History of Julius Caesar Vol. 1 of 2

Among the cares of the consul was the nomination of tribunes devoted to him, since it was they generally who proposed the laws for the people to ratify.

Clodius, on account of his popularity, was one of the candidates who could be most useful to him; but his rank of patrician obliged him to pass by adoption into a plebeian family before he could be elected, and that he could only do in virtue of a law. Cæsar hesitated in bringing it forward; for if, on the one hand, he sought to conciliate Clodius himself, on the other, he knew his designs of vengeance against Cicero, and was unwilling to put into his hands an authority which he might abuse. But when, towards the month of March, at the trial of C. Antonius, charged with disgraceful conduct in Macedonia, Cicero, in defending his former colleague, indulged in a violent attack upon those in power, on that same day Clodius was received into the ranks of the plebeians,[1139 - Plutarch, Cato, 38. – “It was about the sixth hour, when, in the course of my speech in court for C. Antonius, my colleague, I deplored certain abuses which prevailed in the State, and which seemed to me to be closely allied to the case of my unfortunate client. Some ill-disposed persons reported my words to certain men of high position in different terms to those I had used; and on the same day, at the ninth hour, the adoption of Clodius was carried.” (Cicero, Oration for his House, 16.)] and soon afterwards became, together with Vatinius, tribune-elect.[1140 - Appian, Civil Wars, II. 14. – Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 12. – Plutarch, Pompey, 50. – Cicero, 39.] There was a third tribune, whose name is unknown, but who was equally won over to the interests of the consul.[1141 - Cicero, Oration for Sestius, loc. cit.]

Thus Cæsar, as even Cicero admits, was alone more powerful already than the Republic.[1142 - Cicero, writing to Atticus about Cæsar’s first consulship, says: “Weak as he was then, Cæsar was stronger than the entire State.” (Letters to Atticus, VII. 9.)] Of some he was the hope; of others, the terror; of all, master irrevocably. The inactivity of Bibulus had only served to increase his power.[1143 - “Bibulus thought to render Cæsar an object of suspicion. He made him more powerful than before.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 44.)] Thus it was said in Rome, as a jest, that men knew of no other consulship than that of Julius and Caius Cæsar, making two persons out of a single name; and the following verses were handed about: —

“Non Bibulo quidquam nuper sed Cæsare factum est:

Nam Bibulo fieri consule nil memini.”[1144 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 20.]

And as popular favour, when it declares itself in favour of a man in a conspicuous position, sees something marvellous in everything that concerns his person, the populace drew a favourable augury from the existence of an extraordinary horse born in his stables. Its hoofs were forked, and shaped like fingers. Cæsar was the only man who could tame this strange animal, the docility of which, it was said, foreboded to him the empire of the world.[1145 - Cæsar rode an extraordinary horse, whose feet were shaped almost like those of man, the hoof being divided in such a way as to present the appearance of fingers. He had reared this horse, which had been foaled in his house, with great care, for the soothsayers had predicted the empire of the world to its master. Cæsar was the first who tamed it: before that time the animal had allowed no one to mount it. Finally, he erected a statue to its honour in front of the Temple of Venus Genetrix.” (Suetonius, Cæsar, 61.)]

During his first consulship, Cæsar caused a number of laws to be passed, the greater part of which have not descended to us. Some valuable fragments, however, of the most important ones have been preserved, and among others, the modifications in the sacerdotal privileges. The tribune Labienus, as we have seen, in order to secure Cæsar’s election to the office of pontiff, had granted the right of election to seventeen tribes selected by lot. Although this law seemed to authorise absentees to become candidates for the priesthood, the people and the priests disputed the right of those who did not solicit the dignity in person. Endless quarrels and disturbances were the result. To put an end to these, Cæsar, while confirming the law of Labienus, announced that not only those candidates who appeared in person, but those at a distance also, who had any title whatever to that honour, might offer themselves as candidates.[1146 - “I am quite of opinion that the right of absent candidates to solicit the offices of the priesthood may be examined by the comitia, for there is a precedent for that. C. Marius, whilst in Cappadocia, was elected augur by the law Domitia, and no subsequent law has forbidden the course; for the Julian Law, the last on the subject of the priesthood, states: ‘He who is a candidate, or he whose right to become one has been examined.’” (Cicero, Letters to Brutus, I. 5.)]

He turned his attention next to the provinces, whose condition had always excited his sympathy. The law intended to reform the vices of the administration (De provinciis ordinandis) is of uncertain date; it bears the same title as that of Sylla, and resembles it considerably. Its provisions guaranteed the inhabitants against the violence, the arbitrary conduct, and the corruption of the proconsuls and proprætors, and fixed the allotments to which these were entitled.[1147 - Cicero, Oration against Piso, 37.]

It released the free states, liberæ civitates, from dependence upon governors, and authorised them to govern themselves by their own laws and their own magistrates.[1148 - Cicero, Oration on the Consular Provinces, 4. —Oration against Piso, 21.] Cicero himself considered this measure as the guarantee of the liberty of the provinces;[1149 - Cicero, Oration against Piso, 16; Letters to Atticus, V. 10, 16, 21. —First Philippic, 8.] for, in his speech against Piso, he reproaches him with having violated it by including free nations in his government of Macedonia.[1150 - “You have obtained,” says he, addressing Piso, “a consular province with no other limits than those of your cupidity, in contravention of the law of your son-in-law. In fact, by a law of Cæsar’s, as just as it is salutary, free nations used to enjoy a full and entire liberty.” (Cicero, Oration against Piso, 16.)] Lastly, a separate proviso regulated the responsibility and expenses of the administration, by requiring that on going out of office the governors should deliver, at the end of thirty days, an account explaining their administration and their expenses, of which three copies were to be deposited, one in the treasury (ærarium) at Rome, and the others in the two principal towns of the province.[1151 - Cicero, Oration against Piso, 25; Familiar Letters, II. 17; Letters to Atticus, VI. 7. – “I will add, that if the ancient right and antique usage were still in force, I should not have had to send in my accounts till after I had discoursed about them, and had them audited with good humour, and the formalities that our intimacy justifies. What I would have done in Rome according to the old fashion, I ought, according to the Julian law, to have done in my province: send in my accounts on the spot, and only deposit in the treasury an exact copy of them. I was obliged to follow the provisions of the law. The accounts, duly audited and compared, were to be deposited in two towns, and I chose, in the terms of the law, the two most important – Laodicea and Apamea… I come to the point of the customary presents. You must know that I had only included in my list the military tribunes, the prefects, and the officers of my house (contubernales). I even made a blunder. I thought I was allowed any latitude in point of time. Subsequently I learnt that the request ought to be sent in during the thirty days allowed for the settling the accounts. Happily, all is safe as far as the centurions are concerned, and the officers of the household of the military tribunes – for the law is silent in regard to the latter. (Cicero, Familiar Letters, V. 20.)] The proprætors were to remain one year, and the proconsuls two, at the head of their governments.[1152 - Dio Cassius, XLIII. 25.]

The generals were in the habit of burdening the people they governed with exorbitant exactions. They extorted from them crowns of gold (aurum coronarium), of considerable value, under pretence of the triumph, and obliged the countries through which they passed to bear the expenses of themselves and their attendants. Cæsar remedied these abuses, by forbidding the proconsuls to demand the crown before the triumph had been decreed,[1153 - “I say nothing about the golden crown that has been so long a torture to you, in your uncertainty as to whether you ought to demand it or not. In fact, the law of your son-in-law forbad them to give it or you to receive it, unless your triumph had been granted you.” (Cicero, Oration against Piso, 37.)] and by subjecting to the most rigorous restrictions the contributions in kind which were to be furnished.[1154 - Cicero, Oration against Piso, 37; Letters to Atticus, V. 10, 16.] We may judge how necessary these regulations were from the fact that Cicero, whose government was justly considered an honest one, admits that he drew large sums from his province of Cilicia eight years after the passing of the law Julia.[1155 - “Take notice, I beg you, that I paid into the hands of the farmers of the revenues at Ephesus twenty-two millions of sestertii, a sum to which I have a perfect right, and that Pompey laid hands on the whole. I have made up my mind on the subject – whether wisely or unwisely matters not.” (Cicero, Oration against Piso, xxxvii. 16.)]

The same law forbad all governors to leave their provinces, or to send their troops out of them to interfere in the affairs of any neighbouring State, without permission of the Senate and the people,[1156 - Cicero, Oration against Piso, 21.] or to extort any money from the inhabitants of the provinces.[1157 - Cicero, Oration on the Consular Provinces, 2, 3, 4.]

The law by similar provisions diminished the abuse of free legations (legationes liberæ). This was the name given to the missions of senators, who, travelling into the provinces on their own affairs, obtained by an abuse the title of envoy of the Roman people, to which they had no right, in order to be defrayed the expenses and costs of travelling. These missions, which were for an indefinite time, were the subject of incessant[1158 - “Is there any position more disgraceful than that of a senator, who goes on a mission without the slightest authorisation on the part of the State? It was this kind of mission that I should have abolished during my consulship, even with the consent of the Senate, notwithstanding the apparent advantages it held out, had it not been for the senseless opposition of a tribune. At any rate I caused its duration to be shortened: formerly it had no limit; now I have reduced it to a year.” (Cicero, On Laws, III. 8.)] complaints. Cicero had limited them to a year: Cæsar prescribed a still narrower limit, but its exact length is unknown.[1159 - “Moreover, I think that the Julian law has defined the duration of free embassies: nor will it be easy to extend it.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, XV. 11. – Orelli, Index Legum, p. 192.)]

As a supplement to the preceding measures he brought in a law (De pecuniis repetundis), the provisions of which have often been confounded with those of the law De provinciis ordinandis. Cicero boasts of its perfection[1160 - Cicero, Oration for Sestius, 64. “Liberty torn from nations and individuals on whom it had been conferred, and whose right had been, by virtue of the Julian law, so precisely ensured against all hostile attacks.” (Oration against Piso, xxxvii. 16.)] and justice. It contained a great number of sections. In a letter from Cœlius to Cicero, the 101st chapter of the law is referred to. Its object was to meet all cases of peculation, out of Italy as well as in Rome. Persons who had been wronged could demand restitution before a legal tribunal of the sums unjustly collected.[1161 - Cicero, Familiar Letters, VIII. 8. – Several of its chapters have been preserved in the Digest, XLVIII. tit. XI. It is generally supposed that the fragments inscribed on a tablet of brass in the Museum of Florence belong to the same law. They have been published by Maffei, Museum Veronese, p. 365, No. 4, and commented on by the celebrated Marini, in his work on the Monuments of the Fratres Arvales, I. pp. 39, 40, note 44.] Though the principal provisions of it were borrowed from the law of Sylla on the same subject, the penalty was more severe and the proceedings more expeditious. For instance, as the rich contrived, by going into voluntary exile before the verdict, to elude the punishment, it was provided that in that case their goods should be confiscated, in part or wholly, according to the nature of the crime.[1162 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 42.] If the fortune of the defendant was not sufficient for the repayment of the money claimed, all those who had profited by the embezzlement were sought out and jointly condemned.[1163 - Cicero, Oration for Rabirimus Postumus, 4, 5.] Finally, corruption was attacked in all its forms,[1164 - Fragments of the Julian law, De Repetundis, preserved in the Digest, XLVIII. tit. XI.The law is directed against those who, holding a magistracy, an embassy, or any other office, or forming part of the attendants of these functionaries, receive money.They may receive money to any amount from their cousins, their still nearer relatives, or their wives.The law includes those who have received money: For speaking in the Senate or any public assembly; for doing their duty or absenting themselves from it; for refusing to obey a public order or for exceeding it; for pronouncing judgment in a criminal or a civil case, or for not pronouncing it; for condemning or acquitting; for awarding or withdrawing the subject of a suit; for adjudging or taking an object in litigation; for appointing a judge or arbitrator, changing him, ordering him to judge, or for not appointing him or changing him, and not ordering him to judge; for causing a man to be imprisoned, put in irons, or set at liberty; for accusing or not accusing; for producing or suppressing a witness; for recognising as complete an unfinished public work; for accepting wheat for the use of the State without testing its good quality; for taking upon himself the maintenance of the public buildings without a certificate of their good condition; for enlisting a soldier or discharging him.All that has been given to the proconsul or prætor contrary to the provisions of the present law, cannot become his by right of possession.Sales and leases are declared null and void which have been made, for a high or a low price, with a view to right of possession by a third.The magistrates are to abstain from all extortion, and receive as salary but 100 pieces of gold each year.The action will lie equally against the heirs of the accused, but only during the year succeeding his death.No one who has been condemned under this law can be either judge, accuser, or witness.The penalties are exile, banishment to an island, or death, according to the gravity of the offence.] and the law went so far as to watch over the honesty of business transactions. One article deserves special remark, that which forbad a public work to be accepted as completed if it were not absolutely finished. Cæsar had doubtless in mind the process which he had unsuccessfully instituted against Catulus for his failure to complete the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

We may for the most part consider as Cæsar’s laws those which were passed at his instigation, whether by the tribune P. Vatinius, or the prætor Q. Fufius Calenus.[1165 - Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 8.]

One of the laws of the former authorised the accuser in a suit, as well as the accused, to challenge for once all the judges: down to this time they had only been permitted to challenge a certain number.[1166 - De alternis consiliis rejiciendis. (Cicero, Oration against Vatinius, 11. —Scholiast of Bobbio, pp. 321, 323, edit. Orelli.)] Its object was to give to all the same guarantee which Sylla had reserved exclusively to the senators, since for the knights and plebeians he limited the challenge to three.[1167 - “The citizens who, not being of your order, cannot, thanks to the Cornelian laws, challenge more than three judges.” (Cicero, Second Prosecution of Verres, II. 31.)] Vatinius had also conferred on five thousand colonists, established at Como (Novum Comum), the rights of a Roman city. This measure[1168 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 28.] flattered the pride of Pompey, whose father, Pompeius Strabo, had rebuilt the town of Comum; and it offered to other colonists the hope of obtaining the qualification of Roman citizens, which Cæsar subsequently granted to them.[1169 - Cicero, Familiar Letters, XIII. 35. “Pompeius Strabo, father of Pompey the Great, re-peopled Comum. Some time after, Scipio established 3,000 inhabitants there; and, finally, Cæsar sent 5,000 colonists, the most distinguished of whom were 500 Greeks.” (Strabo, cxix.)]

Another devoted partisan of the consul, the prætor Q. Fufius Calenus,[1170 - Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 18. – Dio Cassius, XXVIII. 8.] proposed a law which in judicial deliberations laid the responsibility upon each of the three orders of which the tribunal was composed: the senators, the knights, and the tribunes of the treasury. Instead of pronouncing a collective judgment, they were called upon to express their opinion separately. Dio Cassius explains the law in these terms: “Seeing that in a process all the votes were mixed together, and that each order took to itself the credit of the good decisions, and threw the bad ones to the account of the others, Calenus had a law made that the different orders should vote independently, in order to know thus, not the opinion of individuals, since the vote was secret, but that of each order.”[1171 - Dio Cassius, XXVIII. 8. – Orelli, Index Legum, 178.]

All the laws of Cæsar were styled “Julian laws;” they received the sanction of the Senate, and were adopted without opposition,[1172 - Cicero, in his speech against Vatinius, chap. 6, while reproaching him for having disregarded the auspices, exclaims, “I ask you first, Did you refer the matter to the Senate, as Cæsar did?”“It is true that Cæsar’s acts were, for the benefit of peace, confirmed by the Senate.” (Cicero, Second Philippic, 39.)] and even Cato himself did not oppose them; but when he became prætor, and found himself obliged to put them into execution, he was little-minded enough to object to call them by their name.[1173 - Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 7.]

We may be convinced by the above facts, that, during his first consulship, Cæsar was animated by a single motive, the public interest. His ruling thought was to remedy the evils which afflicted the country. His acts, which several historians have impeached as subversive and inspired by boundless ambition, we find, on an attentive examination, to be the result of a wise policy, and the carrying out of a well-known plan, proclaimed formerly by the Gracchi, and recently by Pompey himself. Like the Gracchi, Cæsar desired a distribution of the public domain, the reform of justice, the relief of the provinces, and the extension of the rights of city; like them, he had protected the knightly order, so that he might oppose it to the formidable resistance of the Senate; but he, more fortunate, accomplished that which the Gracchi had been unable to realise. Plutarch, in the life of Crassus,[1174 - Cæsar conducted himself with discretion in his consulship.” (Plutarch, Crassus, 17.)] pronounces a eulogium on the wisdom of his government, although an intemperate judgment had led that writer, elsewhere, to compare his conduct to that of a factious tribune.[1175 - “Cæsar published laws that were worthy, I will not say of a consul, but of the most reckless of tribunes.” (Plutarch, Cæsar, 14.)]

Following the taste of the age, and especially as a means of popularity, Cæsar gave splendid games, shows, and gladiatorial combats, borrowing from Pompey and Atticus considerable sums to meet his love of display, his profusion, and his largesses.[1176 - Cicero, Letters to Atticus, VI. 1. – Appian, Civil Wars, II. 13.] Suetonius, ever ready to record, without distinction, the reports, true and false, current at the time, relates that Cæsar had taken from the treasury three thousand pounds of gold, for which he substituted gilt metal; but his high character is sufficient to refute this calumny. Cicero, who had not, at this time, any reason to spare him, makes no mention of it in his letters, where his ill-humour displays itself, nor in his speech against Vatinius, one of Cæsar’s devoted friends. On the other hand, Pliny[1177 - Pliny, Natural History, XXXIII. 5. Drumann and Mommsen, like ourselves, refuse their belief to the assertion of Suetonius.] mentions a similar fact which happened during Pompey’s consulate.

Cæsar receives the Government of the Gauls.

IV. Cæsar did not confine his ambition to discharging the functions of a consul and legislator: he desired to obtain a command worthy of the elevation of his genius, to extend the frontiers of the Republic, and to preserve them from the invasion of their most powerful enemies. It will be remembered that at the time of the election of the consuls, the Senate had conferred upon them the superintendence of the woods and public roads. He had, therefore, slender grounds to expect a return of friendly feeling on the part of that assembly, and, if the distribution of governments was vested in them, history offered examples of provinces given by vote of the people. Numidia was assigned to Marius on the proposal of the tribune L. Manlius; and L. Lucullus, having received Cisalpine Gaul from the Senate, obtained Cilicia from the people.[1178 - Plutarch, Lucullus, 9.] It was thus that the command of Asia had been conferred upon Pompey. Strong in these precedents, Vatinius proposed to the people to confer upon Cæsar, for five years, the command of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria, with three legions.[1179 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 22. – Plutarch, Cæsar, 14.] Pompey supported this proposal with all his influence. The friends of Crassus,[1180 - Appian, Civil Wars, II. 14.] Claudius[1181 - Plutarch, Crassus, 17.] and L. Piso, gave their votes in favour of this law.

At first, it appeared strange that the proposal of the tribune only included Cisalpine Gaul, without reference to the other side of the Alps, which alone offered chances of acquiring glory. But, on reflection, we discover how skilful and politic was this manner of putting the question. To solicit at the same time the government of both the Gauls might have seemed exorbitant, and likely to expose him to failure. To demand the government of Gaul proper was dangerous, for if he had obtained it without Cisalpine Gaul, which would have devolved upon another proconsul, Cæsar would have found himself completely separated from Italy, inasmuch as it would have been impossible for him to repair thither during the winter, and so preserve continuous relations with Rome. The proposal of Vatinius, on the contrary, having for its object only Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria, they could scarcely refuse a command limited to the ordinary bounds, and Cæsar acquired thereby a solid basis for operations in the midst of devoted populations, where his legions could be easily recruited. As to the province beyond the Alps, it was probable that some fortuitous circumstance, or new proposal, would place it under his orders. This happened sooner than he expected, for the Senate, by a skilful, but at this time unusual, determination, added to his command a third province, Gallia Comata, or Transalpine, and a fourth legion. The Senate thus obtained for itself the credit of an initiative, which the people would have taken of itself had it not been anticipated.[1182 - Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 8. – Suetonius, Cæsar, 22.]

Transported with joy at this news, Cæsar, according to Suetonius, exclaimed in the full Senate, that now, having succeeded to the utmost of his desire in spite of his enemies, he would march over their heads.[1183 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 22.] This story is not probable. He was too prudent to provoke his enemies in their face at the moment he was going to a distance from Rome. “Always master of himself,” says an old writer, “he never needlessly ran against anybody.”[1184 - Dio Cassius, XL. 34.]

Opposition of the Patricians.

V. Whilst, contending with the most serious difficulties, Cæsar endeavoured to establish the Republic on the securest foundations, the aristocratic party consoled itself for its successive defeats by a petty war of sarcasm and chicanery. At the theatre they applauded all the injurious allusions of Pompey, and received Cæsar with coldness.[1185 - “At the gladiatorial exhibition, the giver of the show and all his attendants were received with hisses. At the games in honour of Apollo, the tragedian Diphilus made a pointed allusion to our friend Pompey in the lines —‘’Tis through our woes that thou art great,’and was called upon to repeat the words a thousand times. Further on, the whole assembly cheered him when he said,‘A time shall come, when thou thyself shall weepThat power of thine so deadly’ —for they are lines that one might have said were written on purpose by an enemy of Pompey. The words‘If nought, nor law, nor virtue, hold thee back,’were received with a tempest of acclamation. When Cæsar arrived, he met with a cold reception. Curio, on the other hand, who followed him, was saluted with a thousand cheers, as Pompey used to be in the prosperous times of the Republic. Cæsar was annoyed, and sent off a courier post haste to Pompey, who is, they say, at Capua.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 19.)] Bibulus, the son-in-law of Cato, published libels containing the grossest attacks. He renewed the accusation of plotting against the Republic, and of the pretended shameful relations with Nicomedes.[1186 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 9.] People rushed to read and copy these insulting placards. Cicero gladly sent them to Atticus.[1187 - Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 19.] The party, too, to which Bibulus belonged, extolled him to the skies, and made him a great man.[1188 - “Bibulus is being praised to the skies, I know not why; but he is being extolled as the one only man who, by temporising, has restored the State. Pompey, my idol Pompey, has been his own ruin, as I own with tears to-day; he has no one left who takes his side from affection. I am afraid that they will find it necessary to resort to intimidation. For my own part, I forbear, on the one hand, to combat their views on account of my ancient friendship with them, and, on the other, my antecedents prevent my approving of what they are about; I preserve a middle course. The humour of the people is best seen in the theatres.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 19, 20, 21.)] His opposition, however, had only succeeded in postponing the consular comitia until the month of October. This prorogation was made in the hope of preventing the election of consuls friendly to the triumvirs. Cæsar, on this occasion, attacked him in a violent speech, and Vatinius proposed to arrest him. Pompey, on his part, moved by invectives to which he was unaccustomed, complained to the people of the animosity of which he was the object; but his speech does not appear to have been attended with much success.

It is sad to see the accomplishment of great things often thwarted by the little passions of short-sighted men, who only know the world in the small circle to which their life is confined. By seconding Cæsar, Bibulus might have obtained an honourable reputation. He preferred being the hero of a coterie, and sought to obtain the interested applause of a few selfish senators, rather than, with his colleague, to merit public gratitude. Cicero, on his part, mistook for a true expression of opinion the clamours of a desperate faction. He was, moreover, one of those who find that all fares well while they are themselves in power, and that everything is endangered when they are out. In his letters to Atticus he speaks of the general hatred to these new kings, predicts their approaching fall, and exclaims,[1189 - “He keeps prudently in the background, but hopes at a safe distance to witness their shipwreck.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 7.)] “What murmurs! what irritation! what hatred against our friend Pompey! His name of great is growing old like that of rich Crassus.”[1190 - Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 13.]

He explains, with a perfect naïveté, the consolation which his self-love finds in the abasement of him who was formerly the object of his admiration. “I was tormented with fear that the services which Pompey rendered to our country should hereafter appear greater than mine. I have quite recovered from it. He is so low, so very low, that Curius himself appears to me a giant beside him.”[1191 - Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 17.] And he adds, “Now there is nothing more popular than to hate the popular men; they have no one on their side. They know it, and it is this which makes me fear a resort to violence. I cannot think without shuddering of the explosions which are inevitable.”[1192 - Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 20, 21.] The hatred which he bore to Clodius and Valerius misled his judgment.

Whilst Cæsar laboriously pursued the course of his destiny, the genius of Cicero, instead of understanding the future and hastening progress by his co-operation, resisted the general impulse, denied its evidence, and could not perceive the greatness of the cause through the faults of certain adherents to power.

Cæsar bore uneasily the attacks of Cicero; but, like all who are guided by great political views, superior to resentment, he conciliated everything which might exercise an ascendency over people’s minds; and the eloquence of Cicero was a power. Dio Cassius thus explains the conduct of Cæsar: “He did not wound Cicero either by his words or his acts. He said that often many men designedly throw vain sarcasm against those who are above them in order to drive them to dispute, in the hope of appearing to have some resemblance to them, and be put in the same rank if they succeed in being abused in return. Cæsar therefore judged that he ought not to enter the lists with anybody. Such was his rule of conduct towards those who insulted him, and, as he saw very well that Cicero sought less to offend him than to provoke him to make some injurious reply, from the desire which he had to be looked upon as his equal, he took no notice of him, made no account of what he said, and even allowed Cicero to insult him as he liked, and to praise himself beyond measure. However, he was far from despising him, but, naturally gentle, his anger was not easily aroused. He had much to punish, as must be the case with one mixed up with great affairs, but he never yielded to passion.”[1193 - Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 11.]

An incident occurred which showed all the animosity of a certain party. L. Vettius, an old spy of Cicero’s in the Catiline conspiracy, punished for having falsely accused Cæsar, was arrested on suspicion of wishing to attempt his life, as well as that of Pompey. A poniard was found upon him; and, being interrogated before the Senate, he denounced, as the instigators of his crime, the young Curio, Cæpio, Brutus, Lentulus, Cato, Lucullus, Piso, son-in-law of Cicero, Cicero himself, M. Laterensis, and others. He also named Bibulus, which removed all air of probability from his accusations, Bibulus having already warned Pompey to be on his guard.[1194 - Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 24.] Historians, such as Dio Cassius, Appian, and Plutarch, treat this plot seriously; the first maintains expressly that Cicero and Lucullus had armed the hand of the assassin. Suetonius, on the contrary, reproaches Cæsar with having suborned Vettius in order to throw the blame upon his adversaries.

In face of these contradictory informations, it is best, as in the case of an ordinary lawsuit, to estimate the worth of the charge according to the previous character of the accused. Now, Cicero, notwithstanding his instability, was too honest to have a hand in a plot for assassination, and Cæsar had too elevated a character and too great a consciousness of his power to lower himself so far as to seek, in a miserable intrigue, the means of augmenting his influence. A senatus-consultum caused Vettius to be thrown into prison; but Cæsar, interested in, and resolved on, the discovery of the truth, referred the matter to the people, and forced Vettius to mount the tribune of the orators. He, with a suspicious versatility, denounced those whom he had before acquitted, and cleared those whom he had denounced, and among others, Brutus. With regard to the latter, it was pretended that this change was due to Cæsar’s connection with his mother. Vettius was remanded to prison, and found dead next day. Cicero accused Vatinius of killing him;[1195 - Cicero, Oration against Vatinius, II. – Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 9.] but, according to others, the true authors of his death were those who had urged him into this disgraceful intrigue, and were in fear of his revelations.[1196 - Scholiast of Bobbio, On Cicero’s Oration against Vatinius, p. 330, edit. Orelli. – Appian, Civil Wars, II. 2 and 12.]

The comparison of these various accounts leads us to conclude that this obscure agent of dark intrigues had made himself the instigator of a plot, in order to have the merit of revealing it, and to attract the favour of Cæsar by pointing to his political adversaries as accomplices. Nevertheless, the event turned to the profit of Cæsar, and the people permitted him to take measures for his personal safety.[1197 - Appian, Civil Wars, II. 12.] It was doubtless at this period that the ancient custom was re-established of allowing a consul, during the month when he had not the fasces, the right of being preceded by a beadle (accensus) and followed by lictors.[1198 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 20.]

Without changing the fundamental laws of the Republic, Cæsar had obtained a great result: he had replaced anarchy by an energetic power, ruling at the same time the Senate and the comitia; by the mutual understanding between the three most important men, he had substituted for personal rivalries a moral authority which enabled him to establish laws conducive to the prosperity of the empire. But it was essential that his departure should not entail the fall of the edifice so laboriously raised. He was not ignorant of the number and power of his enemies; he knew that if he abandoned to them the forum and the curia, not only would they reverse his enactments, but they would even deprive him of his command. If there was any doubt of the degree of hatred of which he was the object, it would be sufficient to be reminded, that a year afterwards Ariovistus confessed to him, in an interview on the banks of the Rhine, that many of the important nobles of Rome had designs against his life.[1199 - “He (Ariovistus) knows, by his messengers, that in causing Cæsar’s death he would gratify a number of great persons at Rome; his death would win to him their favour and friendship.” (Cæsar, War in Gaul, I. 44.)] Against such animosities he had the task, no easy one, of directing the elections. The Roman constitution caused new candidates to spring up every year for honours; and it was indispensable to have partisans amongst the two consuls, the eight prætors, and the ten tribunes named in the comitia. At all epochs, even at the time when the aristocracy exercised the greatest influence, it could not prevent its opponents from introducing themselves into the public offices. Moreover, the three who had made common cause had reason to fear the ambition and ingratitude of the men whom they had raised, and who would soon seek to become their equals. There was still a last danger, and perhaps the most serious: it was the impatience and want of discipline of the democratic party, of which they were the chiefs.

In face of these dangers, the triumvirs agreed to cause L. Piso, the father-in-law of Cæsar, and A. Gabinius, the devoted partisan of Pompey, to be elected to the consulship the following year. They were, in fact, designated consuls on the 18th of October, in spite of the efforts of the nobles and the accusation of Cato against Gabinius.

At the end of the year 695, Cæsar and Bibulus ceased their functions. The latter, in reporting his conduct according to custom, endeavoured to paint in the blackest colours the state of the Republic; but Clodius prevented him from speaking.[1200 - Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 12.] As for Cæsar, his presentiment of the attacks to which he was to be subjected was only too well founded; for he had hardly quitted office, when the prætor L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and C. Memmius, friends of Cicero,[1201 - Cicero, Letters to Quintus, I. 2.] proposed to the Senate to prosecute him for the acts committed during his consulate, and especially for not having paid attention to the omens. From this proposal the Senate recoiled.[1202 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 23; Nero, 2.] Still, they brought Cæsar’s questor to trial. He himself was cited by the tribune L. Antistius. But the whole college refused to entertain the charge, in virtue of the law Memmia, which forbad an accusation to be entertained against a citizen while absent on the public service.[1203 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 23. – Valerius Maximus, III. 7, 9.]

Cæsar found himself once more at the gates of Rome, invested with the imperium, and, according to Cicero’s letters,[1204 - “At the gates of Rome there was a general invested with authority for many years, and at the head of a great army (cum magno exercitu). Was he my enemy? I do not say he was; but I knew that when people said so, he was silent.” (Cicero, Oration after his return in the Senate, 13.) – “Oppressos, vos, inquit, tenebo exercitu Cæsaris.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 16.) – “Clodius said he would invade the curia at the head of Cæsar’s army.” (Cicero, Oration on the Report of the Augurs, 22.) – “Cæsar had already gone out of Rome with his army.” (Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 17.)] at the head of numerous troops, composed apparently of veteran volunteers.[1205 - In several passages of Cicero’s letters, Cæsar is represented as being at the gates of Rome at the head of his army; and yet we know from his Commentaries that at the beginning of the war in Gaul he had only four legions, of which one was stationed on the banks of the Rhine, and the three others at Aquileia, in Illyria. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how he could have had troops at the gates of Rome, of which no further mention is made in the course of his campaign. The only way to reconcile the letters of Cicero with the Commentaries is to allow that Cæsar, independently of the legions which he found beyond the frontiers of Italy, summoned to his standard the volunteers and Roman veterans who were desirous of following him. Mustering at the gate of Rome, they joined him subsequently in Gaul, and were merged in the legions. This supposition is the more probable, as in 700, when the question of re-electing Pompey and Crassus to the consulship was brought forward, Cæsar sent to Rome a great number of soldiers to vote in the comitia. Hence, as all the legions had been recruited in Cisalpine Gaul, the inhabitants of which did not possess the right of Roman city, he must have had other Roman citizens in his army. Besides, if Cæsar appealed to the veterans, he only followed the example of nearly all the Roman generals, and among others of Scipio, Flamininus, and Marius. In fact, when Cornelius Scipio departed for the war against Antiochus, there were five thousand volunteers at the gates of Rome – citizens as well as allies – who had served in all the campaigns of his brother, Scipio Africanus. (Titus Livius, XXXVII. 4.) – “When Flamininus left to join the legions in Macedonia, he took with him three thousand veterans who had fought against Hannibal and Hasdrubal.” (Plutarch, Flamininus, III.) – “Marius, before leaving for the war against Jugurtha, appealed to all the bravest soldiers of Latium. He knew most of them for having served under his eyes, and the rest by reputation. By force of solicitation, he obliged even the veterans to go with him.” (Sallust, War of Jugurtha, LXXXIV.)] He even remained there more than two months, in order to watch that his departure should not become the signal for the overthrow of his work.

Law of Clodius. Exile of Cicero.

VI. During this time, Clodius, a restless and turbulent spirit,[1206 - “At the present moment he (Clodius) is agitating and raging; he knows not what he wants; he makes hostile demonstrations on this side and on that, and seems to intend to leave to chance where he shall strike. When he gives a thought to the unpopularity of the present state of things, you would say he was going to fly at the authors of it; but when he sees on which side are the means of action and the armed force, he turns round against us.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 22.)] proud of the support which he had lent the triumvirs, as well as of that he had received from them, listened only to his passion, and caused laws to be enacted, some of which, flattering the populace and even the slaves, menaced the State with anarchy. In virtue of these laws, he re-established political associations (collegia), clubs dangerous to public tranquillity,[1207 - These clubs (collegia compitalitia) had an organisation which was almost military, divided into districts, and composed exclusively of the proletaries. (See Mommsen, Roman History, III. 290.) – “The slaves enrolled under pretence of forming corporations.” (Cicero, Oration after his return in the Senate, 13.)] which Sylla had dissolved, but which were subsequently reorganised to be again suppressed in 690;[1208 - An exception, however, was made in 690, in favour of the corporations of artisans. (Asconius, In Pisone, IV. p. 7; In Corneliana, p. 75, edit. Orelli.)] he made gratuitous distributions of wheat to the people; took from the censors the right of excluding from the Senate anybody they wished, allowing them only to reject those who were under condemnation;[1209 - Cicero, Oration against Piso, 4. – Asconius, On the Oration of Cicero against Piso, pp. 7, 8, edit. Orelli. – Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 13.] forbad the magistrates taking omens, or observing the sky on the day of the deliberation of the comitia;[1210 - Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 13.] and, lastly, he inflicted severe penalties on those who had condemned Roman citizens to death unheard. This last enactment was evidently directed against Cicero, although his name was not mentioned in it. In order to ensure its adoption, its author desired the acquiescence of Cæsar, who was detained at the gates of Rome by the military command, which forbad him to enter. Clodius then convoked the people outside the walls, and when he asked the proconsul his opinion, the latter replied that it was well known by his vote in the affair of the accomplices of Catiline; that, nevertheless, he disapproved of a law which pronounced penalties upon facts which belonged to the past.[1211 - Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 17.]

On this occasion the Senate went into mourning, in order to exhibit its discontent to all eyes; but the consuls Gabinius and Piso obliged the Senate to relinquish this ill-timed demonstration.

Cæsar, in order to defend Cicero from the danger which threatened him, offered to take him with him to Gaul as his lieutenant.[1212 - “I receive from Cæsar the most flattering invitations, asking me to join him as lieutenant.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 17.) – “He has got my enemy (Clodius) transferred to the plebeian order: either because he was irritated to see that even his kindness could not persuade me to join his side, or because he yielded to the urgency of others. My refusal could not have been regarded as an insult, for subsequently to it he advised me, nay, even entreated me, to serve him as lieutenant. I did not accept this office, not because I thought it beneath me, but because I was far from suspecting that the State could possibly have, after Cæsar, any consuls so infamous as these (Piso and Gabinius).” (Cicero, Oration about the Consular Provinces, 17.)] Cicero rejected the offer, deceiving himself through his confidence in his own influence,[1213 - “Thanks to the pains I take, my popularity and my strength increase daily. I do not meddle with politics in any way – not the least. My house is crowded; my friends gather round me when I go abroad; my consulate seems to be beginning afresh. It rains protestations of attachment; and my confidence is such that at times I long for the strife, which I ought always to dread.” (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, II. 22.) – “Let Clodius bring his accusation. Italy will rise as one man.” (Cicero, Letters to Quintus, I. 2.)] and reckoning, moreover, on the protection of Pompey. It appears positive from this that Clodius exceeded Cæsar’s views, a new proof that such instruments when employed are two-edged swords, which even the most skilful hands find it difficult to direct. It is thus that later, Vatinius, aspiring to become prætor, received from his old patron this strong warning: “Vatinius has done nothing gratuitously during his tribuneship; he who only looks for money ought to dispense with honours.”[1214 - Cicero, Oration against Vatinius, 16.] In fact, Cæsar, whose efforts to re-establish the popular institutions had never slackened, desired neither anarchy nor democratic laws; and just as he had not approved of the proposal of Manilius for the emancipation of the freedmen, so he opposed the reorganisation of the corporations, the gratuitous distributions of wheat, and the projects of vengeance entertained by Clodius, who, however, continually boasted of his support.

Crassus, on his part, desiring to be useful to Cicero without compromising himself,[1215 - Plutarch, Pompey, 48.] engaged his son to go to his aid. As for Pompey, wavering between fear and friendship, he devised a pretext not to receive Cicero when he came to seek his support. Deprived of this last resource, the great orator abandoned his delusions, and after some show of resistance voluntarily withdrew. Scarcely had he quitted Rome when the law against him was passed without opposition, with the concurrence of those whom Cicero had looked upon as his friends.[1216 - Plutarch, Cicero, 41.] His goods were confiscated, his house razed, and he was exiled to a distance of four hundred miles.

Cæsar had skilfully taken precautions that his influence should be felt at Rome during his absence, as much as the instability of the magistracy would permit. By the aid of his daughter Julia, whose charms and mental accomplishments captivated her husband, Cæsar retained his influence over Pompey. By his favours to the son of Crassus, a young man of great merit, who was appointed his lieutenant, he assured himself of his father. Cicero is removed, but soon Cæsar will consent to his return, and will conciliate him again by taking into his favour his brother Quintus. There remains the opposition of Cato. Clodius undertakes to remove him under the pretence of an honourable mission: he is sent to Cyprus to dethrone King Ptolemy, whose irregularities excited the hatred of his subjects.[1217 - Velleius Paterculus, II. 45.] Finally, all the men of importance who had any chance of obtaining employment are gained to the cause of Cæsar; some even engage themselves to him by writing.[1218 - Suetonius, XXIII.] He can thus proceed to his province; Destiny is about to open a new path; immortal glory awaits him beyond the Alps, and this glory, reflected upon Rome, will change the face of the world.

The Explanation of Cæsar’s Conduct.

VII. We have shown Cæsar obeying only his political convictions, whether as the ardent promoter of all popular measures, or as the declared partisan of Pompey; we have shown him aspiring with a noble ambition to power and honours; but we are not ignorant that historians in general give other motives for his conduct. They represent him, in 684, as having already his plans defined, his schemes arranged, his instruments all prepared. They attribute to him an absolute prescience of the future, the faculty of directing men and things at his will, and of rendering each one, unknowingly, the accomplice of his profound designs. All his actions have a hidden motive, which the historian boasts of having discovered. If Cæsar raises up again the standard of Marius, makes himself the defender of the oppressed, and the persecutor of the hired assassins of past tyranny, it is to acquire a concurrence necessary to his ambition; if he contends with Cicero in favour of legality in the trial of the accomplices of Catiline, or to maintain an agrarian law of which he approves the political aim, or if, to repair a great injustice of Sylla, he supports the restoration of the children of the proscribed to their rights, it is for the purpose of compromising the great orator with the popular party. If, on the contrary, he places his influence at the service of Pompey; if, on the occasion of the war against the pirates, he contributes to obtain for him an authority considered exorbitant; if he seconds the plebiscitum which further confers upon him the command of the army against Mithridates; if subsequently he causes extraordinary honours to be awarded him, though absent, it is still with the Machiavellian aim of making the greatness of Pompey redound to his own profit. So that, if he defends liberty, it is to ruin his adversaries; if he defends power, it is to accustom the Romans to tyranny. Finally, if Cæsar seeks the consulate, like all the members of the Roman nobility, it is, say they, because he already foresees, beyond the fasces of the consul and the dust of battles, the dictatorship and even the throne. Such an interpretation results from the too common fault of not being able to appreciate facts in themselves, but according to the complexion which subsequent events have given them.

Strange inconsistency, to impute to great men at the same time mean motives and superhuman forethought! No, it was not the miserable thought of checking Cicero which guided Cæsar; he had not recourse to a tactic more or less skilful: he obeyed a profound conviction, and what proves it indisputably is, that, once elevated to power, his first acts are to execute, as consul or dictator, what as a citizen he had supported: witness the agrarian law and the restoration of the proscribed. No, if he supports Pompey, it is not because he thinks that he can degrade him after having once elevated him, but because this illustrious captain had embraced the same cause as himself; for it would not have been given to any one to read so far into the future as to predict the use which the conqueror of Mithridates would make of his triumphs and veritable popularity. In fact, when he disembarked in Italy, Rome was in anxiety: will he disband his army?[1219 - “The rumours which preceded Pompey had caused great consternation there, because it had been said that he meant to enter the city with his army.” (Plutarch, Pompey, 45.) – “However, every one dreaded Pompey in the greatest degree; no one knew whether he would disband his army or not.” (Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 44.)] Such was from all quarters the cry of alarm. If he returns as a master, no one is able to resist him. Contrary to the general expectation, Pompey disbanded his troops. How then could Cæsar foresee beforehand a moderation then so unusual?

Is it truer to say that Cæsar, having become proconsul, aspired to the sovereign power? No; in departing for Gaul, he could no more have thought of reigning over Rome, than could General Buonaparte, starting for Italy in 1796, have dreamed of the Empire. Was it possible for Cæsar to foresee that, during a sojourn of ten years in Gaul, he would there link Fortune to him for ever, and that, at the end of this long space of time, the public mind at Rome would still be favourable to his projects? Could he foresee that the death of his daughter would break the ties which attached him to Pompey? that Crassus, instead of returning in triumph from the East, would be conquered and slain by the Parthians? that the murder of Clodius would throw all Italy into commotion? and, finally, that anarchy, which he had sought to stifle by the triumvirate, would be the cause of his own elevation? Cæsar had before his eyes great examples for his guidance; he marched in the track of the Scipios and of Paulus Æmilius; the hatred of his enemies forced him, like Sylla, to seize upon the dictatorship, but for a more noble cause, and by a course of proceeding exempt from vengeance and cruelty.

Let us not continually seek little passions in great souls. The success of superior men, and it is a consoling thought, is due rather to the loftiness of their sentiments than to the speculations of selfishness and cunning; this success depends much more on their skill in taking advantage of circumstances, than on that presumption, blind enough to believe itself capable of creating events, which are in the hands of God alone. Certainly, Cæsar had faith in his destiny, and confidence in his genius; but faith is an instinct, not a calculation, and genius foresees the future without understanding its mysterious progress.

END OF VOL. I

notes

1