What is more important to remark is, that in the whole work, in the midst of the history of wars, there occur only seven paragraphs on the customs of the Gauls and their institutions in times of peace (VI., 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22). Now, in these seven chapters you will find the word _fines_ used three times in the unmistakable sense of boundaries of fields.[247] And so we see that, when Cæsar is speaking of wars, he uses _fines_ in the sense of the frontiers of a country, and, when he is speaking of law, he uses it in the sense of the boundaries of private property. And, if we are partial to figures, we may notice that while M. de Jubainville has counted up seventy-seven _fines_ in three hundred and forty chapters, I have counted three in seven chapters. The proportion is well kept. But instead of making this calculation it would have been better to have noticed something which is of far more importance; in every instance where the word signifies a frontier, its meaning is unmistakably indicated by the addition of the name of the people in question. Thus Cæsar says, _fines Helvetiorum_, _fines Sequanorum_, _fines Santonum_, _fines Æduorum_, _fines Lingonum_, _fines Ambianorum_, and so on without exception.[248] Take the seventy-seven examples collected by M. de Jubainville, and you will see that the word _fines_, when it means frontiers, is always followed by the word “people,” or by the name of a people. If Cæsar had wished to speak of trials about national boundaries, he would have said _controversiæ de finibus populorum_. If he did not so express himself, it was because he was speaking of boundaries in the most restricted sense of the word. M. de Jubainville might have found this very same phrase, which he has twisted so strangely, _si de finibus controversia est_, in Cicero. We have it there word for word; _si de finibus controversia est_ in Chapter X. of the _Topics_. Let us see whether in this case it can apply to the frontiers of a people. Cicero, giving an example of a definition, writes: “When you say _si de finibus controversia est_, the boundaries of private estates are clearly meant.”[249]