LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A. B. Rice Holmes's Ancient Britain and the Invasions of = Caesar's Commentarii de bello civili. Archaeological Journal. Rice Holmes's Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, 2nd ed., 1911. Classical Review. A. Klotz's Cäsarstudien. H. R. = Th. Mommsen's History of Rome. J. B. = Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin. L. C. H. Meusel's Lexicon Caesarianum. N.J. = P. S. A. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Rh. M. Tr. = = Rice Holmes's Caesar's Commentaries . translated into English. HOW AND WHEN CAESAR WROTE THE COMMENTARIES THE Commentaries on the Gallic War were published not later than 46 B. C., for Cicero notices them with admiration in his Brutus (75, § 262), which appeared in that year. Most probably indeed they were both written and published several years earlier; for it is more than unlikely that Caesar would have had time for literary composition during the intense labour of the civil war, and moreover, as Mommsen says (Hist. of Rome, v, 1894, p. 499), the book was doubtless intended [at least in part] to justify before the Roman public what Caesar had done in Gaul. I will explain this in discussing the trustworthiness of the narrative. There are two main theories about the way in which Caesar composed his book. Some critics believe that he wrote each commentary year by year, after the campaign which it described: others that he wrote the whole seven -for it must be remembered that the eighth was written by his friend, Aulus Hirtius-in the winter of 52–51 B. C. or in the year 50. The latter view is supported by Hirtius, who says (Praef., § 6), ceteri enim quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam quam facile atque celeriter eos perfecerit scimus ('others know the flawless excellence of his work ; I know more-how easily and rapidly it was done'). If this remark is not absolutely inconsistent with the supposition that each commentary was written in the winter that followed the campaign which it described, the natural meaning is that the whole was the result of one continuous effort. The statement of Hirtius, who was one of Caesar's most intimate friends, and probably also his literary secretary, is the only original testimony that we have, and must be accepted unless it can be shown to ... was be inconsistent with facts. Some critics think that it is. In ii, 28, § 1 we read that the Nervian people. brought to the verge of extinction', whereas in v, 39-42 we are told that they vigorously attacked Quintus Cicero, and in vii, 75, § 3 Caesar says that they were called upon to contribute 6,000 men to the army which attempted to relieve Vercingetorix. Again, in vi, 2, § 3 Caesar affirms that all the Cisrhenane Germans', who included the Segni and Condrusi, were in arms against him: in vi, 31, §§ 1-2 he implies that these two tribes proved their innocence. But many of the Nervians who fought against Cicero had doubtless been too young to fight three years before; the statement that the tribe was wellnigh exterminated may have been only a rhetorical flourish, based upon misleading reports, which Caesar or his secretary had not had time or inclination to sift; and the inconsis tency between vi, 2 and vi, 31 only proves that he did not thoroughly revise his work. Even real inconsistencies, which are very few, can be accounted for by hasty use of discordant materials, lapse of memory, or mere carelessness. It may be regarded, then, as certain that Caesar wrote the Commentaries after the campaign of 52 B. C.; and the only question is whether he wrote them in the winter following that campaign or later. I am not sure that he would have had time to write them in the winter; för from the very beginning of 51 he was hard at work, campaigning against the Bituriges and other tribes. Mommsen, indeed, argues (Hist. of Rome, v, 1895, p. 499, n. 1) that the book must have been not only written but published before the end of 51, because in vii, 6, § 1 Caesar approves the exceptional laws [passed under the influence of Pompey] of 702' (52 B. c.), and he could not have done this after his rupture with Pompey, when he reversed certain judgements which were based upon those laws. But why should not the publication have taken place in 50 B. C.,-the year before that in which the civil war began? It seems to me most probable that it did, for this was the only year between Caesar's first consulship and the last year of his life in which he was not fighting; and, as far as we know, he was then comparatively at leisure (Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, pp. 202-10). |