mass of materials. In other biographies he expressly quotes the fasti (Tib. 5. 1), the acta senatus (Aug. 5. 1), and the acta' populi (Calig. 8. 1). In the Life of Caesar we may surmise that he used the acta senatus for the detailed list of honours voted to Caesar in 46–44 B.C. (ch. 76), the acta populi for the similar catalogue of festivities (ch. 39), and for the proceedings at Caesar's funeral (ch. 84). But these matters are also described in considerable detail by Plutarch, Appian, and more especially by Dio, though none of these writers used documents at first hand. We have, therefore, no clear evidence that Suetonius used official sources for the Life of Caesar.

Of the biographic writers, Suetonius quotes Oppius (chs. 53, 72), Cornelius Balbus (81. 2), and M. Brutus (49. 2). On the other hand, it is fairly certain that he did not use Cicero's de Consiliis, else he would surely have adduced it as evidence of Caesar's complicity with Piso and Catiline (see p. xviii, sqq.).

Of the historians, he cites Tubero (83. 1), Pollio (30. 4, 56. 4), Aulus Hirtius (56. 3), Tanusius Geminus (9. 2), Actorius Naso (9. 3, 52. 1), and Ampius Balbus (ch. 77). His account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon (chs. 31-3) was almost certainly derived from Pollio, for it agrees closely with that of Plutarch, who undoubtedly drew upon this author (Caes. 32. 5); and it is presumably from this source that Suetonius obtained much of his information concerning Caesar's military activities (chs. 57-70), for Pollio was one of Caesar's military confidants, and accompanied him on most of his campaigns in the Civil Wars. It will be noticed that Pollio is the only important historian whom Suetonius actually quotes. He discusses Caesar's Commentaries in a chapter on Caesar as a man of letters (56. 2-3), but does not refer to him for information. He never mentions Livy or Sallust, and in his allusions to the Pisonian and Catilinarian conspiracies he differs so much from Sallust that we may assume that he either did not consult or disagreed with the Bellum Catilinae.

Among the writers of pamphlets and lampoons, Suetonius only quotes Calvus (49. 1). But he mentions Catullus (ch. 73), C. Memmius (ch. 73), Caecina and Pitholaus (75. 5). It is likely that he consulted this class of author with some avidity; for these no doubt were the principal sources of the scandalous gossip which Suetonius has collected with loving care. It is probably also through some such source that he became

acquainted with the edicts of Bibulus (9. 2), which could hardly have survived independently to his day.

Suetonius sets forth a list of Caesar's speeches (ch. 55), and in one amusing instance (ch.16) quotes a passage from them. But there is no indication of his having used these speeches as sources continuously. So, too, he mentions the letters of Caesar (56. 6) and comments on their form, but never cites their contents. To the correspondence of Cicero he makes several references (9. 2, 50. 2, 56. 1), but only in one instance for a point of any real importance (9. 2). Cicero's speeches he never quotes, not even the remarkable allusions to Caesar in the de Provinciis Consularibus, the pro Marcello, and the Second Philippic. His failure to make fuller use of Cicero is perhaps his worst sin of omission. On the other hand, it may be argued that biography in such a condensed form scarcely allows for the overt use of such material.

A comparison between Suetonius and Velleius Paterculus or the Greek writers on Caesar will not throw much light on the question of Suetonius' sources. The resemblances between him and these writers are more striking and more sustained than the divergences; but this fact does not carry us much further; for these parallel authors provide even fewer clues than Suetonius as to the source of their information. We must remember, not only that there were numerous sources of information among Caesar's own contemporaries, but that between the literatures of Caesar's and of Suetonius' day there were multiple chains of transmission. It is therefore equally futile to draw up a precise catalogue of Suetonius' primary sources, or to trace the intermediate writers through which these may have become known to him. Nevertheless, it is clear that Suetonius was one of the most learned of Latin historical writers (see p. vii); though he neglected some sources and did not make full use of others, he evidently used a far wider range of authorities than those whom he actually quotes. Suetonius' standard of accuracy was not wholly irreproachable, as the notes to the text will show. Yet where his statements can be checked, they have generally proved correct. In regard to chronology, he deliberately avoids the annalistic style of narrative and groups his facts according to subjectmatter rather than by time-sequence. Thus whereas Dio recounts Caesar's measures of reconstruction and the long list

of honours voted to Caesar under their proper dates, Suetonius masses his information on these points without attempting to set them forth in their serial order (chs. 40-4, 76). Yet in passages where a correct chronological order of events is plainly desirable, as in the sketch of Caesar's early career, he compares favourably with any of our other authorities.

Of these other historical sources, Velleius Paterculus provides various data about Caesar's early career which are not found in Suetonius, but he becomes wofully short in his sketch of the later and more important half of Caesar's life. Appian deals more fully than Suetonius with military events and furnishes a fuller account of the outbreak of the Civil War ; but he is much inferior to Suetonius in regard to administrative history. Dio surpasses Suetonius in chronological accuracy, and supplies an even greater wealth of detail on the period of Caesar's dictatorship at Rome; but his extant writings do not carry us back beyond 69 B. C. and make no mention of Caesar previous to 63 B.C. Plutarch moves more nearly parallel to Suetonius than any other writer, but he shares Appian's indifference to administrative detail, and compares poorly with Suetonius in sharpness of outline and accuracy.

Regarded as a storehouse of reliable information, Suetonius stands high among ancient historical writers. In regard to the higher gifts of the historian, the power of criticism and appreciation, he is manifestly deficient or unduly self-effacing. On knotty problems of detail he seldom ventures a personal opinion. On the question of Caesar's participation in the Pisonian conspiracy he merely quotes a number of previous writers without pronouncing on the value of their evidence; into the complicated constitutional crisis which led to the Civil War he hardly enters at all. Worst of all, he scarcely says a word in explanation of Caesar's policy at the various turning-points of his career. On what principles, if any, did Caesar proceed during his early activities as a popularis? To what extent was he responsible for the Civil War? What were his plans for the reconstruction of the Roman government, and how far was he the founder of the Roman monarchy? To these vital questions, in which modern scholars have never failed to show a keen interest, Suetonius offers no answer.

But on behalf of Suetonius it may be said that he is at least no worse than our other sources in this respect. All of these,

like Suetonius, emphasize Caesar's personal traits, his energy and audacity, his affability and generosity; none of them give their readers any clear lead on the importance of Caesar's work and his place in history. Moreover, of all the portraits of Caesar as an individual drawn by ancient writers, his is certainly the clearest and fullest. Suetonius alone does full justice to the versatility of Caesar's genius, to his equal eminence as soldier, statesman, and man of letters, and more than any other makes us feel the terrible strength of Caesar's character.1

The influence of Suetonius' writings on later Roman historiographers was unmistakably great. The long series of authors, known collectively as the Historiae Augustae Scriptores, evidently used him, not Tacitus, as their model. But it cannot be said that the Life of Caesar seems to have made any specially deep impression. It is indeed quoted verbatim by Eutropius (see on ch. 25), but Florus and Orosius went back to Livy for their information about Caesar, and it is probable that for the age of Caesar Livy rather than Suetonius remained the standard authority. Could it indeed be otherwise? Not only was Livy a writer of genius; he was also a rhetorician.

Present-day students of the life and times of Caesar will naturally turn first to the extant primary sources, Caesar's own works and the letters and speeches of Cicero. Of the secondary sources, Plutarch has had a greater vogue among modern readers than Suetonius, and he will no doubt continue to captivate many by his agreeable and disarming style. But those who desire above all to obtain the means of understanding and appreciating Caesar will find that in the second rank of our authorities Suetonius holds the first place.

III

SOME SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN THE LIFE OF CAESAR

A. The date of Caesar's birth.

In ch. 88 Suetonius states that Caesar was in his fifty-sixth year at the time of his death in March 44 B. C. Caesar was

1 This judgement would have to be revised if Cicero had developed the grudging, and for that reason all the more remarkable, appreciation of Caesar which he introduced into his Second Philippic (116). But he never filled in the details of his sketch.

born in July (n. on 76. 1, appellationem mensis); therefore, on this reckoning, the year of his birth was 100 B. C. This date is confirmed by Velleius Paterculus (2. 41. 2), Plutarch (Caes. 69. 1), and Appian (2. 149). Variant dates are offered by Tacitus (Dial. 34. 8), who indicates 98 or 97 B. C., and Eutropius (6. 24), who suggests 101 B. C.

Modern writers since Mommsen have generally set aside all these dates in favour of 102 B. c. Their principal reason for so doing is that according to the rules of the cursus honorum in the late Republic (Mommsen, Staatsr. (ed. 3), i, pp. 568-70) Caesar must have been past his forty-third birthday when he entered upon his first consulship. The date of this consulship was 59 B. C.; therefore he cannot have been born later than

102 B. C.

Of the further arguments in support of this date the following deserve mention :

(i) Certain coins which Caesar in all probability struck at Rome in April 49 B. C. bear the mark 1, i. e. 52, which may be taken to indicate Caesar's age at the time of emission (Grueber, Coins of R. Rep. in B. M., i, p. 505; Hill, Hist. Rom. Coins, nos. 58-9). If this is the case, he reached the age of fifty-two in July 50 B. C., and accordingly was born in

102 B. C.

(ii) Velleius (2. 43. 1) states that Caesar was appointed Flamen Dialis by Marius and Cinna. If this is correct, the date of the preferment was Jan. 1-17, 86 B.C., i. e. between the entry of Marius and Cinna upon their joint consulship and the death of Marius. Now Suetonius (1. 1) mentions that Caesar lost his father at the age of fifteen, and was appointed flamen in the next calendar year. According as the father's death befell after or before his son's birthday in July, Caesar's age on appointment as flamen must have been fifteen or sixteen. In the latter case the date of his birth was 102 B. C.

In discussing the problem we may begin by ruling out the dates provided by Tacitus and Eutropius. Both run counter to the consensus auctorum, and share the main objection brought by modern scholars against Suetonius' better supported date. We may further point out that no clue is furnished by Suetonius' anecdote about Caesar and Alexander's statue at Gades (ch. 7). According as the incident there related took place in 69 or 68 B. C., and as Caesar's age at the time was thirty-one, thirty-two,