Chapter 1.44

Ariovistus justifies his own course and makes counter demands and proposals.

pauca: sc. verba; object of respondit (Kelsey): “briefly” (L-E).

dē suīs virtūtibus multa praedicāvit: “he spoke much and boastfully about his own merits” (Anthon); “he boasted much of … ” (Harkness); “he had much to say about … ” (Kelsey). Observe the asyndeton, the omission of a conjunction connecting this to the preceding sentence (H-T).

trānsiisse … pependerint: Ariovistus’s response to Caesar’s demands is reported in indirect discourse. Converted to direct discourse it is as follows, with changes underlined: Trānsiī Rhēnum [ego] nōn meā sponte, sed rogātus et arcessītus ā Gallīs; nōn sine magnā spē magnīs-que praemiīs domum propinquōsque relīquī; sēdēs habeō in Galliā ab ipsīs concessās, obsidēs ipsōrum voluntāte datōs; stīpendium capiō iūre bellī, quod victōrēs victīs impōnere consuērunt (= consuēvērunt). Nōn ego Gallīs sed Gallī mihi bellum intulērunt: omnēs Galliae cīvitātēs ad mē oppugnandum vēnērunt ac contrā mē castra habuērunt; eae omnēs cōpiae ā mē ūnō proeliō pulsae ac superātae sunt. Sī iterum experīrī volunt, [ego] iterum parātus sum dēcertāre; sī pāce ūtī volunt, inīquum est dē stīpendiō recūsāre, quod suā voluntāte ad hoc tempus pependērunt.

trānsīsse: = trānsiisse. The whole chapter, from this point on is in indirect discourse (Harkness).

rogātum et accessītum: = quod rogātus esset et arcessītus esset (L-E), participles expressing cause (A-G), agreeing with sēsē (H-T): “because he had been asked and summoned” (Kelsey); “but on being requested and sent for by the Gauls,” i.e., by the Arverni and Sequani. See Chapter 31 (Anthon).

nōn sine magnā spē magnīsque praemiīs: = nōn sine magnā spē magnōrum praemiōrum: “not without high hopes and inducements” (Moberly). Hendiadys, the use of two nouns, with a conjunction, instead of a single modified noun (A-G). Note the litotes of nōn sine.

ab ipsīs: sc. Gallīs: “by the Gauls themselves” (Anthon); “by their own act,” ipse often having the force of ultrō (M-T).

concessās: “which had been ceded” (Kelsey).

obsidēs: the second object of habēre, i.e, sē habēre sēdēs et obsidēs (Kelsey).

ipsōrum voluntāte: the Gauls state the facts differently; see Chapter 31 (M-T).

stīpendium capere: sc. sēsē: “that he exacted tribute” (Anthon).

iūre bellī: “in accordance with the right of war” (Kelsey). Iūre is ablative of specification / accordance (AG 418 a) (Walker).

quod: a relative pronoun; its antecedent is stīpendium (Kelsey).

victōrēs victīs: victōrēs = quī vīcissent; victīs = iīs quōs vīcissent (Harkness). Note the collocation of these two related words (H-T).

victīs impōnere: “to impose upon the vanquished” (Hodges). Victīs is dative with the compound verb (AG 370).

sēsē Gallīs sed Gallōs sibi: sēsē is the subject of intulisse (Harkness). Note the chiastic order of these words (AG 598) (Hodges).

consuērint: = consuēverint. A perfect-present (like nōvī) is used of a general truth. But in all the first part of this reported speech, Caesar uses the original tenses of the speaker (M-T).

omnēs Galliae cīvitātēs: Ariovistus here indulges in a little exaggeration. Only the Aedui and their allies had fought against him (Harkness).

sibi: “on him,” referring to the main subject, Ariovistus (A-G).

ad sē oppugnandum: gerundive expressing purpose (AG 506) (A-G): “to attack him” (Harkness).

ac: rarely found before a word beginning with c (Walpole).

contrā sē castra habuisse: “had encamped against him” (Harkness).

ūnō proeliō: see Chapter 31 (H-T) regarding the battle at Magetobriga (Walker).

sī iterum experīrī velint: sc. Gallī (Spencer); in direct discourse, sī … volunt (H-T): “if they wished to try again” (Hodges).

parātum esse dēcertāre: “he was ready to fight it out again” (Hodges); the sense of the prefix dē- is “to the end,” “down to the dregs” (M-T). The infinitive dēcertāre is used with parātum (Harkness); in other places, however, parātus takes a gerundive construction with ad, e.g., in Chapter 5: parātiōrēs ad omnia perīcula subeunda (H-T).

sī pāce ūtī velint: “if they wish to enjoy peace” (H-T); pāce is an ablative object of the deponent verb ūtī (AG 410) (Harkness).

inīquum esse: “it is unfair” (Kelsey).

dē stīpendiō recūsāre: “to raise an objection in regard to / on the subject of the tribute” (Harkness); “to make excuses about paying tribute,” i.e., refuse to pay (Hodges). Caesar in his demands (as stated above) had made no allusion to the stīpendium; but his demanding Ariovistus to restore the hostages would have deprived Ariovistus of the means of compelling the Gauls to pay it, hence the expressions dē stīpendiō recūsāre, and not stīpendium recūsāre (Spencer).

suā voluntāte: ablative of manner (AG 412). Suā refers to the Gauls. They however, told a different story, as we learned from Chapter 31 (Kelsey).

pependerint: from pendō, not pendeō (Hodges).

amīcitiam … adpetierit: Ariovistus’ response continues, reported in indirect discourse. Converted to direct discourse it is as follows, with changes underlined: Amīcitiam populī Rōmānī mihi ōrnāmentō et praesidiō, nōn dētrīmentō esse oportet, idque hāc spē petiī (petīvī). Sī per populum Rōmānum stīpendium remittētur et dēditiciī subtrahentur, nōn minus libenter recūsābō populī Rōmānī amīcitiam quam adpetiī (adpetīvī).

sibi ōrnāmentō et praesidiō, nōn dētrīmentō esse: “ought to be a source of prestige and a protection, not a loss / injury” (Kelsey). The double dative construction; sibi is dative of reference, ōrnāmentō, praesidiō, and dētrīmentō are datives of purpose (AG 382). Dētrīmentum (from dēterō) is loss through wear and tear (M-T).

oportēre: impersonal; its subject is amīcitiam … esse (A-G): “friendship ought to be” (Harkness); “that it was right for friendship to be” (Walker).

idque sē hāc spē petīsse: “and that he sought it with this expectation” (Anthon); “and that he had aimed at the whole thing with this object” (M-T). Id (“that relation” (Harkness)), not eam, because it refers to the more comprehensive meaning of ut amīcus populī Rōmānī esset (A-G). Ariovistus admits here that he had sued for the honor (L-E).

petīsse: = petīvisse or petiisse.

sī … stīpendium remittātur: future more vivid condition (sī … remittētur) in indirect discourse, with the present subjunctive for imperfect, contrary to regular tense sequence, for greater vividness (A-G): “if the tribute due him is to be withheld” (Anthon); “ … is slackened / neglected” (M-T). The power of exacting tribute would be lost if the Aeduan hostages were returned, as Caesar demanded (Hodges).

per populum Rōmānum: “through the action of the Roman people” (A-G). Why not ā populō? Because the result here contemplated, stīpendium remittitur, is not viewed as the proposed object of the Roman people ̶ an act performed “by” them as a voluntary agent ̶ but merely as brought about indirectly “through” their means (Harkness).

dēditiciī subtrahantur: “and if those who have surrendered to him are to be withdrawn from their allegiance” (Anthon); “ … are got away” (by underhanded means) (A-G); “should be taken from under” his control. The dēditīciī were “prisoners of war,” held as hostages to force the payment of tribute (Kelsey).

nōn minus libenter … quam adpetierit: “and he would cast away the friendship of the Roman people no less readily than he had sought it.” The stronger tenses used in the dramatic indirect discourse express strongly the peremptory energy of Ariovistus’ manner (M-T).

adpetierit: sc. eam (Harkness), i.e., amīcitiam.

quod … interpellārēmus: Ariovistus’ response continues, reported in indirect discourse. Converted to direct discourse it is as follows, with changes underlined: Quod multitūdinem Germānōrum in Galliam trādūcō, id meī mūniendī, nōn Galliae oppugnandae causā faciō; eius reī testimōnium est quod nisi rogātus nōn vēnī et quod bellum nōn intulī sed dēfendī. Ego prius in Galliam vēnī quam populus Rōmānus. Numquam ante hoc tempus exercitus populī Rōmānī Galliae prōvinciae fīnibus ēgressus (est). Quid tibi vīs? Cūr in meās possessiōnēs venīs? Prōvincia mea haec est Gallia, sīcut illa vestra. Ut mihi concēdī nōn oportet, sī in vestrōs fīnēs impetum faciam, sīc item vōs estis inīquī, quod in meō iūre mē interpellātis.

quod … trādūcat: “as to his leading a multitude of Germans across the Rhine into Gaul” (Anthon); “as for his bringing over hordes of Germans … ” (Moberly); “in regard to his bringing over … ” (Kelsey). Subjunctive by indirect discourse (A-G).

id: refers to the preceding clause (Hodges).

suī mūniendī: a genitive gerundive construction (AG 504 b) dependent upon causā (Harkness) to express purpose: “in order to protect himself” (Hodges).

esse: the subject is the clause quod … dēfenderit (Harkness).

quod nisi rogātus nōn vēnerit: “[the fact] that he did not come without being asked.” The clause is the subject of esse, with testimōnium (“proof” (Kelsey)) being predicate (Hodges).

sed dēfenderit: sc. id, referring to bellum: “but had warded it off” (Harkness), i.e., had acted merely on the defensive (A-G). The verb is used in its original sense of “strike down from,” with the thing warded off as direct object; used of defensive, not offensive, war. The derived sense, “to protect,” is more common with accusative of the thing protected (M-T).

sē prius in Galliam vēnisse quam populum Rōmānum: = priusquam populus Rōmānus vēnerit (Walker). Here again Ariovistus misrepresents the facts in the case, as Domitius (consul, 122 B.C.) conquered the Arverni long before he came into Gaul (Harkness). Priusquam, a conjunction, is divided and separated through tmesis.

Galliam: i.e., Celtic Gaul, excluding the Prōvincia which had been under Roman control since 121 B.C. (Kelsey).

quid sibi vellet: the oblique form of quid tibi vīs? (Moberly). By sibi Caesar is meant (Anthon), the subject of its own verb vellet (M-T): “What did he wish for himself?” an idiomatic expression for “what did he mean?” (Walker); “what was his intention?”

cūr in suās possessiōnēs venīret: suās refers to the subject of the main verb of the indirect discourse (M-T), the possessions of Ariovistus himself (Anthon). Ariovistus here questions Caesar’s object in coming into his possessions (Spencer).

prōvinciam suam hanc esse Galliam, sīcut illam nostram: “this [part of] Gaul was his province, just as that [part] was ours” (Hodges). Hanc refers to the quarter (toward the Rhine (Kelsey)) that Ariovistus is now occupying, viz. the country of the Aedui and Sequani (Spencer); illam (sc. Galliam) refers to the distant Roman province in the south of Gaul (Anthon). The word prōvinciam implies very forcibly that Ariovistus considered himself not merely to have conquered, but to have incorporated his Gallic territory (Moberly).

ut ipsī concēdī nōn oportēret: “as it would not be proper to yield to him” (Harkness); “no concession ought to be made to him” (Kelsey); “just as there ought to be no yielding to him” (L-E). Ipsī = sibi ipsī (M-T), i.e., Ariovistus (H-T). Concēdī is an impersonal passive (Harkness): intransitive verbs that govern the dative are used impersonally in the passive, and the dative is retained (AG 372).

sī … faceret: in direct discourse, sī … faciam: “if I should make.” This is a future less vivid condition; such a condition has the same form in indirect discourse as a future more vivid condition, and can be distinguished only by the sense of the passage (Walker).

quod in suō iūre sē interpellārēmus: “since we interrupted him in the enjoyment of his right” (Anthon); “we were interfering with him … ” (Kelsey). Up to this point dependent subjunctives in this speech have been either present or perfect; now we have also imperfects and pluperfects (Hodges), apparently for change’s sake (M-T).

quod frātrēs … ūsōs esse: Ariovistus’ response continues, reported in indirect discourse. Converted to direct discourse it is as follows, with changes underlined: Quod frātrēs ā senātū Haeduōs appellātōs dīcis, nōn (ego) tam barbarus neque tam imperītus sum rērum ut nōn sciam neque bellō Allobrogum proximō Haeduōs Rōmānīs auxilium tulisse neque ipsōs in iīs contentiōnibus quās Haeduī mēcum et cum Sēquanīs habuērunt (habuerint) auxiliō populī Rōmānī ūsōs esse (A-G).

quod frātrēs <ā senātū> Aeduōs appellātōs dīceret: sc. Caesar, by an unmarked change of subject, the sense being unmistakable (M-T): “as to his [Caesar’s] saying that the Aedui had been styled brothers by the senate” (A-G); “as to his statement that … ” (Walker). See Chapter 33 (Kelsey): frātrēs cōnsanguineōsque (Stock).

imperītum rērum: “ignorant of affairs” (H-T); “so ignorant of the course of events” (Hodges); “unversed in affairs” (Kelssey); “ignorant of political matters” (L-E); i.e., unsophisticated (A-G). Adjectives denoting knowledge govern the genitive (AG 349 a).

ut nōn scīret: “as not to know”; a result clause after tam (AG 537) (Hodges).

bellō Allobrogum proximō: i.e., only three years before in 61 B.C. (Kelsey). This is the war which Gneius Pontinus successfully waged (Anthon). It followed immediately after their revelation of Catiline’s conspiracy (Moberly). Ablative of time (AG 423).

ipsōs: “they,” i.e., the Aedui (Harkness).

iīs contentiōnibus: “these struggles” (Kelsey); “these latter disputes” (M-T).

sēcum: = cum Ariovistō (Walpole).

auxiliō populī Rōmānī ūsōs esse: “had derived any assistance from the Roman people” (Anthon). Auxiliō is the ablative object of ūsōs esse (AG 410) (Hodges). Ariovistus here lays his finger upon a weak point in Caesar’s argument (L-E); for in fact the alliance of the Aedui and the Romans had been mere words until now when it suited Caesar’s purpose to consider it binding (Walker).

dēbēre … cōnfectūrum: Ariovistus’ response concludes, reported in indirect discourse. Converted to direct discourse it is as follows, with changes underlined: Dēbeō suspicārī simulātā tē amīcitiā, quod exercitum in Galliā habēs, meī opprimendī causā habēre. Tū nisi dēcēdēs atque exercitum dēdūcēs ex hīs regiōnibus, ego tē nōn prō amīcō sed prō hoste habēbō. Quod sī tē interfēcerō, (ego) multīs nōbilibus prīncipibusque populī Rōmānī grātum faciam (id ego ab ipsīs per eōrum nūntiōs compertum habeō) quōrum omnium grātiam atque amīcitiam tuā morte redimere possum. Quod sī dēcesseris et līberam possessiōnem Galliae mihi trādideris, magnō ego tē praemiō remūnerābō et quaecumque bella gerī volēs sine ūllō tuō labōre et perīculō cōnficiam.

 dēbēre sē suspicārī: “that he had grounds to suspect” (A-G); “that he has strong reason to suspect” (Anthon); “that he had a right (legal and moral (L-E)) to suspect” (H-T).

simulātā amīcitiā: “under the pretence of friendship” (A-G); “under the guise of friendship” (Hodges); “although [Caesar] pretended friendship” (Kelsey), i.e., for the Aedui; perhaps reference may be to the friendship alleged to exist between the Romans and Ariovistus (Spencer). Note the concessive force of the ablative absolute (AG 419) (L-E).

quod exercitum in Galliā habeat: “in keeping an army in Gaul” (A-G); “inasmuch as he is keeping … ” (Anthon); “now that he is keeping … ” (Moberly). The return to the primary tenses is perhaps for the sake of keeping the sense of habeat clear, as being a present-imperfect, i.e., it denotes an incompleted action in the present, “is keeping.” The imperfect in indirect discourse corresponds to the perfect as well as the present and past-imperfect of direct discourse (M-T).                                         

suī opprimendī causā: “for the purpose of crushing him,” i.e., Ariovistus (A-G).

habēre: sc. Caesarem as subject (Kelsey), and eum as object, referring to exercitum (Harkness): “and that he [Caesar] was keeping it there” (Hodges).

quī … quod … quod: the three relatives illustrate the principal that the relative, serving to connect with the previous proposition, may represent various conjunctions: “if then he should not withdraw” (quī = is igitur); “and if he should kill him” (quod, adverbial accusative); “but if he should withdraw” (quod = sed) (A-G).

quī nisi dēcēdat: quī = Caesar (Hodges): “if he would not depart” (Harkness); “so unless he departs” (Kelsey).

sēsē illum nōn prō amīcō sed prō hoste habitūrum: sc. esse (Hodges): “that he [Ariovistus] would not regard him [Caesar] as a friend but as an enemy” (L-E).

quod sī eum interfēcerit: eum = Caesarem: “moreover / but, if he were to kill him.” It cannot be supposed that this was a mere idle boast on the part of Ariovistus. Caesar already had at Rome many violent political enemies, who were eager for his destruction (Anthon). The death of Caesar would be a welcome thing to the aristocracy, and Ariovistus was aware of the party rivalries at Rome (H-T). It is entirely possible that Caesar’s enemies at the capital, embittered by his acts as consul and dreading the consequences of his insatiable ambition (Spencer), had indicated to the king their desire to have him put out of the way (L-E). This very year was the one when Clodius, under Caesar’s patronage, got Cicero exiled, in spite of the sympathy of 20,000 citizens (Moberly).

nōbilibus prīncipibusque populī Rōmānī: Caesar was the recognized head of the party opposed to the senate and nobility. The violence of party spirit at Rome was so excessive that the statement is not in itself improbable (M-T).

grātum esse factūrum: “that he would do an agreeable thing,” i.e., he would be doing them a favor (Anthon). There was, doubtless, some truth in this statement of Ariovistus (Harkness).

id … compertum habēre: has almost the force of comperisse (A-G): “he had ascertained this fact” (Harkness), literally “he possessed this as a thing fully ascertained” (Walker). Compertum agrees with id (Harkness).

per eōrum nūntiōs: “agents” rather than “messengers” (Hodges). Plutarch seems to suggest a similar concert between Vercingetorix and Caesar’s enemies at Rome (Stock).

quōrum omnium: “of all of whom” (Hodges). Its antecedent is nōbiibus prīncipibusque (Kelsey).

eius morte redimere posset: “he could purchase / buy back with his [Caesar’s] death” (Anthon). Ariovistus had been in favor before. Morte is ablative of price (AG 416) (Kelsey).

quod sī dēcessisset: “on the other hand, if he should withdraw entirely” (Hodges). Dēcessisset replaces the future perfect of a future more vivid condition in direct discourse (Kelsey).

līberam: i.e., “without interference” (Hodges).

Galliae: Celtic Gaul (Hodges).

illum: translate as if Caesarem (Hodges).

remūnerātūrum: sc. esse: “he would compensate” (Hodges).

quaecumque bella gerī vellet: quaecumque bella is the subject of gerī (Kelsey).

sine ūllō eius labōre et perīculō: “without any trouble and hazard on his part”; eius again refers to Caesar (Anthon). If Caesar will withdraw, Ariovistus will fight his battles for him. The attitude of Ariovistus seems somewhat less defiant than in his former reply, sent by messengers as summarized in Chapter 36 (Hodges).