- Source
- Julius Caesar. Aulus Hirtius. C. Iuli Commentarii Rerum in Gallia Gestarum VII A. Hirti Commentarius VII. Holmes, T. Rice (Thomas Rice), editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.humanitext-lat2:8.44.1-8.44.6
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-04
Caesar decides to deter future rebellions by cutting off the hands of the surrendered soldiers, and recounts how the fugitive leader Lacterius was captured and delivered to him by Epasnactus.
Caesar, cum suam lenitatem cognitam omnibus sciret neque vereretur ne quid crudelitate naturae videretur asperius fecisse,1 neque exitum consiliorum suorum animadverteret,2 si tali ratione diversis in locis plures consilia inissent, exemplo supplici deterrendos reliquos existimavit.
Caesar, knowing that his clemency was well known to all, and not fearing lest he should seem to have done anything too harsh out of natural cruelty, and also fearing that his plans would have no end if more people should form designs in different places in such a manner, thought that the rest should be deterred by an exemplary punishment.
Itaque omnibus qui arma tulerant manus praecidit vitamque concessit, quo testatior esset poena improborum.
Therefore, he cut off the hands of all who had borne arms and spared their lives, so that the punishment of the wicked might be more manifest.
Drappes, quem captum esse a Caninio docui, sive indignitate et dolore vinculorum sive timore gravioris supplici paucis diebus cibo se abstinuit atque ita interiit.
Drappes, whom I have mentioned as having been captured by Caninius, either from the indignity and pain of his bonds or from the fear of a heavier punishment, abstained from food for a few days and thus perished.
Eodem tempore Lacterius, quem profugisse ex proelio scripsi, cum in potestatem venisset Epasnacti Arverni (crebro enim mutandis locis multorum fidei se committebat, quod nusquam diutius sine periculo commoraturus videbatur, cum sibi conscius esset, quam inimicum deberet Caesarem habere), hunc Epasnactus Arvernus, amicissimus populi Romani, sine dubitatione ulla vinctum ad Caesarem deduxit.3
At the same time, Lacterius, who I wrote had escaped from the battle, when he had come into the power of Epasnactus the Arvernian (for he frequently committed himself to the good faith of many by changing places, because it seemed he could nowhere remain longer without danger, since he was conscious of how hostile a Caesar he was bound to have), him Epasnactus the Arvernian, a great friend of the Roman people, without any hesitation, brought bound to Caesar.
- 8.44.1ne quid crudelitate naturae videretur asperius fecisse
An object clause (ne-clause) dependent on vereretur. quid is the neuter accusative singular of the indefinite pronoun (equivalent to aliquid after ne). crudelitate is an ablative of cause ('by natural cruelty'). The subject of fecisse is identical to that of videretur (Caesar); literally, 'not fearing lest he should seem to have done anything harsher out of natural cruelty.'
- 8.44.1neque exitum consiliorum suorum animadverteret
animadverteret here means 'to foresee' or 'to perceive (the end).' It expresses Caesar's concern (parallel to vereretur within the cum-clause) that he would see no end (exitum) to his plans of pacifying Gaul (consiliorum suorum) if rebellions broke out continuously in various places.
- 8.44.6hunc Epasnactus Arvernus... deduxit
The noun Lacterius, introduced in the nominative case at the beginning of §8.44.4, is resumed as the pronoun hunc (him) in the accusative case as the object of the main verb (deduxit) after a long parenthetical insert (§8.44.5), with Epasnactus Arvernus becoming the new subject. This is a classic example of anacoluthon (a change in grammatical construction) in long sentences.