe east of the Caleti, for in the same chapter he
mentions the Morini, who dwelt between the Canche and the Scheldt,
separately. Evidently, then, according to Caesar's informants, all the
Aremorican tribes, except the Caleti, were between the Loire and the
Seine ({\it C.G.}, pp.~370--1).

{\bf Arverni.}---The country of the Arverni comprised the departments of
the Cantal and Puy-de-Dame and parts of those of the
Allier and Loire-Sup\'erieure ({\it C.G.}, p.~371).

{\bf Atrebates.}---The territory of this tribe corresponded with
the diocese of Arras, that is to say, the south-eastern part of
the department of the Pas-de-Calais and the adjacent part of the
department of the Nord ({\it C.G.}, p.~371).

{\bf Atuatuca\/} was the place where Titurius Sabinus and Auruncoleius
Cotta encamped in the autumn of 54 B.C., and close to
which their army was destroyed by Ambiorix, one of the two
kings of the Eburones (v, 24, \S 4; 26--37; vi, 32, \S\S 3--4).

Atuatuca is generally identified with Tongres, 12 miles
NW.~by N.~of Li\`ege The reasons are, first, that Tongres was
undoubtedly the site of a Gallo-Roman fortress called Atuaca,
which is mentioned in the {\it Table of Peutinger\/} (p.~12, col.~1) and
which Ptolemy called {\greek >Atou'atoukon}; secondly, that this fort was
situated, as the camp of Sabinus and Cotta probably was, at
the junction of great roads; thirdly, that Atuatuca was in the
kingdom of Ambiorix, which formed the western part of the
territory of the Eburones, and which may have been separated
from the kingdom of his colleague, Catuvolcus, by the Meuse;
and lastly, that nobody has succeeded in finding another site
which corresponds satisfactorily with Caesar's narrative. There
are, however, strong arguments against identifying Atuatuca
with Tongres. When Caesar said that Atuatuca `is nearly in
the centre of the territory of the Eburones' ({\it fere est in mediis
Eburonum finibus\/} [vi, 32, \S 4]), he could hardly have meant
what his words appear, at first sight, to convey; for neither
Tongres nor any other place which could reasonably be identified with
Atuatuca is near the centre of that territory: probably
he meant that Atuatuca was near the common frontier of the
two kingdoms of which the whole territory was composed. But
it is difficult to believe that he would have used the words {\it in
mediis Ebruronum finibus\/} to indicate a site which lay 10 miles
west of the Meuse and yet belonged to a people `the greater
part of whose territory is between the Meuse and the Rhine'
(v, 24, \S 4). There are several other passages which suggest
that Atuatuca was between the two rivers. Ambiorix, in his
interview with Gaius Arpineius and Quintus Junius, stated that
a body of Germans, who were coming to the assistance of the
Gallic rebels, had crossed the Rhine, and would arrive at
Atuatuca in two days (v, 27, \S 8). Sabinus, in the council
of war which immediately followed the interview, remarked
that the Rhine was close by ({\it subesse Rhenum\/} [29, \S 3]),---a phrase
which, one would think, he would hardly have used if the broad
flood of the Meuse had intervened between the Rhine and
Atuatuca. We are told that when the Sugambri invaded the
country of the Eburones they crossed the Rhine (vi, 35, \S 6);
but we are not told that, in order to reach Atuatuca, they crossed
the Meuse. When they left Atuatuca `they recrossed the Rhine'
({\it trans Rhenum sese receperunt\/} [41, \S1]); and this phrase would be
misleading if they had first had to cross so important a river as
the Meuse. Furthermore, readers who have seen Tongres will
not easily believe that Caesar would have described it as a
naturally strong position. Except on the south and south-east,
where it is approached by a very gentle ascent, it is naturally
defenceless; and it was against this side that the first attack
of the Sugambri would have been directed. How, then, could
Caesar have said that `{\it the strength of the position\/}
entrenchments forbade any attempt to enter elsewhere' ({\it reliquos
aditus locus ipse per se munitione defendit\/} [37, \S 5])'? It has
been argued that Caesar was thinking of marshes which protected the
camp; but where could they have been except
between the south-east and the south-west, where they may
have been formed by the river Geer? And even they would
not have extended up to the supposed site of the camp.

No less than twenty-five other sites have been proposed; but
I doubt whether any of them is worth mentioning except
Embourg, near Li\`ege, east of the Meuse and between the
Ourthe and the Vesdre, and Limbourg, which is about 15 miles
east of Li\`ege. The latter is the less objectionable, but it does
not answer satisfactorily to Caesar's description. For these
reasons I have omitted Atuatuca from my map ({\it C.G.}, pp.~371--83).

{\bf Atuatuci.}---The territory of this people was between the
Nervii and the Eburones (v, 38, \S\S 1--2), and the Eburones bad
some territory west of the Meuse---east of the Nervii and south
of the Menapii---though the greater part was between the
Mense and the Rhine (24, \S 4). South of the Meuse, in the
district of Condroz, were the Condrusi. Accordingly the Atuatuci
are placed in the valley of the Meuse, principally along its left
or northern bank, between the Nervii and the Condrusi; in
other words, they possessed Namur and its neighbourhood, that
is to say, the district of Hesbaye, and perhaps also some little
territory in the western part of Condroz. If the reader will
study the passages of Caesar to which I have referred and
consult the maps, he will agree with this conclusion.

But although the Atuatuci were confined within this small
area after their chief town had been captured by Caesar (see
ii, 29--33), it is possible that before their treachery provoked
his vengeance they may also have possessed a tract between
the Meuse and the Rhine: for they had originally settled
somewhere in this region (ii, 29 \S\S 4--5); before Caesar subdued
them they had compelled the Eburones to pay tribute (v, 27,
\S 2), which implies that they were then strong and had
a comparatively large territory; and as Caesar forced them to
abandon this claim, he may also have given some of their land
to the Eburones. Moreover, when we compare names, it seems
likely that Atuatuca, which in 54 B.C.~belonged to the
Eburones, had originally belonged to the Atuatuci ({\it C.G.},
pp.~384--7).

{\bf Atuatucorum oppidum.}---The Atuatuci possessed the
country round Namur and the district of Hesbaye; and, before
Caesar attacked them, they may also have occupied some territory
on the right bank of the Meuse. Besides this we have nothing
to help us in looking for their chief stronghold, except Caesar's
description and his account of the siege. He says that the
place was `a fortress of extraordinary natural strength', and
adds that `all round it presented a line of high rocks and steel
declivities, which at one point left a gently sloping approach,
not more than two hundred feet wide' (ii, 29, \S\S 2--3). The
fort was large enough to shelter at least 57,000 people (33, \S\S S7),
and the entrenchment with which Caesar surrounded it was
traced along ground comparatively high but of varying elevation
(33, \S 2), and measured, according to the MSS., 15 Roman
miles, but there is no doubt that the number was grossly exaggerated by
a copyist (see the second note on 30, \S 2). A great
many sites have been suggested, but nearly all may be ignored,
for either they do not correspond with Caesar's description, or
they are in territory which did not belong to the Atuatuci.
Good judges are now agreed that the choice lies between the
hill on which stands the citadel of Namur and Mont Falhize,
which is opposite Huy and about midway between Namur and
Li\`ege. This hill is within an easy walk from the railway station
of Huy, which may be reached by express train in 30 minutes
from Namur

Both these sites are open to objection, and it is hard to decide;
but after carefully exploring them I am inclined to prefer Mont
Falhize. The chief objection to Namur is that it appears much
too small. Its area is only about 27 acres, which would have
allowed little more than two square yards for each individual,
to say nothing of the numerous cattle (33, \S 2) which they had
with them ! It has, indeed, been argued that additional room
might have been gained if some of the garrison had encamped
on the flanks of the hill; but even so it would hardly have been
possible to find a greater space than 52 acres, or 40 square feet
for each man. If the hill had been covered by houses several
stories high, the Atuatuci might have had room; but can we
believe that they were packed for days, like the crowd at the
Boat-race, along with their cattle, nearly four times as tightly
as the garrison of Alesia? Moreover, the only slope which can
be said to answer at all to Caesar's description can hardly be
called `a gently sloping approach' ({\it leniter acclivis aditus\/}):
Caesar's entrenchment would necessarily have been carried up
the steep and rocky flanks of the hill and over ground considerably
higher than that on which the fort is supposed to have
stood; and since the hill of Namur is only one of a chain of
continuous heights, it is hard to see why the Atuatuci should
have restricted the fort within absurdly narrow limits. Again,
supposing that the fort was on the hill of Namur, in what direction
could the garrison have made the sortie which Caesar
describes in 33, \S 2? Not down the gentle slope, which would
have been occupied by the Roman {\it agger}, or siege terrace. As
far as I can see, they must either have headed north-westward
along the low ground parallel with the Sambre, or southward
along the eastern flank of the hill or the narrow strip of ground
parallel with the Meuse. But in either case, if they had
succeeded in storming the contravallation (33, \S 3--4), would
they not have been trapped between river and hill?

Mont Falhize was an ideal site for a Gallic stronghold; but
no Gallic antiquities have been found on it, and although it is
approached on the eastern side by a {\it col}, or saddle, about 200 feet
wide, this approach does not, so far as I could see, slope upward
towards the hill. Possibly the slope may have been obliterated
by the earth and rubble of which Caesar's terrace would have
been largely composed. Von Goler, indeed, insists that there is
a slope, which rises 20 feet: but I believe my eyes; and I affirm
that, if it exists at all, it is quite insignificant.

The reader may perhaps have noticed that there is one
objection common to Namur and to Mont Falhize. The former
is between the Meuse and the Sambre, and the latter is washed
on its southern side by the Meuse; but Caesar does not mention
any river. Yet, if there was one, he might have been expected
to say so, for it would have served as a natural contravallation
and thus have enabled him to make his entrenchment much
smaller than it would otherwise have been ({\it C.G.}, pp.~387--93).
%\bigskip
%\centerline{\epsfbox{namur.eps}}
%\bigskip

{\bf Aulerci Brannovices.}---The territory of the Brannovices,
who were dependants of the Aedui, is perhaps represented by
the canton of Brionnais, on the eastern bank of the upper
Loire; but we have no clue except the name ({\it C.G.}, p.~393).

{\bf Aulerci Cenomani.}---The territory of the Cenomani corresponded
roughly with the department of the Sarthe ({\it C.G.}, p.~393).

{\bf Aulerci Eburovices.}---The Eburovices occupied the diocese
of \'Evreux, which preserves their name, and which embraces
the central and the southern part of the department of the
Eure ({\it C.G.}, pp.~393--4).

{\bf Ausci.}---This tribe possessed the southern part of the diocese
of Auch, that is to say, the central and the southern part of the
department of the Gers ({\it C.G.}, p.~394).

{\bf Avaricum\/} stood upon the site of Bourges.

{\bf Bacenis (Silva).}---This forest probably extended southward
from the mountains of Thuringia.

{\bf Belgium\/} is mentioned in the {\it Fifth Commentary\/} three times
(12, \S 2; 24, \S 2; 25, \S 4), or, according to the $\alpha$ MSS., which
in the second passage have {\it Belgis\/} instead of {\it Belgio}, twice.
In chapter 12, which is perhaps spurious, {\it Belgio\/} apparently
means the country of the Belgae; for if it meant only a part
of that country, how could the reader tell what part was meant?
Again in 25, \S 4 {\it Belgio\/} seems to mean the country of the
Belgae. But 24, \S 2 presents a difficulty. The reading {\it Belgis\/}
would seem to have no point; for besides the three legions
which Caesar stationed {\it in Belgis\/} (or {\it in Belgio\/}) all the others
except one, were also quartered in the country of the Belgae.
On the other hand, supposing that Belgio is the true reading,
it is obvious that, unless Caesar was very careless, {\it Belgium\/} can
only mean a part of the whole territory of the Belgae. If so
what part? We learn from 46, \S 1 that one of the three legions
which were quartered in Belgium was in the country of the
Bellovaci, and from Birtius (viii, 46, \S 6) that within the limits
of Belgium was Nemetocenna, the chief town of the Atrebates:
it is clear, then, that Belgium must also have comprised the
country of the Ambiani, which was between the other two.
The right reading is probably {\it Belgio\/}; for it seems more likely
that the word {\it Belgium\/} was used in a restricted as well as in
a general sense than that Caesar used the word {\it Belgae}, the
meaning of which he had himself defined at the outset of his
work, in a way which would have been certain to mislead.

{\bf Bellovaci.}---The Bellovaci possessed the diocese of Beauvais.
which preserves their name ({\it C.G.}, pp.~397--8).

{\bf Bibracte\/} was identical, not, as was formerly believed, with
Augustodunum---the Gallo-Roman town which stood upon the
site of Autun---but with a great manufacturing town on Mont
Beuvray, 12 miles west of Autun, whose defences, houses, and
workshops have been revealed by excavation (see p.~lii). It
was abandoned early in the era of the Roman Empire, and succeeded by
Augustodunum, which, as the late Professor Freeman
said (Hist. Essays, 4th ser., pp.~103--5), `was a new city on
a new site, deliberately laid out from the beginning on a great
scale' ({\it C.G.}, p.~398).

{\bf Bibrax\/} was 8 Roman miles from the camp which Caesar
made in 57 B.C.~immediately after crossing the Aisne, and was
situated on or near the road by which the Belgae advanced
against him (ii, 6, \S 1). Only two of the many places with
which it has been identified, namely Beaurieux and Vieux-Laon, answer
sufficiently to his description to call for discussion; and as we cannot
tell with absolute certainty what was
the road by which the Belgae advanced (see the first note on 5
\S 4), we cannot positively decide between them. Beaurieux is
about 8 Roman miles west of the hill of Mauchamp, on which
if Caesar crossed the Aisne at Berry-au-Bac, he encamped; but
as I have shown in the note on 8, \S\S 3--5, it is very doubtful
whether he did cross there. Another objection is that Beaurieux, which
is about two miles north of the Aisne, could have
been entirely surrounded by the Belgae, and therefore the
force which Caesar sent to the relief of the garrison could not
have got into the fort (7, \S\S 1--2) unless the Belgae were extremely
careless.

Vieux-Laon is at the required distance both from the hill of
Mauchamp and from the plateau of Pontavert, on which Caesar
must have encamped if he did not cross the Aisne at Berry-au-Bac. The
hill which is now occupied by the town of Laon was
once called Bibrax, and a little south of the plateau of Vieux-Laon is a
village which was once called B\'ebrieux. It has been
suggested that the inhabitants of Vieux-Laon abandoned it in
the fifth century and migrated to Laon; that emigrants from
Laon in their turn built a town upon the site of B\'ebrieux and
named it after Bibrax, which their forefathers had inhabited
and that the name {\it Bibrax\/} was given to Laon because the
inhabitants of the old Bibrax had migrated to it. Napoleon III
observes, further, that Vieux-Laon, on its southern side, was
unassailable by the Gallic method of assault (6, \S\S 2--3), and
he argues that the Belgae, with the carelessness of a half-barbarous
people, would have neglected to invest it on that side
({\it C.G.}, pp.~398--400).

{\bf Bibroci}. See A{\sc NCALITES}.

{\bf Bigerriones.}---This people, whose name is preserved in
Bigorre, inhabited the department of the Hautes-Pyr\'en\'ees
({\it C.G.}, p.~400).

{\bf Bituriges.}---The Bituriges occupied the diocese of Bourges
(Avaricum), which preserves their name, and which included
the departments of the Cher and Indre and the north-wester,
part of the department of the Allier ({\it C.G.}, p.~400).

{\bf Boi}. See G{\sc ORGOBINA}.

{\bf Brannovices}. See A{\sc ULERCI} B{\sc RANNOVICES}.

{\bf Bratuspantium\/} cannot be identified with certainty. We
only know that it was on or near the road by which Caesar
marched from Noviodunum, which was almost certainly on the
hill of Pommiers, about 2$1\over2$ miles north-west of Soissons, into
the country of the Ambiani, whose chief town was Samarobriva
(Amiens); and that it was not the same as Caesaromagus
(Beauvais), the Gallo-Roman capital of the Bellovaci, which
was built on virgin soil. It would be useless to mention here
all the sites that have been proposed. There is something to
be said for Breteuil, which is on a strong position near the
Roman road from Soissons to Amiens, and close to which, in
the valley of Vandeuil, a few Gallic and numerous Gallo-Roman
antiquities have been found; but a French antiquary, Dr.~V.~Lebloud,
who bas explored every yard of the country that belonged to the
Bellovaci, prefers Mont-C\'esar, between 6 and 7
miles ESE.~of Beauvais. The hill is perfectly suitable for a
stronghold: but it is about 251 feet above the plain; and this
seems hardly consistent with Caesar's statement that when he
was encamping on the outskirts of Bratuspantium `the women
and children stretched out their hands from the wall $\ldots$ and
begged the Romans for peace' (ii, 13, \S 3). I have marked
Bratuspantium on the map on the site of Breteuil, but with
a note of interrogation ({\it C.G.}, pp.~400--2).

{\bf Cadurci.}---The territory of the Cadurci corresponded with
the diocese of Cahors, which preserves their name, in other
words with the department of the Lot. In the last passage
(vii, 7;, \S 2) in which Caesar mentions them we find the words
{\it Eleutetis Cadurcis\/} or, according to the group of MSS.~known as
$\phi$, {\it Heleutetis et Cadurcis}. It has been supposed that {\it Eleuteti},
like {\it Aulerci}, was a name common to several tribes; but if so,
why was it not applied by any ancient writer to any other tribe
besides the Cadurci? It has also been suggested that {\it Eleutetos\/} was
the Celtic equivalent of the Greek {\greek >ele'uteros}, free', and
accordingly that the {\it Eleuteti Cadurci\/} were independent, while the rest
of the Cadurci were already under Roman rule. But if so, the
country of the latter was part of the Roman Province; and
when Caesar was emphasizing the danger that was likely to
threaten the Province if the Helvetii were allowed to settle in
the country of the Santoni (i, 10, \S\S 1--2), he would have said
that the country of the Santoni was not far from the country of
the Cadurci instead of saying that it was not far from the country
of the Tolosates. Some editors suppose that Caesar wrote not
{\it Eleutetis\/} but {\it Helviis}, but the Helvii fought against
Vercingetorix (vii, 65, \S 2), whereas {\it Eleutetis\/} occurs in the
list of tribes
which sent troops to help him. I doubt whether Caesar wrote
{\it Eleutetis\/}; but if he did, the Eleuteti were distinct from the
Cadurci ({\it C.G.}, pp.~402--3).

{\bf Caerosi.}---This tribe is believed to have occupied a tract
called in the eighth century {\it pagus Caros\/} or {\it Carascus}, north of
Tr\`eves and on the banks of the Prum ({\it C.G.}, p.~403).

{\bf Caleti.}---The territory of this people included the Pays de
Caux ({\it pagus Caletus\/}), or the western and the central portion of
the department of the Seine ({\it C.G.}, p.~404).

{\bf Cantabri.}---The Cantabri inhabited the northern part of
Spain between the Basque Provinces and the neighbourhood of
Oviedo.

{\bf Cantium\/} corresponded approximately with Kent.

{\bf Carcaso\/} stood upon the site of the modern Carcassonne.

{\bf Carnutes.}---The territory of the Carnutes comprised the
dioceses of Chartres, Orl\'eans, and Blois, or the greater part of
the departments of the Eure-et-Loire, Loiret, and Loire-et-Cher
({\it C.G.}, p.~404).

{\bf Cassi.}---See A{\sc NCALITES}.

{\bf Caturiges.}---The Caturiges were an Alpine tribe; and
Caesar says that they, as well as the Ceutrones and the Graioceli,
occupied the heights when he was crossing the Alps in 58 B.C.
on his way from the Cisalpine to the Transalpine province
(i, 10, \S 4). The route which he followed led over Mont
Gen\`evre, thence to Brigantio (Brian{\c c}on), and thence, most
probably, past Ebrodunum (Ennbrun), Caturigae or Caturigomagus
(Chorges), and Vapincum (Gap) to Dea (Die) in the
country of the Vocontii (see the note on 10, \S\S 3--5). He does
not mention any of the towns of the Caturiges. Ebrodunum,
the only one which is mentioned by Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, iii, 1, \S 35),
was, according to Strabo (iv, 1, \S 3), on their western frontier;
but the itineraries mention another, Caturigomagus, and, if
it belonged to them in Caesar's time, their western frontier was
almost certainly west of Ebrodunum. If the reader will compare Caesar's
account of his march with the map, he will see
that they must also have possessed Brigantio, though Ptolemy
({\it Geogr.}, iii, 1, \S 36) assigns it to the Segusiani; unless, indeed,
the latter, whom Caesar does not notice, were dependants
(see p.~404) of the Caturiges. Thus the territory of the Caturiges
corresponded with the southern part of the department of the
Hautes-Alpes ({\it C.G.}, pp.~404--5).

{\bf Cavillonum\/} was on the site of Chalon-sur-Sa\^one.

{\bf Cenabum.}---Most scholars are by this time convinced that
Cenabum stood upon the site of Orl\'eans, although a few still
cling to the theory, which formerly had many defenders, that
it ought rather to be identified with Gien, about 35 miles
higher up the Loire.\footnote{$^1$}
       {Many of the antiquaries who refused to identify Cenabum with
       Orl\'eans maintained that it stood on high ground at
       Gien-le-Vieux, which is about a mile and a quarter north-west of
       Gien. But, as the words {\it oppidum Cenabum pons fluminis
       Ligeris contingebat\/} (vii, 11, \S 6) prove, the town was in
       actual contact with the bridge. The antiquaries were therefore
       compelled to assume that it extended from Gien-le-Vieux right
       down to the banks of the river. This imaginary Cenabum would have
       been far larger than any other Gallic town.}
Everybody now admits that Orl\'eans grew
out of a Gallo-Roman town called Cenabum, for the fact is
proved by the itineraries, by the testimony of Ptolemy and
various mediaeval writers, by the Discovery of numerous coins,
and by an inscription which was unearthed in 1846 in the
Faubourg St.~Vincent at Orl\'eans; but it has been maintained
that this town was different from the Cenabum mentioned
by Caesar.

The principal arguments that have been brought against the
orthodox view are that Caesar, marching from Agedincum
(Sens) to relieve Gorgobina (vii, 9, \S 6; 10, \S 4), which was
probably between the Allier and the Loire, would not have
gone so far out of his way as Orl\'eans; that the distance from
Orl\'eans to Gergovia is considerably more than 160 Roman
miles, which, according to Caesar (3, \S 3), was the distance from
Cenabum to the country of the Arverni; that Orl\'eans is not on
a hill, whereas Gallic strongholds generally were; and that
Caesar would not have been able to march from Sens to Orl\'eans
in four days,---the time which he says that it took him to
march from Agedincum to Cenabum (11, \S\S 1--5). All these
objections can be easily answered. First, there is no reason
why Caesar, even though his ultimate object was to relieve
Gorgobina, should not have gone out of his way to capture
a town so important as Cenabum, for it was desirable to punish,
first of all, the Carnutes, who had been the first to rebel, and
who, by the massacre of Roman citizens, had outraged the
majesty of Rome (2; 3, \S 1; 17, \S 7; 28, \S 4). Besides, how
can we tell that, east of Orl\'eans, any bridge spanned the Loire
in that part of its course which crossed Caesar's line of march,
or that, if there were bridges, Vercingetorix had not destroyed
them (see 34, \S 3)? Secondly, one cannot be sure that Caesar's
estimate of the distance from Cenabum to the country of the
Arverni was exactly right, or that when he said `the country
of the Arverni' (3, \S 3) he meant Gergovia. Thirdly, some of
the Gallic strongholds---for instance, Avaricum and Lutecia---were not
built upon hills, and we may gather both from
Caesar's narrative (3, \S 1, 11, \S\S 4--9) and from Strabo (iv, 2, \S 3)
that Cenabum was rather a trading town than a stronghold.
If it had been really strong, is it likely that the Carnutes would
have run away without making the slightest attempt to stand
a siege? Lastly, the distance from Sens to Orl\'eans by the
longest road was not more than 81 miles; and Caesar gives us
to understand (11, \S 3) that he was making haste. The distance
by the shortest road was only about 67 miles.

The arguments for identifying Cenabum with Gien are
hardly worth mentioning: they really amount to this, that if
it was not Orl\'eans it must have been Gien. There is no
evidence that at Gien there was either a bridge or a Gallic
town. As, however, Colonel Stoffel (see p.~xxxv) was an advocate
of Gien, we must not ignore his reasons. He identified Vellaunodunum,
from which Caesar marched in two days to
Cenabum (11, \S\S 1--5), with Toucy, which is 37 miles east of
Gien; and he insisted that this was just the distance which
Caesar would have covered in two marches. But there is no
evidence whatever that Vellaunodunum was at Toucy.

On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that Cenabum
was not at Gien. First, after the conquest of Gaul Gien was
not in the territory of the Carnutes, but in that of the Senones;
and there is no reason to suppose that since Caesar's time it
had changed hands. Secondly, it was not called Cenabum in
the Middle Ages, but Giemus. Thirdly, in 51 B.C.~Caesar left
two legions at Cenabum to overawe the Carnutes (viii, 6, \S 1).
If Cenabum was at Gien, even assuming that Gien was in the
country of the Carnutes, the legions were posted on the eastern
limit of the Carnutian territory. From such a position how
would they have been able to keep the Carnutes in check?

The conclusion, that Cenabum and Orl\'eans were one, is as
certain as that Lutecia stood upon the island of Notre-Dame
and Alesia upon Mont Auxois ({\it C.G.}, pp.~405--15).

{\bf Cenimagni.}---This tribe may perhaps have been identical
with the Eceni or Iceni, who dwelt in Suffolk and Norfolk
({\bf A.B.}, p.~317).

{\bf Cenomani.}---See A{\sc ULERCI} C{\sc ENOMANI}.

{\bf Ceutrones\/} (a).---The Alpine Ceutrones (i, 10, \S 4) occupied
the valley of the Tarentaise and the adjoining mountains.
Their frontier has been determined by an inscription which was
discovered at Forclaz, between Chamonix and Sallanches ({\it C.G.},
pp.~364, 415).

{\bf Ceutrones\/} (b). See N{\sc ERVII}.

{\bf Cocosates.}---Coequosa, between Dax and Bordeaux, which
is mentioned in the {\it Itinerary of Antonine\/} (p.~456), was doubtless
the chief town of the Cocosates. Their territory was therefore
in the western part of the department of Les Landes, between
Castetz and Mimizan ({\it C.G.}, p.~415).

{\bf Condrusi.}---The Condrusi were conterminous with the
Eburones (iv, 6, \S 4), `the greater part of whose territory', says
Caesar (v, 24, i 4), `is between the Meuse and the Rhine'; and
they were between the Eburones and the Treveri (vi, 32, \S 1).
Accordingly they are generally believed to have inhabited
Condroz, which extends along the right bank of the Meuse,
between Li\`ege and Dinant, and which in the ninth century was
called {\it Condrustum\/} ({\it C.B.}, p.~403).

{\bf Coriosolites.}---This people inhabited the country round
Corseul in the department of the Cotes-du-Nord. Their
frontiers cannot be certainly defined, because the geography
of this part of Gaul is obscure. The number of dioceses in the
Aremorican peninsula (Brittany) greatly exceeds the number
of states all of them, except those of Vannes, Nantes, and
Rennes, were created after the Gallo-Roman period by invaders
from Britain, and when those invaders formed their dioceses
they took no account of the existing political divisions. On
the south, however, the territory of the Coriosolites was probably
separated from that of the Veneti by the natural barrier of the
Montagnes Noires; and westward it may have extended as far
as Feins, which is supposed to represent a town called Fines,
mentioned in the {\it Itinerary of Antonine\/} (p.~387). Thus the
territory of the Coriosolites corresponded more or less closely
with the Cotes-du-Nord ({\it C.G.}, pp.~415--18).

{\bf Daci.}---The Dacians possessed Hungary, east of the river Theiss,
Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldavia, west of the Pruth, \&c.

{\bf Decetia\/} is represented by the modern D\'ecize, which is on
the Loire, about 20 miles south east of Nevers.

{\bf Diablintes.}---Caesar does not help us to determine the
territory of this tribe; but Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 8, \S 7) says that
their chief town was Noeodunum, which in the {\it Table of Peutiuger\/}
(p.~23, col.~1) appears as Nu-Dionnum, on the road between
Le Mans and Bayeux. Accordingly it is believed that they
occupied the neighbourhood of Jublains, which preserves their
name, and on the site of which the remains of a Gallo-Roman
town have been discovered. Moreover, a document of the
eighth century mentions {\it condita Diablintica\/} (a district or
canton of the Diablintes) as situated in {\it pago Cenomannico}. The
conclusion is that the Diablintes possessed the northern part of
the diocese of Le Mans, the rest of which belonged to the
Aulerci Cenomani ({\it C.G.}, pp.~418--22).

{\bf Dubis\/} was the Gallic name of the river Doubs.

{\bf Durocortorum,} the chief town of the Remi, was on the site
of Reims.

{\bf Eburones.}---The greater part of their country was between
the Rhine and the Meuse (v, 24, \S 4); so we may infer that the
remaining part was west of the Meuse. Their neighbours on the
south were the Treveri, the Segni, and the Condrusi (vi, 32, \S 1);
on the north the Menapii (33, \S\S 1--2), and on the south-west
the Atuatuci (v, 38, \S 1). Their territory may also have been
conterminous on the west with that of the Nervii. But it is
impossible to define the frontiers of any of these people
except perhaps the Nervii, and therefore it is impossible to
define the frontier of the Eburones. We only know that it
extended westward of Bonn and Cologne and included parts of
the provinces of Limbourg and Li\`ege ({\it C.G.}, p.~387). See
T{\sc REVERI}.

{\bf Eburovices.} See A{\sc ULERCI} E{\sc BUROVICES}.

{\bf Elaver\/} was the Gallic name of the river Allier.

{\bf Eleuteti.} See C{\sc ADURCI}.

{\bf Elusates.} The name of this people survives in that of
Eauze, the country round which they possessed ({\it C.G.}, p.~422)

{\bf Esuvii.}---The Esuvii were one of the tribes from whom
Crassus requisitioned corn (iii, 7, \S 4) when he was sent to
receive the submission of the states of Normandy and Brittany.
Their position has been determined with reasonable probability
in this way. Pliny ({\it Nat. Hist.}, iv, 18, \S 107) mentions the
Baiocasses, or, as he calls them, Bodiocasses, whose chief town
was Augustodurus (Bayeux), and the Viducasses, whose chief town
was Aregenua or Araegenue (Vieux, near Caen). The {\it Notitia
Provinciarum\/} (p.~263 [ii, 6]) mentions a people called the Saii,
whose territory corresponded with the diocese of S\'eez. None
of these three tribes figures in the {\it Commentaries}. As Caesar
(ii, 34) notices the Esuvii side by side with the Aulerci
(Cenomani and Eburovices), who possessed the dioceses of
Le Mans and \'Evreux, it is generally believed that they inhabited the
diocese of S\'eez, which is adjacent to those two
dioceses. If this opinion is right, the Esuvii and the Saii were
the same, and the Esuvii were not a maritime people, though
Caesar (ii, 34) says that they were. It seems more probable
that they also possessed the territories of the Baiocasses and the
Viducasses, and that, just as the Helvetii were divided into four
pagi, or clans (i, 12, \S 4), so the Baiocasses, the Viducasses, and
the Saii were part of the Esuvii ({\it C.G.}, pp.~422--4).

{\bf Gabali.}---The Gabali, who were dependants of the Arverni
(vii, 75, \S 2), inhabited the G\'evaudan, in the department of the
Loz\`ere ({\it C.G.}, p.~371).

{\bf Garumna} was the native name of the Garonne.

{\bf Garumni.}---The Garumni probably dwelt in the upper valley
of the Garonne ({\it C.G.}, p.~425).

{\bf Gates.}---I cannot find any satisfactory evidence for locating
this Aquitanian tribe ({\it C.G.}, p.~425).

{\bf Geidumni.} See N{\sc ERVII}.

{\bf Genava\/} was, I need hardly say, the Gallic name of Geneva.

{\bf Gergovia\/} was long ago identified with a mountain which
rises fully 1,200 feet above the plain, about 4 miles south of
Clermont-Ferrand. It is the only mountain in Auvergne---the country of
the Arverni---which corresponds with Caesar's
narrative (vii, 35; 36, \S\S 1--2, 5; 44--6).

{\bf Gorgobina\/} was the stronghold, or the chief stronghold, of the
Boi (vii, 9, \S 6). Caesar says (i, 28, \S 5) that after he had defeated
the Helvetii he allowed the Boi, at the request of the Aedui, to settle
in Aeduan territory, and he adds that the Aedui made this request
because they knew that the Boi were brave. One might be inclined to
infer that the Boi were established in the western part of the Aeduan
territory, where they would serve as an outpost against those old rivals
of the Aedui, the Arverni. Indeed, unless their settlement was in that
neighbourhood, Caesar's account (vii, 11, \S 9; 12--13) of his march
from Cenabum (Orl\'eans) to Noviodunum and thence to Avaricum (Bourges),
taken in conjunction with his statement that Vercingetorix, marching
from the country of the Arverni to Gorgobina, passed through the country
of the Bituriges (9, \S 6), cannot be explained. Besides, while Caesar
was besieging Avaricum he expected a supply of corn from the Boi (17, \S
2); and he would hardly have done so unless they had been near enough to
forward the supply,---that is, somewhere in the western part of the
Aeduan territory. M.~Jullian, however, thinks that they were intended to
serve as an outpost, not against the Arverni but against the Bituriges,
and accordingly he believes that, besides the country between the Allier
and the Loire, they also possessed a strip of land between the Aedui and
the Bituriges, south of that part of the Loire which separated those two
tribes (5, \S 4), that is, south of the confluence of the Allier and the
Loire (see H{\sc AEDUI}). I cannot see what reason the Aedui had for
establishing an outpost against the Bituriges, who were in a state of
friendly dependence upon them (5, \S 2).  To identify Gorgobina is at
present impossible. Numerous guesses have been made; but most of them
may be ignored for the proposed sites are either outside the Aeduan
frontier or otherwise irreconcilable with Caesar's narrative. Three only
are worth considering:---(1) St.~Parize-le-Ch\^atel, between the Allier
and the Loire, stands upon ground which is better adapted for a Gallic
stronghold than any other in this district.  (2) Sancerre, on the left
bank of the Loire, about 30 miles north by west of Nevers, is also a
very strong position. Its earliest known name was {\it Castrum
Gordonicum}, and if Caesar wrote {\it Gortona}, which is found in the
$\beta$ MSS., it is more than likely that the stronghold of the Boi was
Sancerre. But Sancerre is in the ancient diocese of Bourges, and
therefore most probably belonged to the Bituriges. (3) La
Guerche-sur-l'Aubois about 11 miles west by south of Nevers, has the
support of von~Goler and of M.~Jullian, who supposes that the site of
the stronghold was the rising ground on which the church now stands. I
do not agree with them, because, as I have already argued, it is
unlikely that the Boi had any territory except in the peninsula formed
by the Allier and the Loire. I have, therefore, marked Gorgobina on the
map on the site of St. Pariz ele-Chatel, but with a note of
interrogation ({\it C.G.}, pp.~425--30).

{\bf Graioceli}. This tribe, as the name shows, inhabited the
Graian Alps. Where was their town, Ocelum? Caesar (i, 10,
\S 5) passed through it when he was returning from Italy to
Transalpine Gaul, to deal with the Helvetii. He says that it
was the last, that is to say, the westernmost town in Cisalpine
Gaul, and that he marched thence into the country of the
Vocontii (q.v.) in 7 days. He crossed the Alps by way of Mont
Gen\`evre (see the note on 10, \S\S 3--5), and in order to reach the
pass he must have moved along the river Dora Riparia. According to
Strabo (iv, 1, \S 3), Ocelum was 99 Roman miles from
Epeprodunum (Embrun), and, within a mile or two, this is
the distance from Embrun, along the Roman road which ran
past Brigantio (Brian{\c c}on) and over Mont Gen\`evre to Avigliana.
Four vases, on each of which an itinerary is inscribed, have
been discovered at Bagni di Vicarello: three of them place
Ocelum at 20 Roman miles from Turin, and two of them at the
same distance from Susa. These figures nearly correspond with
the actual distances of Avigliana and of Drubiaglio from Turin
and from Susa respectively, Drubiaglio being on the northern,
and Avigliana opposite it on the southern bank of the Dora
Riparia. According to the fourth vase, there was a station
called {\it Ad Fines}, 23 Roman miles from Turin; but the {\it Itinerary
of Antonine\/} (p.~341) gives 18 Roman miles as the distance, and
in another passage (pp.~356--7) 16. An inscription, containing
the words FINIB({\it us\/}) COTTI---`on the frontier of Cottius'---has
been found at Drubiaglio; and Strabo (iv, 1, \S 3) says that
Ocelum was the boundary of Cottius's kingdom. The inscription proves that at a town which stood upon the site of Avigliana
was collected the duty of 2$1\over2$ per cent. (quadragesima or one
fortieth) which was levied upon merchandise; and on the fourth
vase {\it Ad Fines\/} is called {\it Ad Fines\/} $\overline{XXXX}$,
which means {\it Ad Fines quadragesimae}. Accordingly Desjardins
identified Ad Fines with Avigliana and Ocelum with Drubiaglio. If he was right,
there were two Roman roads in the valley of the Dora Riparia,
one on the left bank and the other on the right. He asserts
that there were, and that mile-stones found between Turin and
Susa prove it. I can find no evidence for his assertion; and
Mommsen ({\it C.I.L.}, v, pars ii, pp.~811--12) denies it. Mommsen
points out, further, that, according to the anonymous geographer of
Ravenna (ed. M.~Parthey and G.~Pinder, p.~250, 1--3)
Ad Fines and Ocelum were on the same road, the former being
nearer to Turin. He concludes that these two towns were very
close to one another; and this much at all events is certain
({\it C.G.}, pp.~430--2).

{\bf Grudii.} See N{\sc ERVII}.

{\bf Haedui.}---This tribe was so called by Caesar; but as the form
Aedui is more familiar, we may use it except when we are quoting from Caesar's book. The territory of the Aedui comprised
the dioceses of Autun (Augustodunum), Chalon-sur-Sa\^one (Cavillonum),
M\^acon (Matisco), and Nevers (Noviodunum). This
territory corresponded with the departments of the Sa\^one-et-Loire and
Ni\`evre and parts of the Cote-d'Or and the Allier. A
mile-stone erected in A.D.~259 at the distance of 72 Roman miles
from Augustodunum on the road to Autessiodurum (Auxerre)
stood, as we learn from the inscription which it bears, {\it Aeduorum
Finibus}, and was also in the territory that belonged to the {\it civitas
Autessiodurum}. Therefore, if Desjardins is right in saying that
{\it Aeduorum finibus\/} means `in the country of the Aedui', in
A.D.~259, if not in the time of Caesar, the Aedui also possessed
the Auxerrois. Desjardins argues that unless {\it finibus\/} means
`territory', the diocesan boundary does not represent the boundary
between the imperial {\it civitates}, Autessiodurum and Augustodunum; but
Mommsen ({\it C.I.L.}, xiii, pars~2, fasc.~2 p.~682) is
probably right in holding that {\it finibus\/} is here equivalent to
{\it confinio\/} ({\it C.G.}, pp.~351--3, 473 [here modified]).

{\bf Helvii.}---This tribe (vii, 7, \S 5) possessed the Vivarais, which
forms the southern part of the department of the Ard\`eche
({\it C.G.}, p.~432).

{\bf Illyricum\/} extended east of the Adriatic, as far southward as
Epirus and Macedonia and eastward as far as Moesia.

{\bf (Portus) Itius.}---Between Dieppe and Ghent there is not a
harbour, a roadstead, or a fishing-port which has not been at
one time or another during the last four centuries identified
with Portus Itius. But the reader will be quite safe in ignoring
almost all of them. Caesar had ascertained before he embarked
for Britain in 54 B.C.~that Portus Itius was the most convenient
starting-point for his fleet, which numbered over 800 small craft
(v, 2, \S 3; 8, \S 6): he sailed from it to the eastern coast of Kent,
certainly north of Walmer and almost certainly between Sandown Castle
and Sandwich (see the note on iv, 23, \S 6); and he
reckoned the length of the passage at about 30 Roman miles
(v, 2, \S 3). It has been said that any such calculation, made
before the time of scientific mapmaking, was worthless; but in
the twelfth century an Arab geographer estimated the distance
between Wissant and England correctly, and early in the seventeenth
century English seamen told the German geographer
Cluver, that the run from Dover to Boulogne was 32 English miles,---an
estimate which erred by less than a mile ({\it A.B.},
p.~562, n.~3). Anyhow Caesar's account of his voyage (v 8, \S\S 2--4)
proves that his statement was not far wrong. It is ciear, then,
that we need not look for Portus Itius south of Boulogne or east
of Calais. Calais is out of the question: it was not a port at all
in Caesar's time, indeed it was not even mentioned before the
twelfth century, and to sail from it to any place in England
with a south-west wind (8, \S 2) would have been impossible.
Ambleteuse and Sangatte may also be rejected: the former was
a tiny port, in which Caesar's huge fleet could not have found
room; the latter had no recommendation at all. Only two
places remain,---Boulogne and Wissant, which is between Cape
Blanc-Nez and Cape Gris-Nez. It is now generally believed that
Portus Itius was Boulogne. But without excavating for traces
of Caesar's camps it is not possible to do more than show that
this opinion is highly probable.

It is certain that the harbour from which Caesar sailed in 55 B.C.~was
Boulogne. This has been proved in {\it Ancient Britain\/} (pp.~558,
581--2, 588), and the argunuent is summarized in the note on iv, 22, \S
4. It is there shown by the unanimous testimony of nautical experts that
if Caesar had sailed from any other port, his cavalry transports which,
after they were caught by a storm, returned to the port from which they
had started (iv, 28), could not have done so. Bnt Caesar does not say
that the port from which he started in 55 B.C.~was Portus Itius: indeed
he does not mention Portus Itius in the Fourth Commentary, and the
former of the two passages in which he mentions it in the Fifth ('2, \S
3) might suggest that in 54 B.C.~ he used it for the first time. For he
tells us that he `ordered all the ships to assemble at the Itian
harbour, from which he had ascertained that the passage to Britain was
most convenient'. Certainly these words do not prove that he had not
sailed from the Itian harbour in 55; but they might suggest that he had
since found that it would be better to use a new harbour, as his fleet
was now eight times as numerous as it had been in the previous year. Now
there is not the slightest doubt that even in 54 Boulogne was in most
respects by far the most convenient port for his purpose. It was then
considerably larger and deeper than when Napoleon~I chose it as the
principal port for his intended invasion of England, and it could have
sheltered the whole of Caesar's fleet. It was connected by roads with
the interior, and therefore the supplies which he needed for his army
could easily have been transported to it.  The country near it is
fertile, whereas the country near Wissant is barren. Ships could have
been built at Boulogne, but not at Wissant, where there could have been
no dockyards: therefore if Portus Itius was Wissant, Labienus who was
left by Caesar in charge of `the ports' (8, \S 1), must have ordered the
sixty ships which were built while Caesar was in Britain (23, \S 4) to
be built at Boulogne. Lastly, Caesar could have sailed to Britain with a
south-west wind more conveniently from Boulogne than from Wissant. But
Boulogne may have been open to one serious objection: I say `may have
been', because we do not know enough about the ancient harbour of
Boulogne to be sure that the objection existed.  When Napoleon was
preparing to invade England the admiral in charge of the flotilla at
Boulogne found it impossible, in the most favourable circumstances, to
get more than 100 vessels out of the harbour in one tide; and therefore
it was necessary for each successive relay of ships to anchor outside in
the roadstead until the whole flotilla had cleared the harbour. But
experience proved that it was dangerous to keep more ships in the
roadstead than would be able, in case an unfavourable wind arose, to
returu for shelter into the harbour; for south-westerly winds, which
were favourable for the voyage, generally made the roadstead unsafe. Now
Caesar says (8, \S 2) that he `set sail towards sunset' ({\it ad solis
occasum naves soluit\/}); and these words appear to mean that his fleet
began to move out of the harbour towards sunset. If so, assuming that
Portus Itius was Boulogue, the whole business of clearing the harbour
must have been completed within an hour and a half, or the fleet would
have been strung out over a space of at least 7 nautical miles.
Perhaps, if the harbour was sufficiently large and deep, such a feat
would have been just practicable; but, as there were more than 800
ships, the crews could not have accomplished it unless they were very
smart and perfectly organized. It is indeed, possible to interpret
Caesar's words in the sense that the leading ships had begun to move out
some hours before sunset and anchored in the roadstead until the whole
fleet had cleared the harbour; but Caesar, like Napoleon, may perhaps
have feared that freshening winds would make the anchorage unsafe. On
the other hand, from Wissant, or rather from the beach between Cape
Gris-Nez and Cape Blanc-Nez, the shallow flat-bottomed vessels, which
had been specially constructed `to enable them to be $\ldots$ hauled up
on shore' (1, \S 2), could have started simultaneously; and Caesar may
perhaps have thought that this advantage would outweigh all the
disadvantages of Wissaut.

The upshot of the matter is this. The balance of probability
is greatly in favour of Boulogne; but unless the question is
settled by excavating for traces of the Roman camps, an element
of doubt, however slight, will remain ({\it A.B.}, pp.~552--95; {\it C.G.},
pp.~432--8).

{\bf Latobrigi.}---The Latobrigi, the Rauraci, and the Tulingi
were near neighbours of the Helvetii (i, 5, \S 4). According
to Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 9, \S 9), the chief towns of the Rauraci
were Augusta (Augst), about 7 miles east by south of Basle,
and Argentovaria, which was probably near Heidolsheim, close
to the common frontier of Upper and Lower Alsace: but this
evidence is not decisive; for, like the Ubii and other Rhenish
tribes, the Rauraci may have changed their abode before
Ptolemy wrote, or their territory may have been smaller in
Caesar's time than in Ptolemy's. It is impossible to do more
than guess at the positions of the other two tribes; for we have
no clue except doubtful similarity of names. The Latobrigi are
commonly placed in the neighbourhood of Brugge, on the rivers
Brege and Briggach, tributaries of the upper Danube; the
Tulingi in the country round Stuhlingen, a town near Schaffhausen ({\it
C.G.}, pp.~438--42).

{\bf Lemonum,} the chief town of the Pictones (viii, 26, \S 1),
stood upon the site of Poitiers.

{\bf Lemovices.}---This tribe possessed the ancient diocese of
Limoges, which corresponded roughly with the departments
of the Haute-Vienne, Corr\`eze, and Creuse ({\it C.G.}, pp.~442--4).

{\bf Lepontu.}---The Lepontii inhabited those parts of Switzerland
and Italy which lie south of the sources of the Rh\^one and the
Rhine and north of Lake Maggiore. Their name survives in
that of the Lepontine Alps.

{\bf Leuci.}---The Leuci (i, 40, \S11). whose chief town was Tullum
(Toul), possessed the diocese of Toul, or the department of the
Vosges, and perhaps also the diocese of Verdun, or the southern
parts of the departments of the Meuse and Meurthe-et-Moselle.
This diocese corresponded with the territory of the Verodunenses, who
are not mentioned in any document earlier than
the Nolitia provinciarum; and we do not know whether they
were grouped with the Leuci or the Mediomatrici ({\it C.G.},
p.~444).

{\bf Levaci.} See N{\sc ERVII}.

{\bf Lexovii.}---This tribe possessed the diocese of Lisieux, which
comprised adjacent parts of the lepartments of the Calvados and
the Eure ({\it C.G.}, p.~444).

{\bf Liger} was the Gallic name of the Loire.

{\bf LingoneS.}---The territory of the Lingones comprised the
dioceses of Langres and Dijon ({\it C.G.}, pp.~444--5).

{\bf Magetobriga.}---It is impossible to locate Magetobriga: we
only know that it was either in the country of the Aedui or in
that of the Sequani (i, 31, \S\S 6--12). The only one of numerous
guesses which rests upon anything like a solid foundation
identifies it with Broie, close to a marsh called Moigte-de-Broie
near the confluence of the Oignon and the Sa\^one. According to
d'Anville, a piece of pottery, bearing the inscription {\sc MAG}. {\sc ETOB}
was found at Moigte-de-Broie; but if it ever existed, it was long
ago lost ({\it C.G.}, pp.~445--6).

{\bf Mandubii.}---The Mandubii possessed Alesia, or Mont Auxois
(vii, 68, \S1), which is about 32 miles north-west of Dijon. Their
territory therefore comprised part of the Cote-d'Or, but how
much it is impossible to tell. As Caesar says (90, \S 1) that
after he had captured Alesia he `started for the country of the
Aedui' ({\it in Haeduos profiscitur\/}), it may be concluded that
the Mandubii were not in Aeduan territory; but they were
probably dependants of that people ({\it C.G.}, pp.~446--7).

{\bf Matisco\/} (vii, 90, \S 7) was on the site of M\^acon.

{\bf Matrona\/} (i, 1, \S 2) was the Celtic name of the Marne.

{\bf Meclosedum\/} was on an island in the Seine, opposite the
site of Melun.

{\bf Modiomatrici.}---The Mediomatrici are mentioned by the
writer of iv, 10, between the Sequani and the Triboci (q.v.),
among the tribes whose territories bordered on the Rhine, but
if that statement holds good for the time of Caesar, they must
have possessed the country round Worms and Spires, which in
Ptolemy's time belonged to the Vangiones and the Nemetes.
Their chief town was Divodurum (Metz). Their territory probably included
that of the Verodunenses, whose name survives
in 'Verdun', aud who are not mentioned by Caesar ({\it C.G.},
p.~447). See L{\sc EUCI}.

{\bf Meldi.}---A tribe called Meldi, which was mentioned by
Strabo (iv, 3, \S 5), Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 8, \S 11), and other
writers, certainly occupied the diocese of Meaux, that is to say,
the northern part of the department of the Seine-et-Marne and
a fraction of the south-eastern part of the department of the
Oise; but some conumentators deny that Caesar's Meldi were
the same. For Caesar says (v, 5, \S 2) that on arriving at Portus
Itius, where he had ordered his fleet to assemble, he found that
60 ships, which had been built in the country of the Meldi,
had been prevented by contrary winds from reaching the
harbour, and had returned to the place from which they had
started. Portus Itius was either Wissant or, much more probably,
Boulogne. The troops who built the fleet had wintered
in the country of the Belgae (iv, 38, \S 4; v, 1, \S 1): therefore all
the ships had been built on or east of the Seine;
and Strabo (iv, 3, \S 3) says that Caesar's naval arsenal was at
the mouth of that river. It has been argued, first, that as the
wind prevented those ships which had been built in the country
of the Meldi, but not the others, from reaching Portus Itius
and as the bulk of the fleet must have been constructed in or
south of that harbour, we must look for the Meldi to the
north of it; secondly, that Caesar would not have built ships
so far from the sea as Meaux; and thirdly, that even if he
had done so, the 60 ships would not have sailed back up the
Seine and the Marne. Accordingly it has been suggested
that Caesar's Meldi inhabited the country round Maldeghem,
about 10 miles east of Bruges! But the 60 ships may have
sailed from the same side of Portus Itius as the rest, for the
wind which stopped them may not have arisen until after the
others had reached port; it is certain that in the eighteenth
century timber used for constructing barges at Rouen came from
the neighbourhood of Meaux; and Caesar does not say that the
60 ships returned to the couutry of the Meldi, but only that
they returned to the place from which they had sailed,---probably the
mouth of the Seine, where they may have remained for a time after they
had dropped down the river from
Meaux. The word {\it Maldeghem\/} has no connexion with Meldi, but
is derived from the Dutch plant-name, {\it melde\/}; and it is absurd
to suppose that Caesar would have established a dockyard on
the North Sea, near Bruges ({\it C.G.}, pp.~447--9).

{\bf Menapii.}---The Menapii possessed land on the right bank of
the Rhine, not far from the sea, as well as on the left (iv, 1,
\S 1; 4, \S 2); `the island of the Batavi', which is mentioned by
the writer of iv, 10, may have belonged to them as well, for
perhaps it was not occupied by the Batavi before the time
of Augustus (see the first note on iv, 10); and their country
was bounded on the south by that of the Eburones (vi, 5, \S 4)
and on the west by that of the Morini (Strabo, iv, 3, \S 5, Pliny,
{\it Nat. Hist.}, iv, 17, \S106). The land which belonged to them on
the right bank of the Rhine was in the neighbourhood of Cleve
and Xanten (see the note on iv, 1, \S 1 [non longe a mari]). So
much is certain; but to trace the frontier which separated the
Menapii from the Morini is difficult, if not impossible.

According to Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 9, \S\S 4--5), the eastern limit
of the Morini was the Tabula. This river, which is not mentioned by any
other writer, is generally supposed to have been
the Scheldt, and if it was not, Ptolemy does not mention the
Scheldt at all. But every other ancient writer who mentions
the Scheldt calls it {\it Scaldis\/}; and Walckenaer maintains that
the Tabula was the Aa. The known ancient name of the Aa
was, however, {\it Agnio\/} or {\it Agniona\/}: so it is clear that either the
Aa or the Scheldt had two names; and the balance of probability is
evidently in favour of identifying the Tabula with
the Scheldt. Here a difficulty arises. A place called {\it Castellum
Menapiorum}, which is mentioned in the {\it Table of Peutinger\/}
(p.~13, col.~2), was undoubtedly Cassel, about 11 miles northeast of
St.~Omer: therefore, unless {\it Menapiorum\/} was written by
mistake for {\it Morinorum}, the Scheldt was not the eastern boundary of the
{\it Morini\/} when the {\it Table\/} was compiled. But the
{\it castellum\/} of the Menapii is also mentioned by Ptolemy, and
as he makes the Meuse their western frontier, it is clear that
unless he defined their position wrongly, the {\it castellum\/} which
he mentions was not Cassel. Perhaps the Morini were punished
for their repeated revolts in the time of Caesar by being forced
to surrender the eastern part of their territory to the Menapii;
if so, we may suppose that {\it Castellum Menapiorum\/} (Cassel) was
not built or did not belong to the Menapii until after they
migrated into this district. My own belief is that in Caesar's
time the Scheldt, as a natural boundary, formed the common
frontier of the two tribes: if the Menapii had then possessed
the country between the Scheldt and the Aa, it would be
difficult to understand why they only contributed 7,000 men
to the Belgic host in 57 B.C.~(ii, 4, \S 9), while the Morini
contributed 25,000 ({\it C.G.}, pp.~449--53).

{\bf Morini.}---The Morini were bounded on the west by thc
Ambiani, from whom they were separated by the river Canche,
on the south by the Atrebates (and perhaps also by the Nervii),
and on the east by the Menapii (Strabo, iv, 3, \S 5, Pliny, {\it Nat.
Hist.}, iv, 17, \S 106). Their eastern frontier, as I have shown
in the preceding article, was probably the Scheldt ({\it C.G.},
pp.~449--53).

{\bf Namnetes.}---The territory of this tribe corresponded with
the ancient diocese of Nantes, or that portion of the department of the
Loire-Inf\'erieure which lies on the right bank of
the Loire and is bounded on the north-east by the Semnon
({\it C.G.}, p.~453).

{\bf Nantuates.}---The Nantuates possessed the territory that
extended on the south of the lake of Geneva as far west as
the frontier of the Allobroges (iii, 1, \S 1), which was probably
formed by the river Dranse. As their chief town, Agaunum
stood upon the site of St.~Maurice, and their eastern neighbours
the Veragri (q.v.), occupied the western part of the Valais,
the territory of the Nantuates comprised the eastern part
of the Chablais and the north-western part of the Valais
({\it C.G.}, pp.~453--4).

In iv, 10, which was not written by Caesar, it is said that the
Rhine rises in the country of the Lepontii, and flows through
the countries of the Nantuates, Helvetii, Sequani, Mediomatrici,
Triboci, and Treveri. If the unknown writer did not make
a blunder, these Nantuates were different---different as a group,
if not in blood---from the Nantuates mentioned in iii, 1, \S 1,
who lived in the Chablais and the Valais; and there is no
evidence for fixing their whereabouts ({\it C.G.}, pp.~454--5).

{\bf Narbo\/} is now Narbonne.

{\bf Nemetes.}---The Nemetes are mentioned by Caesar (i, 51, \S 2)
among the tribes who fought in the army of Ariovistus; and he
says that the entire army of Ariovistus took part in the campaign
(38, \S 1), and that the few individuals who survived the battle
and the retreat recrossed the Rhine (a3, \S\S 1--2). If these
statements were accurate, the Nemetes who were settled on the
left bank round Spires in the time of Pliny ({\it Nat. Hist.}, iv, 17,
\S 106) must have been immigrants, descended from a portion of
the tribe which had not followed Ariovistus into Gaul; but
when Caesar wrote that Ariovistus had taken the field {\it cum suis
omnibus copiis\/} (i, 38, \S 1) he may only have meant `with all his
[available] forces'. In that case, however, we should have
expected to find that those Nemetes who did not take part
in the campaign had remained in the country which Ariovistus
wrested from the Sequani (31, \S10),---that is to say, the plain
of Alsace.

I have not marked the Nemetes on the map, because I only
profess to represent Gaul as it was in the time of Caesar; and
we do not know exactly what territory was occupied by the
Nemetes before the defeat of Ariovistus ({\it C.G.}, pp.~455--6).

{\bf Nemetocenna\/} was identical with Nemetacum (Ptolemy,
{\it Geogr.}, ii, 9, \S 4), which stood upon the site of Arras ({\it C.G.},
p.~456).

{\bf Nervii.}---The Nervii are not mentioued in the {\it Notitia
provinciarum\/}: but in their stead we find the {\it civitas Camaracensium\/};
and accordingly it has been concluded that their territory
corresponded with the ancient diocese of Cambrai (Camaracum),
which comprised Hainault, that part of Brabant which lies west
of the Demer and the Dyle, East Flanders, and part of the
province of Antwerp. Perhaps it extended as far northward
as the estuary of the Scheldt; for Caesar (ii, 28, \S 1) says
that the Nervii, before encountering him in 57 B.C., sent
their non-combatants for safety {\it in aestuaria}, which can only
mean the low-lying tracts bordering that estuary. But it is
not certain that the {\it aestuaria} were in Nervian territory ({\it C.G.},
pp.~4S6--7).

The geographical positions of the dependants of the Nervii---the
Ceutrones, Geidumni, Grudii, Levaci, and Pleumo---are
unknown. Various attempts have been made to fix them; but there is no
evidence except doubtful resemblance of names; for example, between
Geidumni and Geidines, near Dinant. ({\it C.G.}, pp.~457--8).

{\bf Nitiobroges.}---The Nitiobroges possessed the diocese of
Agen (Aginnum) and perhaps also that of Condom, which
was originally included in it,---that is to say, the greater part
of the department of the Lot-et-Garonne and a small fraction
of the department of the Tarn-et-Garonne. It is doubtful,
however, whether they had any territory south of the Garonne;
for the Bituriges Vivisci possessed lands on its left bank, and
therefore if the river in its central course did not separate the
Celtae from the Aquitani, it did so nowhere, and Caesar's
statement in i, 1, \S 2 was inaccurate. But, as I have already
remarked in the note on that passage Caesar's statements
about frontiers were sometimes loose ({\it C.G.}, pp.~458--9).

{\bf Noreia\/} stood upon the site of Neumarkt in Styria.

{\bf Noricus ager,} or Noricum, comprehended, roughly speaking, that
part of Austria which lies between the Ino, the Danube, Hungary, and Italy.

{\bf Noviodunum (Biturigum).}---The only clues that Caesar
gives as to the position of this town are, that it was on the
road from Cenabum (Orl\'eans) to Gorgobina; that Vercingetorix
on hearing that Caesar was marching from Cenabum, abandoned
the siege of Gorgobina and marched against Caesar; that his
cavalry appeared before Noviodunum on the day on which
Caesar reached it, and apparently a few hours after Caesar's
arrival; that Caesar, after receiving the surrender of Noviodunum,
marched against Avaricum (Bourges), and that Vercingetorix followed him
by easiy stages (vii, 11, \S 9--13; 16, \S1).
Probably Caesar had intended to march to Gorgobina by way
of Avaricum; for by attacking or threatening so important
a town he would have compelled Vercingetorix to raise the
sieve.

Not to mention mere guesses, Noviodunum has been identified
with ten different towns; but some of them do not satisfy the
requirements of Caesar's narrative; and, with one exception
there is no evidence for the rest. Readers of this book need
only consider what is to be said for that one,---Villate, near
Neuvy-sur-Barangeon. Villate is on the Roman road from
Cenabum to Avaricum; and though it is only 18 miles from
Bourges, Caesar probably marched a much greater distance, in
order to avoid the forests on the north and the marshes which
nearly surrounded the town, and to reach his camping ground
on the south-eastern side (15, \S 5; 17, \S 1): so he might fairly
have said that Vercingetorix had followed him by easy stages
({\it minoribus itineribus\/}). Celtic remains, Roman coins belonging
to the period comprised between the reigns of Augustus and
Gratian, and the ruins of a building which is supposed to have
been a Gallo-Roman theatre have been discovered at Villate.
All this, indeed, only shows that Villate may have been Noviodunum; but
as every conceivable site seems to have been
proposed, and as there is more to be said for Villate than for
any other, I mark Noviodunum there on the map with a note of
interrogation ({\it C.G.}, pp.~459--64).

{\bf Noviodunum (Haeduorum).}---Although direct evidence is
wanting, this town undoubtedly stood upon the site of Nevers.
Caesar (vii, 55, \S1) simply describes it as `advantageously situated on
the banks of the Loire' ({\it ad ripas Ligeris oportuno loco
positum\/}). The Gallo-Roman town of Nivernum, which, as the
itineraries show, was at Nevers, was identified by mediaeval
writers with Noviodunum: mless Noviodunum perished, which,
as it was a most important place, is hardly conceivable, it was
certainly Nivernum, because there was no other Gallo-Roman
town with which Noviodunum can be identified; and the great
strength of the site of Nevers would have recommended it to
Caesar ({\it C.G.}, p.~464).

{\bf Noviodunum (Suessionum)\/} was a strongly fortified town
(ii, 12, \S 2): it was a long day's march from Caesar's camp on
the Aisne (S, \S 4), or perhaps from another camp a little lower
down the valley (see the note on 12, \S 1); and we may fairly
suppose that it was the chief stronghold of the Suessiones.
Caesar's camp on the Aisne was either on the hill of Mauchamp,
about a mile and a half NE.~of Berry-au-Bac, or on the plateau
of Chaudardes, about 5 miles nearer Soissons (see the note on
8, \S\S 3--5)

Noviodunum was certainly not Augusta Suessionum (Soissons),
the Gallo-Roman capital of the Suessiones; for this was an
entirely new town. There is only one site for which any real
evidence can be produced; but that evidence is very strong.
An important Gallic fortress on the hill of Pommiers, about
2$1\over2$ miles north-west of Soissons, has been excavated. The ruins
have yielded over 2,500 Gallic coins and 19 Roman ones earlier
than 57 B.C.,---the year in which Caesar captured Noviodunum;
and quite close to Pommiers, on its eastern side, the entrenchments of a
Roman camp, which may well have been Caesar's,
have also been revealed. Probably the fortress of Pommiers
was the old capital of the Suessiones, which was succeeded by
the Gallo-Roman Augusta Suessionum, just as Bibracte (i, 23,
\S1) was succeeded by Augustodunum ({\it C.G.}, pp.~464--6).

{\bf Ocelum.} See G{\sc RAIOCELI}.

{\bf Octodurus.} See V{\sc ERAGRI}.

{\bf Oppidum Cassivellauni.}---Caesar does not give details
enough to enable us to locate this fort with certainty. Immediately
after the sentence (v, 21, \S1) in which he says that he
prohibited his soldiers from plundering the Trinovantes, he
informs us that the stronghold of Cassivellaunus was not far off.
We may fairly conclude that it was near the common frontier
of the Trinovantes and Cassivellaunus. Verulamium, which
was situated immediately west of St.~Albans, fulfils this condition; it
was the capital of Tasciovanus, the son and successor
of Cassivellaunus; and the marshes which Caesar mentions (\S 2)
might have been formed by the river Ver. Accordingly the
{\it oppidum\/} is generally identified with Verulamium; and the
conclusion is not improbable ({\it A.B.}, pp.~699--702).

{\bf Osismi.}---According to Pomponius Mela (iii, 6, \S 48), the island
of Sena, or Sein, about 30 miles south by west of Brest, was opposite
territory which belonged to the Osismi; and Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii,
8, \S\S 5--6) implies that the country of the Veneti extended northward
as far as the Gobaean promontory,---the Pointe du Raz. The Osismi, then,
inhabited the department of E`inist\`ere, and we shall not go far wrong
if we assume that the Montagnes Noires---a natural boundary---separated
the two peoples ({\it C.G.}, pp.~466--7).

{\bf Paemaui.}---The Paemani, who are mentioned by Caesar
conjointly with the Condrusi, Eburones, and Caerosi (ii, 4, \S 10),
most probably occupied the Pays de Famenne, which appears
to retain their name, and adjoins on the west Condroz, the
territory of the Condrusi ({\it C.G.}, p.~404).

{\bf Parisii.}---The territory of the Parisii corresponded with the
modern diocese of Paris, that is to say, the department of the
Seine and part of the department of the Seine-et-Oise ({\it C.G.}, p.~467).

{\bf Petrocorii.}---This tribe possessed the ancient diocese of
P\'erigueux, which was nearly identical with the department
of the Dordogne ({\it C.G.}, p.~467).

{\bf Pictones.}---The Pictones occupied the ancient diocese of
Poitiers, which included the departments of the Vend\'ee, Deux-S\`evres,
and Vienne, the southern part of the Loire-Inf\'erieure
and the western part of the Maine-et-Loire ({\it C.G.}, p.~467).

{\bf Pirustae.}---This tribe, according to Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 16,
\S 5), dwelt in the eastern part of Albania, east of Dyrrachium
(Durazzo); but Strabo (vii, 5, \S 3) says that they (or a people
of the same name?) were in Pannonia. According to Caesar,
they were not in Illyricum; therefore he probably meant the
tribe which Strabo mentions.

{\bf Pleumoxii.} See N{\sc ERVII}.

{\bf Ptianii.}---The position of this tribe cannot be determined
({\it C.G.}, p.~467).

{\bf Rauraci.} See L{\sc ATOBRIGI}.

{\bf Redones.}---As the Redones are twice called a maritime
people (ii, 34; vii, 75, \S 4), they must have possessed, besides
the diocese of Rennes, the strip of coast between the Rance and
the Couesnon, which separated the Venelli from the Coriosolites
({\it C.G.}, pp.~467--8).

{\bf Remi.}---Besides the ancient diocese of Reims, the Remi
probably also possessed that of Ch\^alons, formed out of the
territory of the Catuvellauni, who are not mentioned by any
writer before the time of Constantine. According to Caesar
(ii, 3, \S1), the Remi were conterminous with the Celtae. This
would be true whether the Catuvellauni were grouped with the
Remi or the Lingones; but most probably their territory
belonged to the former, who were the more powerful (vi, 12,
\S 7). See {\it C.G.}, pp.~468--9.

{\bf Rhenus,}---the Rhine.

{\bf Rhodanus,}---the Rh\^one.

{\bf Ruteni.}---The territory of this people was identical with the
ancient diocese of Rodez, that is to say, the greater part of the
department of the Aveyron and the northern part of that of
the Tarn ({\it C.G.}, p.~469).

{\bf Sabis,}---the Sambre.

{\bf Samarobriva\/} stood upon the site of Amiens. See p.~403 and
{\it C.G.}, p.~465.

{\bf Santoni.}---The Santoni possessed the dioceses of Saintes and
Angouleme and the Pays d'Aunis; in other words, the departments of the
Charente and Charente-Inf\'erieure and part of the
Gironde ({\it C.G.}, p.~470).

{\bf Seduni.}---The name of this tribe (iii, 1, \S1) is preserved by
the town of Sion, or Sitten, which is in the valley of the upper
Rh\^one, about 17 miles ENE.~of Martigny ({\it C.G.}, p.~454).

{\bf Segni.}---The name of this tribe, which, as Caesar says (vi,
32, \S 1), was between the Eburones and the Treveri, is apparently
preserved in that of Sinei or Signi, a town in the county
of Namur ({\it C.G.}, p.~404).

{\bf Segontiaci.}---Judging by coins, the territory of this tribe
(v, 21, \S1) may have been conterminous with and was probably
north of that of the British Atrebates, who possessed parts of
Hampshire and Berkshire ({\it A.B.}, pp.~346--7).

{\bf Segusiavi.}---Caesar says (i, 10, \S 5) that the Segusiavi were
`the first people outside the Province, beyond the Rh\^one'; and
it is evident from 12--13 that when he entered their country he
was on the eastern bank of the Sa\^one. The greater part of
their territory, however, was on the western bank; for two of
their towns, Rodumna (Roanne) and Foruun Segusiavorum
(Feurs), which Ptolemy mentions ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 8, \S 11), were on
that side, and indeed Rodumna was west of the Loire. Their
chief town was Lugdunum (Lyons); and the western part of
their country seems to have comprised that part of the diocese
of Lgons which was on the right bank of the Rh\^one and of the
Sa\^one. It is impossible to define the tract which they possessed
between the Rh\^one and the Sa\^one; but it was probably very
small, for Tr\'evoux, which is 25 miles south of M\^acon, being
situated between two places called Amb\'erieux, may be supposed
to have belonged to the Ambarri ({\it C.G.}, pp.~170--1).

{\bf Senones.}---The Senones certainly posseased the diocese of
Sens; and the dioceses of Auxerre (Autessiodurum) and Troyes
are generally attributed to them as well. Autessiodurum,
which is not mentioned by any writer earlier than Ammianus
Marcellinus, is assigned in the {\it Notitia provinciarum\/} (p.~265
[iv, 4]) to the Senones; but see H{\sc AEDUI}. The diocese of
Troyes represented the territory of the Tricasses, who are not
mentioned by Caesar. Probably, then, as the reader will see if
he looks at the map, they were dependants or a subdivision of
the Senones ({\it C.G.}, pp.~471--3).

{\bf Sequana,}---the Seine.

{\bf Sequani.}---The Sequani were separated from the Helvetii by
the Jura (i, 2, \S 3), from the Leuci by the Vosges, from the
Aedui, according to Strabo (iv, 3, \S 2) and Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 8,
\S 12), by the Sa\^one, and from the Allobroges, in part (see B.~G.,
i, 11, \S 5), by the Rh\^one. The Aedui, however, probably
possessed those parts of the dioceses of Chalon (Cavillonum)
and Macon (Matisco) (vii, 90, \S 7) which extend eastward of
the Sa\^one, and the Sequani were cut off from the lower
reaches of that river by the Ambarri and the Segusiavi.
Roughly speaking, their territory corresponded with the
diocese of Besan{\c c}on (Vesontio) and comprised Franche-Comt\'e
and the greater part of Alsace ({\it C.G.}, pp.~473--4).

{\bf Sibusates.}---The Sibusates probably dwelt in the neighbourhood of
Sobusse, between Dax and Bayonne; but there is no
evidence except the resemblance between the names.

{\bf Sotiates.}---The Sotiates possessed the country round Sos in
the department of the Lot-et-Garonne. The evidence for identifying Sos
with the stronghold of the Sotiates which Crassus
captured (iii, 21) is this. Sos was in the Middle Ages called
Sotium: the {\it Jerusalem Itinerary\/} (p.~550) mentions a place
called Scittium, which is identified by the statement of its
distances from Elusa (Eauze) and Vasata (Bazas) with Sosand the form
Scit[t]ium may have been due to a misreading of
Sotium, the scribe mistaking an ill-formed {\it o\/} for {\it ci}. Crassus,
having passed through the country of the Nitiobroges (see the
note on iii, ao, \S 2), entered Aquitania, and the Sotiates were
the people whom he first encountered (20, \S 3), which condition
is satisfied by the position of Sos. Moreover, recent excavations
at Sos prove that it was a Gallic stronghold ({\it R.E.A.}, 1913, p.~81).
Only one objection is worth noticing here. The principal Gallic
towns did not, as a rule, exchange their names for those of the
tribes to which they belonged (for example, Lutecia became
Parisii) before the close of the third century, and by that time
the Sotiates were incorporated with the Elusates; accordingly
it has been argued that the name of the town which Crassus
captured could never have been effaced by the name Sotiates
and therefore that the town was not identical with Sos. But
the answer is easy. The Tricasses, who are not mentioned by
Caesar, were incorporated with the Senones; yet {\it Augustobona},
the name of their chief town, was effaced by the name {\it Tricasii\/}
(Troyes). See {\it C.G.}, pp.~414--7, one argument in which is
here modified.

{\bf Suessiones.}---The Suessiones possessed the diocese of
Soissons, that is to say, the greater part of the department
of the Aisne, and probably also the diocese of Senlis, formed
out of the territory of the Silvanectes, who were between them
and the Bellovaci. Caesar implies (ii, 13, \S1) that the territories of
the Bellovaci and the Suessiones were conterminous,
and he does not mention the Silvanectes in his list of the Belgic
tribes (4, \S\S 5--10). We may therefore infer that they were
dependants of or included anuong either the Bellovaci or the
Suessiones, and as the latter, according to Caesar (4, \S 6), had
a very extensive territory, the diocese of Senlis probably belonged to
them ({\it C.G.}, pp.~397, 477).

{\bf Sugambri.}---This German tribe dwelt between the river Sieg,
which preserves their name, and the Lippe. It would appear,
then, that the territory of the Ubii, who were south of the
Sugambri (iv, 18, \S 2; 19, \S1), was bounded on the north by
the Sieg; but some writers maintain that they also possessed
a strip of land north of the Sieg as far as Cologne and between
the Rhine and the Sugambri. If so, the Sugambri must have
crossed their territory in 53 B.C.~when they made their raid
into the country of the Eburones (vi, 35, \S\S 4--6). But do not
Caesar's words, {\it Sugambri qui sunt proximi Rheno}, prove that
they crossed the Rhine immediately from their own territory?
Cf. 1; 54, \S1, and iii, 11, \S1.

{\bf Tarbelli.}---The territory of the Tarbelli, according to Ptolemy
({\it Geogr.}, ii, 7, \S 8), extended southward from the frontier of the
Bituriges Vivisci to the Pyrenees and therefore included the
territories of the Cocosates and the Sibusates. The Tarbelli
were really separated from the Bituriges Vivisci by the Boiates,
who are not mentioned by Caesar; but under the Roman
Empire several smaller tribes, of whom the Boiates were probably one,
were evidently annexed to the Tarbelli and grouped
with them under their name; and even in Caesar's time certain
tribes whom he does not name may have been included with
them ({\it C.G.}, pp.~477--9).

{\bf Tarusates.}---The Tarusates are generally believed to have
been identical with the Aturenses, who are not mentioned by
Caesar, and who possessed the country round Aire (Atura).
Some writers believe that the district of Tursan in the diocese
of Aire preserves their name; while others place them, for the
same reason, in the neighbourhood of Tartas, which is about
15 miles north east of Dax ({\it C.G.}, pp.~479--80). See V{\sc OCATES}.

{\bf Tergestini.}---The Tergestini were the inhahitants of Tergeste, a
town which is represented by the modern Trieste.

{\bf Tigurini.}---An inscription containing the words PAG({\it i\/})
TIGOR({\it inorum}) has been found near Aven\-ches, south of the
lake of Morat; and accordingly the Tigurini are supposed to
have inhabited that part of Switzerland ({\it C.G.}, p.~480). The
reader will understand that the letters printed in small italics
are not in the inscription; but he may be as sure that they
have been rightly supplied as that M.C.C.~stands for {\it Marylebone
Cricket Club}. The art of deciphering Latin inscriptions was
acquired gradually.

{\bf Tolosa\/} stood upon the site of Toulouse.

{\bf Tolosates.}---The Tolosates possessed that part of the territory of
the Volcae Tectosages which corresponded with the ancient diocese of
Toulouse (Tolosa), that is to say, the greater part of the department of
the Elaute-Vienne and a part of the department of the Gers ({\it C.G.},
p.~480).

{\bf Treveri.}---Caesar says that the territory of the Treveri,
whose name is recognizable in Tr\`eves, extended to the Rhine
(iii, 11, \S 1; vi, 9, \S 5); that it was conterminous with the
territory of the Remi (v, 24, \S 2), and that it was separated
from the Eburones by the Segni and Condrusi (vi, 32, \S1). It
cannot be defined exactly, because we do not know whether the
Treveri or the Mediomatrici, who were their southern neighbours,
possessed the territory which afterwards belonged to the
Vangiones, and because we cannot trace the frontiers of the
Eburones, Segni, and Condrusi, with which no dioceses
correspond. The northern boundary of the Treveri may have
been the rugged valley of the Ahr or perhaps the river
Vinxtbach, between the Ahr and the Moselle; and their
territory comprised the greater part of the province of Lusembourg, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the southern part
of Rhenish Prussia ({\it C.G.}, p.~481).

{\bf Triboci.}---The Triboci were one of the tribes that fought in
the host of Ariovistus (i, 51, \S 2), which had for some time
been settled in the northern part of the country of the Sequani
(31, \S 10), that is to say, in the plain of Alsace. Caesar says
(38, \S 1) that the whole host of Ariovistus took part in the
campaign, and (53, \S\S1--3) that after his defeat the very small
remnant of his host that escaped destruction was driven across
the Rhine. According to Strabo, however (iv, 3, \S 4), the
Triboci had taken up their abode in the country of the
Mediomatrici. If the ancestors of these Triboci had invaded
Gaul under Ariovistus, then, Caesar's statement notwithstanding,
those who fought in the army of Ariovistus were only a portion
of the tribe. Anyhow it is obviously impossible to determine
the frontiers of the Triboci as they existed in the time of
Caesar ({\it C.G.}, pp.~481--2).

{\bf Trinovantes.}---This tribe inhabited Essex, for their chief
town, Camulodunum (Ptolemy, {\it Geogr.}, ii, 3, \S 11), was on the
site of Colchester.

{\bf Tulingi.\/} See L{\sc ATOBRIGI}.

{\bf Turoni.}---The territory of the Turoni corresponded with the
diocese of Tours, or, roughly speaking, the department of the
Indre-et-Loire ({\it C.G.}, p.~483).

{\bf Ubii.} See S{\sc UGAMBERI}.

{\bf Uxellodunum.}---Hirtius says that Uxellodunum was in
the country of the Cadurci, which is represented by the department of
the Lot; that the stronghold, which stood opon a hill
was protected on all sides by steep rocks; that the ascent was
difficult even when unopposed; that through the valley, which
nearly surrounded the hill, there flowed a stream, that the
stream flowed at the very foot of the hill in such a way that it
was impossible to divert its course; that the descent to it for
the townspeople was difficult and steep; that 3,000 men got
out of the town, although it was blockaded by Caninius with
two legions, and sent back a string of pack-horses, loaded with
corn, into the peninsula; that below the stronghold, on that
part of the hill which, for a space of about 300 feet, was not
surrounded by the stream---in other words, on a part which
overlooked the isthmus---there was a spring, that opposite the
spring Caesar constructed an embankment 60 feet high, on
which he erected a tower with 10 stories, high enough to overtop the
spring, but not to reach the level of the wall of the
town, and that the Roman engineers drove subterranean galleries towards
the source of the spring and diverted its flow
(viii, 32, \S\S 1--2; 33, \S 1; 34, \S 1; 35, \S 3; 40, \S\S 2--4;
41, \S\S 1, 4--5; 43, \S 4).

Of the various sites that have been proposed for identification
with Uxellodunum two only---Luzech (pronounced `Luzesh')
and the Puy d'Issolu---need be noticed here.

Luzech, which is about 7 miles west-north-west of Cahors, is
situated on an isthmus, at the foot and on the north of a hill
which rises 287 feet above the level of the Lot, and is nearly
surrounded by that river. The hill occupies 42 acres,---not
more than one-third of the peninsula. No spring is to be
found, only a slight oozing, so to speak, of water above the
isthmus.

The only point which tells in favour of Luzech is that, alone
among all the sites that have been proposed, it is almost entirely
surrounded by a river, and that the breadth of the isthmus
approximately corresponds with the statement of Hirtius. The
hill is scarped on its northern side only: on the south and west
the slopes are so gentle that even carriages can ascend without
difficulty, and the rocks of which the hill is composed are so
hard that they cannot have suffered any considerable change of
form. The Lot does not flow at the very foot of the hill, the
least distance which separates them is over 100, the greatest
500 yards. The oozing of water is not more than 13 or 14 feet
above the level of the isthmus, and the gigantic works which
the Romans constructed in order to place themselves on a level
with the spring would therefore have heen unnecessary. There
is a hill immediately north of Luzech and considerably higher,
on which are the remains of a Gallic fort, called Impernal, the
nearness of which makes it unlikely that Luzech was a stronghold at all.
Lastly, if Uxellodunum was on a peninsula with an
isthmus only 300 feet wide, how could 3,000 men have got out
of it, how could a string of pack-horses have got into it again
when it was blockaded by two legions? They could not have
done so if the Roman general knew his business; and his
generalship throughout the campaign had been excellent (cf.
Caesar, {\it B.C.}, ii, 34, \S 4).

The Puy d'Issolu, near Vayrac, rises about 650 feet above the
valley of the Tourmente, a tributary of the Dordogne: it is
nearly surrounded by steep escarprnents of rock and isolated
on every side except the north-east, where it is connected by a
col, or saddle, with the Pech Demont. On the north, east, and
south the plateau is practically impregnable; while the western
slopes, where, between the hamlets of Louli\'e and L\'eguillat,
there is a break in the escarpment, are steep enough to justify
the statement of Hirtius that even if no resistance had been
offered, the ascent would have been difficult for armed men. On
this side, about 72 feet below the line which the walls of the
alleged fortress would have followed, there was a spring. The
other topographical features will be plain to any one who
studies the plan (facing p.~385). A charter, dated 944, proves
that the hill was then called {\it Uxellodunum\/}; and there is no
evidence that any other place in the country of the Cadurci
was ever called by any such name. The Puy commands the
northern entrance to the country of the Cadurci; and therefore
it is the very stronghold which Lucterius, fleeing from Caninius
(32, \S 1), might have been expected to choose. Paths such as
those by which Hirtius says (35, \S 3) that Lucterius endeavoured
to send his pack-horses up the hill, are easily recognizable.
Traces of lines of investment have been discovered, and also
a gallery, driven through the western side of the hill to the
source of the spring. But there is one serious objection. The
Puy d'Issolu is not almost entirely surrounded by a river, but
half surrounded by two rivers; and therefore there is no isthmus
at all. It comes to this, then, that Luzech is the only place
where there is an isthmus approximately corresponding with
the descliption of Hirtius; while the Puy d'Issolu is the only
place which, in other respects, corresponds with his description.
But one can understand that Hirtius, if he never saw Uxellodunum,
misunderstood the report which he followed; whereas
it is hardly credible that he should have blundered wholesale
as he must have done if Uxellodunum was the same as Luzech.
Uxellodunum, then, must be identified with the Puy d'Issolu,
though doubts may recur ({\it C.G.}, pp.~483--93).

{\bf Vangiones.}---The Vangiones, one of the German tribes
which fought under Ariovistus (i, 51, \S 2), occupied, in the time
of Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 9, \S 9), the country round Borbetomagus
(Worms); but it is doubtful whether they were settled there
in the time of Caesar (C.G., pp.~493--4). See N{\sc EMETES} and
T{\sc RIBOCI}.

{\bf Veliocasses.}---The Veliocasses, whose name survives, perhaps, in
`Vexin', dwelt in the southern part of the department
of the Seine-Inf\'elieure and the eastern part of the department
of the Eure ({\it C.G.}, p.~494).

{\bf Vellaunodunum\/} was in the country of the Senones, on
a road leading from Agedincum (Sens) to Cenabum (Orl\'eans).
Caesar marched from Agedincum to Vellaunodunum in two
days, and proceeded to besiege it on the day of his arrival.
In a couple of days he surrounded it with a contravallation,
and on the third day the garrison surrendered. After making
arrangements for disarming them Caesar moved on, and reached
Cenabum in two days,---too late in the afternoon to begin the
siege, but not too late to begin the `needful preparations'
(vii, 10, \S 4--11, \S 5). One would infer that Vellaunodunum
was about midway between Agedincum and Cenabum, but
perhaps rather nearer to the former than to the latter. There
was a Roman road, 67 miles long, from Agedincum to Cenabun,
which passed by Chateau-Landon, Sceaux, and Beaune, another
mentioned in the {\it Table of Peutinger\/} (p.~26, cols.~1--2), which
passed a little north of Gien, was 74 miles, a third road, about
72 miles long, passed through Montargis and Ladon. We
cannot prove that any of these roads existed in the time of
Caesar; but it is highly probable that they all did.

I need not here mention all the places that have been
identified with Vellaunodunum. Some of them may unhesitatingly be ruled
out, because they were chosen on the wrong,
assumption that Cenabum was at Gien: others are either much
too far from Sens or otherwise objectionable. Only two are
worth considering,---Montargis and a site about a mile and
a half east of Sceaux. Roman antiquities have been found in
the neighbourhood of the former, Celtic remains and Roman
coins at the latter: both are a little nearer to Sens than to
Orl\'eans. Sceaux, however, stands upon low-lying marshy
ground; and although Avaricum did the same, M.~Jullian
agrees with me in thinking that the site of Vellaunodunum is
probably Montargis ({\it C.G.}, pp.~494--8).

{\bf Vellavii.}---The territory of this tribe corresponded with
Velay, or the department of the Loire-Sup\'erieure ({\it C.G.}, p.~499).

{\bf Venelli.}---The Venelli dwelt in the Cotentin,---the department of
the Manche ({\it C.G.}, p.~499).

{\bf Veneti.}---Roughly speaking, the Veneti occupied the department of
the Morbihan. According to Ptolemy ({\it Geogr.}, ii, 8,
\S\S 5--6), their territory extended northward as far as the Pointe
du Raz: if so, their northern frontier could not have coincided
with the northern frontier of the diocese of Vannes, which
struck the coast far south of that promontory. All that can
be safely said is that Venetia did not extend further northward
than the natural boundary formed by the Montagnes Noires
({\it C.G.}, p.~499). See O{\sc SISMI}.

{\bf Veragri.}---This Alpine tribe lived in the western part of the
Valais, their chief town, Octodurus (iii, 1, \S 4), being situated
between Martigny-la-Ville and Martigny-Bourg, on the left
bank of the Rh\^one, near the point where it bends northward
towards the lake of Geneva ({\it C.G.}, p.~454).

{\bf Vesontio\/} is now represented by Besan{\c c}on.

{\bf Vienna\/} was on the site of Vienne, on the left bank of the
Rh\^one, about 20 miles south of Lyons.

{\bf Viromandui.}---The Viromandui, whose name survives in
{\it Vermandois}, inhabited the diocese of No\-yon,---the northern
part of the department of the Aisne and the eastern part of
that of the Somme ({\it C.G.}, pp.~499--500).

{\bf Vocates.}---Caesar says (iii, 23, \S 1) that Crassus, after he had
defeated the Sotiates, marched for the country of the Vocates
and the Tarusates. According to him, then, those two tribes
were conterminous. The Sotiates occupied the country round
Sos, and the Tarusates dwelt either in the district of Aire or in
the neighbouring district of Tartas. The Vocates are generally
identified with the Boiates, who occupied tlle district of Buch,
near Arcachon. But this will not do; for Arcachon is far away
from Aire and from Tartas, whereas the Vocates were close to
the Carusates. Whether the Vocates possessed Buch or not,
their country must have extended southward into the department of Les
Landes ({\it C.G.}, pp.~500--1).

{\bf Vocontii.}---The chief towns of this Alpine people were
Vasio (Vaison), Lucus Augusti (Luc), and Dea (Die), and on
the north they were conterminous with the Allobroges (i, 10, \S 5).
But it is impossible to define their frontiers, because the territory
which undoubtedly belonged to them was surrounded by the
territories of minor peoples---the Memini, Vulgientes, Quariates
Bodiontici, Avantici, Tricorii, and Uceni---whom Caesar ignores
and who may have been {\it pagi\/} of theirs, actually included within
their territory, or may only have been their dependants ({\it clientes\/});
while some of these peoples may have been {\it pagi\/} or dependants
of the Caturiges or of the Allobroges ({\it C.G.}, pp.~501--2).

{\bf Volcae.}---The Volcae (Arecomici and Tectosages) possessed
the country between the Rh\^one, the Ceven\-nes, the upper
Garonne, and the Mediterranean. According to Strabo (iv, 1, \S 12), Narbo
belonged to the Arecomici; according to Ptolemy
({\it Geogr.}, ii, 10, \S 6), to the Tectosages. A passage in B.~G., vii, 7,
\S 4--praesidia in {\it Rutenis provincialibus, Volcis Arecomicis,
Tolosatibus, circumque Narbonem $\ldots$ constituit\/}---seems to imply that
Narbo was not, at all events in 52 B.C., in the country of the
Arecomici.
\bye
