Note 5 — BOOK XXXVII. (continued 2)

The difficulty, which Scheffer, Crevier, and Drakenborch apparently had, in interpreting this passage with the reading (decem cubita), seems to me to have arisen principally from their misinterpretation of the word cuspis; which in the classics is no where used as the edge of a cutting, but the point of a piercing instrument—differt a mucrone, quæ est acies gladii.—Facciolati. That the cuspides, here spoken of, must have been piercing, not cutting instruments, is likewise proved from the meaning of the word “transfigerent,” which is never used in reference to a cutting instrument. Taking it for granted, then, that the “cuspitibus decem cubita” were spears ten feet long, fastened to the pole and extended from the yoke, I can easily understand how they, being so long, were likely to clear the way far in front of the horses, while the “falces” on either side were intended to cut down those that escaped the cuspides; and this being the case, I see no necessity for Scheffer’s reading, “cubito,” which Crevier also seems to favour, and Drakenborch’s “duo” for “decem;” both of which seem to have been adopted, owing to the seeming improbability of cutting weapons so long, and proportionably heavy, being attached to the poles of chariots.