6 CAESAR IN BRITAIN, See Bell, Gall. 4, 20–36; 5, 1–23. Cf. T. Rice Holmes, Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Caesar (1935); R. G. Collingwood, Roman Britain and the English Settlements (1937); S. S. Frere, Britannia2 (1978); C. F. C. Hawkes, Proc. Brit. Acad., 1977, 125 ff.; P. Salway, Roman Britain (1981). On Cassivellaunus’ oppidum at Wheathampstead see R. E. M. Wheeler, Antiquity, 1933, 21 ff. [p. 111]
7 ALESIA AND CAESAR’S CAMPS. On the site of the preceding engagement, which is often placed near Dijon, see É. Thevenot, Les Éduens n’ont pas trahi (1960), 133 ff., who argues for Laignes near Vix. Caesar’s great siege-works round Alesia were first excavated by the emperor Napoleon III. Other of his camps have been found near Berry-au-Bac (his campaign in 57 against the Bellovaci); at Orcet below Gergovia; and at Nointel near Clermont de l’Oise (dating from his campaign of 51 against the Bellovaci; this more recent excavation is particularly interesting: three main camps and outworks have been found, together with the pontes (Bell. Gall. 8, 14), log and brushwood causeways, which Caesar built over the marsh to enable his men to get to grips with the enemy). See O. Brogan, Roman Gaul (1953), 17 ff. For a fine air-photograph of the Gallic oppidum at Gergovia see J. Bradford, Ancient Landscapes (1957), pl. 69. See also for a detailed study, J. Harmand, Une Campaigne césarienne: Alesia (1967). [p. 112]
8 THE CIVIL WAR, 49–45. The chief sources are the Corpus Caesarianum and Cicero’s Letters. The former comprises three books De Bello Civili; the Bellum Alexandrinum, which continues the narrative down to Zela, and was written perhaps by Hirtius (cos. 43) one of Caesar’s officers; the Bellum Africum covering the winter of 47–46, and written perhaps by a tribune or centurion; and the Bellum Hispaniense on the Munda campaign, written by someone who took part, but who is less literate. Appian, BC, ii, and Dio Cassius, xli-xliii, provide narratives, while Lucan’s poem, the Bellum Civile (or Pharsalia) ends with the Alexandrine war. Modern works: full discussions by Rice Holmes, RR, iii; see also F. E. Adcock, CAH, IX, ch. xvi. [p. 114]
9 DOMITIUS AHENOBARBUS. For the interesting correspondence that passed between him and Pompey see the letters preserved in Cicero ad Attic viii, 11. Cf. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, JRS, 1956, 57 ff. On the Corfinium campaign see A. Barns, Historia, 1966, 74 ff. [p. 114]
10 NEGOTIATIONS OF CAESAR AND POMPEY. Cf. F. B. Marsh, Hist. Rom. World 146–30 BC, 400 ff., and K. von Fritz, TAPA, 1941, 125 ff., who questions Caesar’s sincerity. Difficulties arise because Caesar’s version of Pompey’s reply (Bell. Civ. i, 10, 3–4) does not quite coincide with that given by Cicero (ad fam. xvi, 12, 3). Further, in the negotiations after Corfinium, Caesar has not revealed the terms of Pompey’s offer (Bell. Civ. i, 24, 5; 26, 2; cf. ad Att. ix, 13 A.). On the credentials of the envoys, L. Caesar and L. Roscius, see D. R. Shackleton Bailey (JRS, 1960, 80 ff.) who supports the view that they were sent to Caesar by Pompey and not by the Senate. The negotiations are studied in full by K. Rauflaub, Chiron, 1975, 247 ff. [p. 115]
11 LEX ROSCIA AND LEX RUBRIA. Two fragments of inscriptions from Ateste and Veleia in Cisalpine Gaul bear on its enfranchisement (Riccobono, FIRA I, nos. 20 and 19). The former, which refers to the lex Roscia, may be part of a supplementary measure dependent on it; the enfranchising law will then have been the lex Roscia (cf. E. G. Hardy, Problems of Rom. Hist., 207 ff.). Other scholars believe that the enfranchising act was a lex Rubria which is mentioned in the fragment from Veleia; this fragment is part of the lex Rubria or of a law dependent on it. For this law see Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 110 ff. See further U. Ewins, Papers Brit. Sch. Rome, 1955, 93 ff., who also suggests that Caesar was planning to settle some veterans in Cisalpine Gaul. The lex Rubria dealt with the judicial competence of the municipal magistrates of Cisalpine Gaul; chapters xxi and xxii, dealing with debt etc., are discussed by M. W. Frederiksen, JRS, 1964, 129 ff. Cf. also F. J. Bruna, Lex Rubria. Caesars Regelung für die Richterlichen Kompetenzen der Munizipalmagistrate in Gallia Cisalpina (1972): on which see A. N. Sherwin-White, JRS, 1974, 236 ff. [p. 115]
12 DEBT. On this problem in the Ciceronian age and on Caesar’s legislation in particular see M. W. Frederiksen, JRS, 1966, 128 ff., who concludes that Caesar, faced with a debt crisis of unprecedented size, took the following steps: temporary measures in 49 and 48 that created valuations of property (aestimationes) at pre-war prices on the basis of which property should be legally transferred to creditors; reviving a law, and enacting in 46–45, that limited the hoarding of coin and required investment in land in Italy; and by a lex Iulia in 46–45 creating cessio bonorum which permanently helped to mitigate harsher aspects of the law of debt. (For the view that this last law was Augustan rather than Julian see L. Guénoun, La cessio bonorum (1920), 19 ff., and J. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967), 176 f.) [p. 116]
13 PHARSALUS. For general discussions on the battle see M. Rambaud, Historia, iii (1955), 346 ff., W. E. Gwatkin, TAPA, 1956, 109 ff., and Y. Bequignon, Bull. Corresp. Hellen., 1960. 176 ff., also C. B. R. Pelling, Historia, 1973, 249 ff. F. Paschould, Historia, 1981, 178 ff., supports the view of Bequignon rather than of Pelling. [p. 117]
14 POMPEY. On Pompey see the works by Gelzer, van Ooteghem, Leach, Seager and Greenhalgh quoted above in ch. v, n. 10. On his portraiture see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits (1978), 24 ff. [p. 118]
15 CAESAR IN EGYPT. For the general political situation, see a Tubingen Dissertation by H. Heinen, Rom. und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 V. Chr. (1966), on which cf. E. Badian, JRS, 1968, 258 f. For the view that he did not dally in Egypt but left at the beginning of May, 47, see L. E. Lord, JRS, 1938, 18 ff. The story of his Nile trip is not confirmed by contemporary evidence. On the career of Cn. Domitius Calvinus see J. M. Sweeney, Anc. W., I, 1978, 179 ff. [p. 119]
16 CAESAR’S DICTATORSHIP. It used to be thought that Caesar was appointed dictator II in his absence for an indefinite period (which lasted in the event until 46): one reason was that on some coins of 46 he was described as ’cos. tert., dict. iter’, but this may only mean that when consul III (i.e. in 46) his last dictatorship was his second, not that he was still holding that office (there are analogies for this usage); also a coin describes him simply as ‘cos. ter.’, i.e. early 46 after he had given up his second but had not started his third dictatorship. He will therefore have been merely consul designate for the last months of 47. For this view see U. Wilken, Abh. Preuss. Akad. 1940; V. Ehrenberg, AJP, 1953, 129 ff.; A. E. Raubitschek, JRS, 1954, 70 f. [p. 119]
17 LABIENUS. He came from Picenum; he may therefore have been an old partisan of Pompey and after serving Caesar in Gaul he may have revived an older loyalty in deserting to Pompey: see R. Syme, JRS, 1938, 113 ff. (= Roman Papers (1979), i, 62 ff.). W. B. Tyrell (Historia, 1972, 424 ff.) interprets Labienus’ departure from Caesar in 49 as a move to join the legitimate government against a revolutionary proconsul. [p. 120]
18 CATO. On Cato see L. R. Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (1949), ch. viii; A. Afzelius, Cl. et Med., 1941, 100 ff. On his portrait found at Volubilis in Africa see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits (1978), 37 ff. [p. 120]
19 LIGARIUS. See K. Kumaniecki, Hermes, 1967, 434 ff. [p. 121]
20 EPISTULAE AD CAESAREM SENEM DE REPUBLICA. These two works are attributed to Sallust, but some scholars believe that they are really suasoriae written under the Empire. Their Sallustian authorship has been maintained by many, e.g. Ed. Meyer, L. R. Taylor (Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, 154 ff., 185 ff., 232 ff.); others are rightly more sceptical, e.g. H. Last, Cl. Qu., 1923, 87 ff., 151 ff.; F. E. Adcock, JRS, 1950, 139; E. Fraenkel, JRS, 1951, 192 ff.; R. Syme, Museum Helveticum, 1958, 46 ff., 1962, 177 ff. Epistula II is the earlier (50–49, or even 51); the first letter belongs to 46. [p. 121]
20a THE CORN DOLE. See G. Rickman, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome (1980), 175 ff. After the existing list of recipients had been pruned, the number was kept down by an annual system of drawing lots (subsortitio) to fill the vacancies: the details of how such a system worked are shown by a third century A.D. archive relati
ng to a corn dole at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt; see J. Rea, Oxyrhynchi Papyri, xl (1972). [p. 122]
21 THE SO-CALLED LEX IULIA MUNICIPALIS. This is partly preserved in a long inscription found at Heraclea in south Italy. It contains Caesar’s proposed legislation about the corn-dole and roads in Rome, and the regulations for the Italian municipalities. Cf. CAH, IX, 698 ff. For the text see Riccobono, FIRA, n. 13. For translation and commentary see E. G. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 149 ff.; Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. i, 408 ff. [p. 122]
22 PROVINCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. Further measures include the limitation of ‘free legations’ to one year: these were roving commissions which had been much abused by the nobility at the expense of provincials. The five-year interval between the consulship and proconsulship established by Pompey (p. 103) lapsed. A law stopped senators’ sons leaving Italy and Roman citizens of military age living abroad for more than three years. [p. 123]
23 CAESAR’S COLONIES. See F. Vittinghoff, Römische Kolonisation … unter Caesar und Augustus (1952), esp. 49–95, with a list on p. 148. For the charter of Urso (Riccobono, FIRA, n. 21) see translation and commentary by E. G. Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, 23 ff.; Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. i., 420 ff. For the evidence afforded by coins for colonial foundations see M. Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas (1946). Cf. also P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (1971), 255 ff., 319 ff. [p. 123]
24 CAESAR’S GRANTS OF CITIZENSHIP AND LATIN RIGHTS. See A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Citizenship, 136 ff. On Latin rights in Spain (extensive in Ulterior, limited in Citerior) see M. I. Henderson, JRS, 1942, pp. 1 ff. It is uncertain whether Caesar planned to survey the whole empire for census purposes, because this view depends on the sole authority of a fifth-century geographer. [p. 124]
25 CAESAR’S PARTY AND THE SENATE. On his supporters see R. Syme, Rom. Rev., ch. v; for his senators, Syme, ch. vi, and in Papers Brit. Sch. Rome, 1938, pp. 1 ff. (= Roman Papers (1979), i, 88 ff.). On the attitude of Etruria to Caesar see E. Rawson, JRS, 1978, 132 ff. [p. 125]
25a LEX ANNALIS. The magistracies and the working of the lex annalis from 49 to 44 are discussed by G. V. Sumner, Phoenix, 1971, 246 ff. [p. 125]
26 CAESAR’S TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS. See F.E. Adcock, CAH, IX, 900. [p. 126]
27 CAESAR IMPERATOR. That Caesar used Imperator as a permanent title and (as Mommsen believed) to designate his extraordinary position, has been disproved by D. McFayden, The History of the title Imperator under the Roman Empire (1920). The coins with Caesar’s portrait and the title Imperator, which were struck in 44, were not an ordinary civilian issue of the state but a military issue for the Parthian war and were signed by Caesar as commander-in-chief (see C. M. Kraay, Numism. Chron., 1954, 18 ff.). On the nomenclature ‘Imperator Caesar’ see R. Syme, Historia, 1958, 172 ff. [p. 126]
28 PORTRAIT COINAGE OF 44. Two recent attempts have been made to date more closely these interesting issues and to draw from them conclusions about Caesar’s constitutional and monarchic intentions: see A. Alfoldi, Stüdien über Caesars Monarchie (1953) and K. Kraft, Der goldene Kranz Caesars (Jahrb, f. Num.3/4). The latter argues that Caesar’s golden wreath represents part of the regalia of the early kings of Rome: but it was also worn by triumphators. For a criticism of these views see R. A. G. Carson, Gnomon, 1956, 181 ff., Gr. and R., 1957, 46 ff. and Kraay, op. cit., n. 27 and M. Crawford, RRC, p. 488 (for the coins, Crawford n. 480). [p. 126]
29 CAESAR AND MONARCHY. The view that Caesar regarded monarchy as the cure for Rome’s troubles and early in his career deliberately determined to secure it by force if need be, was advanced with great brilliance by Mommsen, who regarded Caesar as a superman and a potential saviour of Roman society. More recently it has been championed by J. Carcopino, Histoire romaine, ii (1936). The belief that Caesar aimed at monarchy on Hellenistic lines has been advocated by Ed. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie3 (1922), who sought to contrast Caesar’s monarchic rule with both the Principate of Augustus and the ‘Principate of Pompey’ (i.e. Pompey, not Caesar, was the true predecessor of Augustus). These views have been criticized by F. E. Adcock (CAH, IX, 718 ff.), who examines the difficult evidence at length and reaches the conclusion that Caesar had not finally resolved to end the Republic. Cf. also R. Syme, Rom. Rev., ch. iv and JRS, 1944, 99 ff., and H. Last, JRS, 1944, 119 ff. W. Burket (Historia, 1962, 356 ff.) returns to the view that even before the First Triumvirate Caesar thought of Roman monarchy, linked to the idea of Romulus-Quirinus. In ‘Caesar’s Final Aims’ (Harvard Stud. Class. Phil., 1964, 149 ff.), V. Ehrenberg concludes ‘that Caesar intended to create his own form of monarchy – neither Roman nor Hellenistic but Caesarean’, p. 157. K. W. Welwei, Historia, 1967, 44 ff., also rejects a pattern of Roman or Hellenistic monarchy but is less definite about the more positive form in which Caesar might have clothed his power; in particular Welwei examines the meaning of the Lupercalia episode, as also does G. Dobesch, Caesars Apotheose zu Lebzeiten und sein Ringen um den Konigstitel (1966), who reaches the opposite conclusion that Caesar wished for monarchy, the diadem and the title of king. E. Rawson (JRS, 1975, 148 ff.) examines the Roman attitude to Hellenistic kings and kingship and concludes that in the light of this tradition Caesar did not want the glorious but hated title rex. H. Gescher (Historia, 1973, 468 ff.) has argued for the view that Caesar did appoint Octavian Magister Equitum. In Divus Julius (1971) S. Weinstock argues that Caesar was a religious reformer who created new cults, stimulated the grant of extraordinary honours to himself and was about to become a divine ruler when he was assassinated; after his death his plan was taken up by his supporters and the new cult of Divus Iulius inherited most of its features. The case is presented with great learning and ingenuity, but may not convince all (e.g. those who think that the author is too credulous in accepting some of the evidence of Dio Cassius). The book is discussed by J. North, JRS, 1975, 171 ff. Cf. also Z. Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his Public Image (forthcoming).
On the child Caesarion see ch. viii, n. 20 below, and on other rumoured sons of Caesar see R. Syme, Historia, 1980, 422 ff. [p. 128]
30 CAESAR’S HEALTH. This was good, except that he twice suffered from epileptic seizures during his campaigns and from fainting fits towards the end of his life (see e.g. Suetonius, Iulius, 45), but there is no reason to believe that his mental vigour was in any way impaired. For the view that during his last phase Caesar’s character underwent a major change, that he was corrupted by power and suffered from megalomania see J.H. Collins, Historia, 1955, 445 ff. On the increasing disapproval felt by his contemporaries towards Caesar, including his partisans as well as enemies, see H. Strasburger, Hist. Zeitschrift, 1953, 225 ff., revised as Caesar im Urteil seiner Zeitgenossen (1968). On the last phase of his life see also J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Historia, 1958, 80 ff. [p. 128]
31 THE CONSPIRATORS. The motives of the conspirators were no doubt mixed. Some had private quarrels with Caesar, and some (e.g. Q. Ligarius) were Pompeians who had suffered in the civil war, but the conspiracy was in no way a resurrection of the Pompeian cause. Ex-Pompeians, as M. Brutus and Cassius, were actuated by loyalty to the Senate and constitution, Brutus being influenced by Greek ideas of the duty of tyrannicide. There is no contemporary evidence, or basis in fact, for the later legend that M. Brutus was Caesar’s son: Caesar had an intrigue with Brutus’ mother Servilia, but probably long after the birth of Brutus (which was probably in 85 or possibly 78). The conspirators included many Caesarians (as Decimus Brutus and C. Trebonius) who had much to hope for from Caesar (these two men had been allotted good provinces for 44); their motives must therefore have been disinterested. Cicero was not approached by the conspirators, but he approved the deed. On their choice of the Ides of March see N. Horsfall, Gr. and R., 1974, 191 ff. [p. 129]
32 CAESAR. Of the two ancient Lives of Caesar that by Suetonius has been edited by H. E. Butler and M. Cary (1927; a very useful work) and that by Plutarch by A. Garzetti (in Italian; 1954). Modern biographies include W. Warde Fowler, Julius Caesar (1904); a welcome translation of M. Gelzer, Caesar. Politician and Statesman
(1968); a briefer sketch by J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Julius Caesar and Rome (1967) and M. Grant, Julius Caesar (1969). H. Collins has provided ‘A Selective Survey of Caesar Scholarship since 1935’, Classical World, 1963, 45 ff., 81 ff. Various aspects of Caesar are discussed in a special bimillenary volume of Greece and Rome, March 1957 (IV, i), and in a volume of lectures entitled, Caesare nel bimellenario della morte (1956). Caesar’s ‘luck’ is discussed by F. Boemer, Gymnasium, 1966, 63 ff., his honours by G. Cogrossi, Contrib. Istit. Stor. ant. Univ. S. Cu. Milan, 1975, 136 ff., his private fortune by A. Ferrill, Indiana Soc. Studies Quar., 1977, 101 ff., his attitude to Epicureanism by F. C. Bourne, Cl. W., 1977, 417 ff. and his writings by L. Radists, Aufstieg, I, iii (1973), 457 ff. H. Gesche’s Caesar (1976) is a useful bibliographical review of works on Caesar. On his portraiture see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits (1978), 30 ff. [p. 129]
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 59