[296] C. in form of a square—Quadrato agmine. "A hollow square, with the baggage in the center; see Serv. ad Verg. Aen. xii.121. … Such an agmen Sallust, in c. 46, calls munitum, as it was prepared to defend itself against the enemy, from whatever quarter they might approach." Kritzius.
[297] Might be endured by them with cheerfulness Volentibus esset. A Greek phrase, Boulomenois eiae.
[298] Dread of shame—Pudore. Inducing each to have a regard to his character.
[299] CI. Trusting that one of them, assuredly, etc.—Ratua es omnibus aque aliquos ab tergo hostibus ventures. By aequo Sallust signifies that each of the four bodies would have an equal chance of coming on the rear of the Romans.
[300] In person and with his officers—Ipse aliique. "The alii, are the praefecti equitum, officers of the cavalry." Kritzius.
[301] Wheeled secretly about, with a few of his followers, to the infantry—Clam—ad pedites convertit. What infantry are meant, the commentators can not agree, nor is there any thing in the narrative on which a satisfactory decision can be founded. As the arrival of Bocchus is mentioned immediately before, Cortius supposes that the infantry of Bocchus are signified; and it may be so; but to whatever party the words wore addressed, they were intended to be heard by the Romans, or for what purpose were they spoken in Latin? Jugurtha may have spoken the words in both languages, and this, from what follows, would appear to have been the case, for both sides understood him. Quod ubi milites (evidently the Roman soldiers) accepere—simul barbari animos tollere, etc. The clam signifies that Jugurtha turned about, or wheeled off, so as to escape the notice of Marius, with whom he had been contending.
[302] By vigorously cutting down our infantry—Satis impigre occiso pedite nostro. "A ces mots il leur montra son épée teinte du sang des notres, dont il venait, en effet, de faire une assez cruelle boucherie." De Brosses. Of the other French translators, Beauzée and Le Brun render the passage in a similar way; Dotteville and Durean Delamalle, as well as all our English translators, take pedite as signifying only one soldier. Sir Henry Steuart even specifies that it was "a legionary soldier." The commentators, I should suppose, have all regarded the word as having a plural signification; none of them, except Burnouf, who expresses a needless doubt, say any thing on the point.
[303] The spectacle on the open plains was then frightful—Tum spectaculum horribile campis patentibus, etc. The idea of this passage was probably taken, as Ciacconius intimates, from a description in Xenophon, Agesil. ii. 12, 14, part of which is quoted by Longinus, Sect. 19, as an example of the effect produced by the omission of conjunctions: [Greek: Kai symbalontes tas aspidas eothounto, emachonto, apekteinon, apethnaeskon Epei ge maen elaexen hae machae, paraen dae theasasthai entha synepeson allaelois, taen men gaen aimati pe, ormenaen, nekrous de peimenous philious kai polemious met allaelon, aspidas de diatethrummenas, dorata syntethrausmena, egchoipidia gumna kouleon ta men chamai, ta d'en somasi, ta d'eti meta cheiras.] "Closing their shields together, they pushed, they fought, … But when the battle was over, you might have seen, where they had fought, the ground clotted with blood, the corpses of friends and enemies mingled together, and pierced shields, broken lances, and swords without their sheaths, strewed on the ground, sticking in the dead bodies, or still remaining in the hands that had wielded them when alive." Tacitus, Agric. c. 37. has copied this description of Sallust, as all the commentators have remarked: Tum vero patentibus locis grande et atrox spectaculum. Sequi, vulnerare, capere, atque eosdem, oblatis aliis, trucidare…. Passim, arma et corpora, et laceri artus, et cruenta humus. "The sight on the open field was then striking and horrible; they pursued, they inflicted wounds, they took … Every where were seen arms and corpses, mangled limbs, and the ground stained with blood."
[304] Besides, the Roman people, even from the very infancy—The reading of this passage, before the edition of Cortius, was this: Ad hoc, populo Romano jam a principio inopi melius visum amicos, quam servos, quaerere. Gruter proposed to read Ad hoc populo Romano inopi melius est visum, etc., whence Cortius made Ad hoc, populo Romano jam inopi visum, etc. But the Bipont editors, observing that inopi was not quite consistent with quaerere servos, altered the passage to Ad hoc, populo Romano jam à principio reipublicae melius visum, etc., which seems to be the best emendation that has been proposed, and which I have accordingly followed. Kritzius and Dietsch adopt it, except that they omit reipublicae, and put nothing in the place of inopi. Gerlach retains inopi, on the principle of "quo insolentius, eo verius," and it may, after all, be genuine. Cortius omitted melius on no authority but his own.
[305] Out of which he had forcibly driven Jugurtha—Unde ut Jugurtham expulerit [expulerat] There is here some obscurity. The manuscripts vary between expulerit and expulerat. Cortius, and Gerlaen in his second edition, adopt expulerat, which they of necessity refer to Marius; but to make Bocchus speak thus, is, as Kritzius says, to make him speak very foolishly and arrogantly. Kritzius himself, accordingly, adopts expulerit, and supposes that Bocchus invents a falsehood, in the belief that the Romans wouldhave no means of detecting it. But Bocchus may have spoken truth, referring, as Müller suggests, to some previous transactions between him and Jugurtha, to which Sallust does not elsewhere allude.