or thirty-three (see n. ad loc.), the date of his birth falls anywhere between 102 and 99 B. C.

Of the arguments in favour of the date 102 B. C. the weakest is that of the coins. Though the figure II on these can hardly be explained except as an anniversary date, it need not be taken to refer to Caesar's birth, and no good reason has been given why Caesar in April 49 B. C. should have been at pains to advertise his age in this fashion.1 The most we can say is that may be a birth-date, but we cannot use that mere possibility as a foundation for further reasoning.

The argument derived from Caesar's supposed age on appointment as flamen is so far sound, as there is no ground for doubting the statement of Suetonius on which it rests. The difficulty lies with the passage from Velleius. The joint consulship of Marius and Cinna lasted only seventeen days, and during part of this period Marius lay delirious (Plut. Mar. 45-6). Under these conditions it is unlikely that he attended to much state business, and we are entitled to ask whether Caesar's appointment was not made by Cinna alone. In this case Caesar's birth may well be dated forward to 100 B. C., for Cinna was still in power in 84 B. C.

The argument from Caesar's cursus honorum is irrefragable, unless he received special permission to stand for office before the usual age. That such leave was occasionally given by the Senate is proved by the well-known case of Pompey and Crassus in 71 B. C., while another instance occurs in Cicero's Fifth Philippic (52), where the orator proposes that a certain L. Egnatuleius should be given leave to stand for office three years before the normal time, in return for good military service. The latter example is apposite to the present case, for Caesar had won special distinction at the siege of Mytilene (Suet. ch. 2). It may be objected that if the Senate had given a special dispensation to Caesar the fact would have been mentioned by Cicero or some other ancient writer. But if the grant was made to Caesar soon after the siege of Mytilene,

1 For further observations on this point see M. Caspari in Numismatic Chronicle, 1911, pp. 102-4, where it is suggested that I refers to Marius' victories over the Cimbri, which Caesar followed up and completed by his conquest of Gaul.

2 Attention was first drawn to this case by M. Deutsch in Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc., 1914, p. 25.

say in the early seventies, there is no reason why it should have attracted notice; for Caesar at that time was of no impor

tance.

Against the date 100 B. C. the following further arguments have been put forward:

(i) The consensus of Suetonius, Velleius, Plutarch, and Appian may be due to their use of a single common source, in which case their statements as to Caesar's birth must not be taken to corroborate each other.

(ii) Plutarch and Appian miscalculated the age of Pompey; therefore it is not unlikely that they, and Velleius and Suetonius to boot, made a mistake about Caesar's age.

In reply to (i), it may be admitted that Plutarch and Appian sometimes used a common source, and may have done so in the present instance. But it would baffle the most ingenious of source-hunters to trace back both these two and also Velleius and Suetonius to a single fountain-head. Until some kind of detailed case has been made out in favour of a single common source for all, we are entitled to go on assuming that they, or several of them, corroborate each other.

As for (ii), a blunder by Plutarch or Appian clearly proves nothing against Suetonius. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence that there is no detail in his biographies about which Suetonius is more accurate and painstaking than the dates of the births and deaths of emperors. Except in the case of Caesar he states the exact day, and in one case (Aug. ch. 5) the hour at which each emperor was born; and in most cases he is similarly precise about the time of their deaths. Nay more, in three instances (Aug. ch. 5, Tib. ch. 5, Calig. ch. 8) he quotes the fasti or acta publica in reference to the place or time of imperial births. His dating of Caesar's birth, even if unsupported, would therefore have to be taken seriously.

In conclusion, the date of Caesar's birth must be regarded as uncertain. But it requires very strong evidence to overthrow the authority of Suetonius and the other writers who fix it at 100 B. C.; and it is very doubtful whether the arguments of those who favour the date 102 B. C. are cogent enough to achieve this.

See also R. Holmes, R. R., i, pp. 436-42.

B. What part did Caesar and Crassus play in the conspiracies of 65 and 63 B. C. ? (Suet. chs. 9, 14, 17).

This is a complex question, for (1) the plots of 65 B.C. (the Pisonian conspiracy) and of 63 B. C. (the Catilinarian) were distinct movements with diverse objects and methods; (2) Caesar and Crassus, though often acting together during the period in question, were not indissolubly connected, and therefore require separate consideration.

(1) The Pisonian Conspiracy.

The case in favour of the participation of Crassus and Caesar may be stated as follows:

(i) Suetonius (ch. 9) incriminates Crassus and Caesar on the authority of five of their contemporaries; some of these not only make a general statement, but supply details as to Crassus' and Caesar's conduct.

(ii) Speaking in 64 B. C., Cicero plainly hinted that there were others beside Piso and Catiline in the Pisonian conspiracy (Oratio in toga candida, Ascon., ed. Clark, p. 92). These others are probably to be identified with Caesar and Crassus.

Further testimony is forthcoming against Crassus only:

(iii) Sallust mentions a rumour, which he neither affirms nor denies, that Crassus was in the secrets of this plot (Cat. 17. 7). (iv) The same author states as a fact that Crassus put pressure upon the Senate to appoint Piso governor of Hither Spain (Cat. 19. 1).

(v) Cicero asserted in his memoirs (published after Caesar's death) that Crassus was the instigator of the plot (Expositio Consiliorum, Ascon., p. 83, Cl.).

To this evidence from ancient writers may be added some arguments from the general probabilities of the case:

(vi) Crassus in 65 B. C. had a manifest interest in preparing himself against the homecoming of his enemy Pompey, and in fact did embark on various intrigues to secure a countervailing power.

(vii) Caesar co-operated with Crassus in at least one of the latter's projects in 65 B. C., i. e. the plan for the annexation of Egypt (see n. on 11, Aegyptus), and may well have been his partner in others.

On closer inspection most of these arguments lose their force:

(i) of the five authorities mentioned by Suetonius, Tanusius Geminus and Actorius Naso are of uncertain value. The other three (Bibulus, Curio the elder, and Cicero) were notoriously not impartial; indeed Suetonius himself shows that they were hostile to Caesar (9. 2, 20. I, 49. 1). Further, the details furnished by these writers tell on the whole against their stories. That Crassus should have revived the title of dictator is simply incredible; for this had long been unpopular and had recently become more odious through Sulla's exercise of dictatorial powers. As for the quotation from Cicero in 9. 2 (regnum de quo aedilis cogitarat), this may not refer to the Pisonian affair at all; indeed it is more applicable to Caesar's attempt to become the successor of the Ptolemies in Egypt. Lastly, granted a connexion between Piso in Spain and Crassus in Rome, it is difficult to see what services Caesar could render as a liaison officer among the Ambrani (in Liguria) and the Transpadane Gauls. The story which Suetonius quotes from Curio and Actorius Naso is probably no more than an embroidery on the fact that both Crassus and Caesar favoured the claim of the Transpadanes to full Roman franchise.

(ii) The charge made against Crassus in Cicero's memoirs carries little weight in view of Cicero's steady hostility to Crassus. Of Caesar Cicero sometimes had a good opinion, of Crassus never.

(iii) While Caesar may fairly be called a revolutionary, we may hesitate to believe that he joined in a murder plot against other prominent Romans. To say nothing of his reluctance in later days to shed the blood of citizens, at the very period of the Pisonian and Catilinarian conspiracies he repeatedly protested against such illegalities, as is proved by his prosecution of Rabirius and his protest against the execution of Catiline's accomplices.

(iv) Crassus, it must be admitted, was a born plotter, and it. is not certain that his hands were clean of Roman blood.' But it is most unlikely that he should have contrived such a clumsy coup as that of Piso, and should have been at such small pains to keep his secret. At best the murder of two new consuls 1 Witness the story about his participation in Sulla's proscriptions (Plut. Crass. 6. 7; Cic. Att. 1. 16. 5).

(which was the essence of Piso's plot) could hardly have helped him appreciably in his campaign against Pompey; at worst it might have ruined him politically.

Summing up, we may acquit Caesar entirely of complicity in the Pisonian conspiracy. To Crassus we cannot give a complete discharge; for it is practically certain that he exercised his patrocinium malorum on behalf of Piso after the failure of the conspiracy, and very probable that he was the cause of the plot being hushed up. But no good case has been made out for his participation in the actual plot; this must have been the work of some lesser brain.2

1

(2) The Catilinarian Conspiracy.

It is generally admitted that Crassus and Caesar supported Catiline in his candidature for the consulship of 63 B. C. (summer of 64 B. C., Ascon., p. 83, Cl.). This, however, was a perfectly constitutional action, and proves nothing as to their attitude during the subsequent conspiracy of Catiline (autumn of 63 B.C.).

In his references to this conspiracy Suetonius never mentions Crassus. The evidence in favour of Crassus' participation comes from Cicero (Plut. Crass. 13), who roundly accused him of being the instigator of Catiline's plot, and from Sallust (Cat. 48), who relates that on the day after the arrest of Catiline's accomplices an informer in the Senate denounced Crassus, but was shouted down. But Cicero, as we have seen, was a hostile witness, and Sallust's story, if anything, is proof of Crassus' innocence. A strong piece of evidence in favour of Crassus is furnished by Plutarch (loc. cit.), who mentions that he provided Cicero with important information about Catiline's forthcoming coup. Moreover, on grounds of general probability the complicity of Crassus may safely be denied. That a man whose fortune was largely sunk in loans and house-property should have instigated or even countenanced

1 Hardy, Catilin. Conspiracy, p. 18. For Crassus' hold on the Senate by virtue of his money power, cf. Sall. Cat. 48. 5. Besides, in 65 B. C. Crassus was censor, and, had a lectio senatus taken place, he might have punished senators for their independent votes.

Possibly P. Autronius, who had a direct interest in the plot, and is described by Cicero (Sull. 71) as a stupidly violent man.