[493] Csasar (iv. 1) names them Usipetes and Tenetheri. The events in this chapter belong to B.C. 55, when Cn. Pompeius Magnus and M. Licinius Crassus were consuls for the second time.
[494] Cæsar, iv. c. 12. Plutarch here calls the Commentaries ἐφημερίδες, which means a Diary or Day-book. The proper Greek word would be ὑπομνήματα. Kaltwasser accordingly concludes that Plutarah appears to have confounded the Ephemerides and the Commentarii, or at least to have used the word ἐφημερίδες improperly instead of ὑπομνήματα. There is no proof that Cæsar kept a diary. That kind of labour is suited to men of a different stamp from him. Plutarch means the Commentarii. It is true that Servius (Ad Æneid. xi. 743) speaks of a diary (Ephemeris) of Cæsar, which records his being once captured by the Gauls. But see the note of Davis on this passage (Cæsar, ed. Oudendorp, ii. 999). Suetonius, who enumerates Cæsar's writings (Cæsar, 55, 56), mentions no Ephemeris. There were abundant sources for anecdotes about Cæsar. The Roman himself wrote as an historian: he was not a diary keeper.
[495] Tanusius Geminus wrote a history which is mentioned by Suetonius (Cæsar, 9). Cato's opinion on this occasion was merely dictated by party hostility and personal hatred. His proposal was unjust and absurd. Cæsar had good reason for writing his Anticato.
[496] Or Sigambri, a German tribe on the east bank of the Lower Rhine. They bordered on the Ubii, and were north of them. The name probably remains in the Sieg, a small stream which enters the Rhine on the east bank, nearly opposite to Bonn.
[497] Cæsar describes the construction of this bridge (iv. 17) without giving any particulars as to the place where it was made. The situation can only be inferred from a careful examination of the previous part of his history, and it has been subject of much discussion, in which opinions are greatly divided. The narratives of Dion Cassius (39. c. 48) and Florus (iii. 10) give some assistance towards the solution of the question. Professor Müller, in an excellent article in the 'Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande' (vii. 1845), has proved that the bridge must have been built near Coblenz. Cæsar defeated the Germans in the angle between the Moselle and the Rhine. He must have crossed the Moselle in order to find a convenient place for his bridge, which he would find near Neuwied. The bridge abutted on the east bank on the territory of the Ubii, who were his friends. The narrative of Cæsar, when carefully examined, admits of no other construction than that which Müller has put upon it; and if there were any doubt, it is removed by Cæsar himself in another passage (Gallic War, vi. 9) where he speaks of his second bridge, which gave him a passage from the territory of the Treviri into that of the Ubii, and he adds that the site of the second bridge was near that of the first.
In the Gallic War (iv. 15) Cæsar speaks of the junction (ad confluentem Mosæ et Rheni) of the Mosa and the Rhine, where Müller assumes that he means the Moselle, as he undoubtedly does. Either the reading Mosa is wrong, or, what is not improbable, both the Moselle and the Maas had the same name, Mosa. Mosella or Mosula is merely the diminution of Mosa. At this confluence of the Moselle and Rhine the town of Coblenz was afterwards built, which retains the ancient name. Cæsar indicates which Mosa he means clearly enough by the words 'ad confluentem.' There was no 'confluens' of the Great Mosa and the Rhenus.
[498] The first expedition of Cæsar to Britain was in the autumn of B.C. 55, and is described in his fourth book of the Gallic War, c. 20, &c. He landed on the coast of Kent, either at Deal or between Sandgate and Hythe. His second expedition was in the following year B.C. 54, which is described in the fifth book, c. 8 &c. He crossed the Thamesis (Thames) in face of the forces of Cassivelaunus, whose territories were bounded on the south by the Thames.
There has been some discussion on the place where Cæsar crossed the Thames. Camden (p. 882, ed. Gibson) fixes the place at Cowey Stakes near Oatlands on the Thames, opposite to the place where the Wey joins the Thames. Bede, who wrote at the beginning of the eighth century, speaks of stakes in the bed of the river at that place, which so far corresponds to Cæsar's description, who says that the enemy had protected the ford with stakes on the banks and across the bed of the river. Certain stakes still exist there, which are the subject of a paper in the Archæologia, 1735, by Mr. Samuel Gale. The stakes are as hard as ebony; and it is evident from the exterior grain that the stakes were the entire bodies of young oak trees. Cæsar places the ford eighty miles from the coast of Kent where he landed, which distance agrees very well with the position of Oatlands, as Camden remarks.
Cassivelaunus had been appointed Commander-in-chief of all the British forces. This is the king whom Plutarch means. He agreed to pay an annual tribute to the Romans (Gallic War, v. 22), and gave them hostages. Compare Cicero, Ad Attic. iv. 17.
Cæsar wrote two letters to Cicero while he was in Britain. He wrote one letter on the 1st of September, which Cicero received on the 28th of September (Ad Quintum Fratrem, iii. 1). Cicero here alludes to Cæsar's sorrow for his daughter's death, of which Cæsar had not received intelligence when he wrote to Cicero; but Cicero knew that the news had gone to him. On the 24th of October, Cicero received another letter written from the British coast from Cæsar, and one from his brother Quintus who was with Cæsar. This letter was written on the 26th of September. Cæsar states (Gallic War, v. 23) that it was near the time of the equinox when he was leaving Britain.