Book: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 4, Part 4

V >> Various >> Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 4, Part 4




In 56 B.C., however, the Veneti of Brittany threw off the yoke and detained
two of Crassus's officers as hostages. Caesar, who had been hastily
summoned from Illyricum, crossed the Loire and invaded Brittany, but found
that he could make no headway without destroying the powerful fleet of
high, flat-bottomed boats like floating castles possessed by the Veneti. A
fleet was hastily constructed in the estuary of the Loire, and placed under
the command of Decimus Brutus. The decisive engagement was fought
(probably) in the Gulf of Morbihan and the Romans gained the victory by
cutting down the enemy's rigging with sickles attached to poles. As a
punishment for their treachery, Caesar put to death the senate of the
Veneti and sold their people into slavery. Meanwhile Sabinus was victorious
on the northern coasts, and Crassus subdued the Aquitani. At the close of
the season Caesar raided the territories of the Morini and Menapii in the
extreme north-west.

In 55 B.C. certain German tribes, the Usipetes and Tencteri, crossed the
lower Rhine, and invaded the modern Flanders. [Sidenote: Expeditions to
Britain ] Caesar at once marched to meet them, and, on the pretext that
they had violated a truce, seized their leaders who had come to parley with
him, and then surprised and practically destroyed their host. His enemies
in Rome accused him of treachery, and Cato even proposed that he should be
handed over to the Germans. Caesar meanwhile constructed his famous bridge
over the Rhine in ten days, and made a demonstration of force on the right
bank. In the remaining weeks of the summer he made his first expedition to
Britain, and this was followed by a second crossing in 54 B.C. On the first
occasion Caesar took with him only two legions, and effected little beyond
a landing on the coast of Kent. The second expedition consisted of five
legions and 2000 cavalry, and set out from the Portus Itius (Boulogne or
Wissant; see T. Rice Holmes, _Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius
Caesar_, 1907, later views in _Classical Review_, May 1909, and H.S. Jones,
in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xxiv., 1909, p. 115). Caesar now penetrated into
Middlesex and crossed the Thames, but the British prince Cassivellaunus
with his war-chariots harassed the Roman columns, and Caesar was compelled
to return to Gaul after imposing a tribute which was never paid.

The next two years witnessed the final struggle of the Gauls for freedom.
Just before the second crossing to Britain, Dumnorix, an Aeduan chief, had
been detected in treasonable intrigues, and killed in an attempt to escape
from Caesar's camp. At the close of the campaign Caesar distributed his
legions over a somewhat wide extent of territory. Two of their camps were
treacherously attacked. At Aduatuca (near Aix-la-Chapelle) a newly-raised
legion was cut to pieces by the Eburones under Ambiorix, while Quintus
Cicero was besieged in the neighbourhood of Namur and only just relieved in
time by Caesar, who was obliged to winter in Gaul in order to check the
spread of the rebellion. Indutiomarus, indeed, chief of the Treveri (about
Treves), revolted and attacked Labienus, but was defeated and killed. The
campaign of 53 B.C. was marked by a second crossing of the Rhine and by the
destruction of the Eburones, whose leader Ambiorix, however, escaped. In
the autumn Caesar held a conference at Durocortorum (Reims), and Acco, a
chief of the Senones, was convicted of treason and flogged to death.

Early in 52 B.C. some Roman traders were massacred at Cenabum (Orleans),
and, on hearing the news, the Arverni revolted under Vercingetorix and were
quickly joined by other tribes, especially the Bituriges, whose capital was
Avaricum (Bourges). Caesar hastened back from Italy, slipped past
Vercingetorix and reached Agedincum (Sens), the headquarters of his
legions. Vercingetorix saw that Caesar could not be met in open battle, and
determined to concentrate his forces in a few strong positions. Caesar
first besieged and took Avaricum, whose occupants were massacred, and then
invested Gergovia (near the Puy-de-Dome), the capital of the Arverni, but
suffered a severe repulse and was forced to raise the siege. Hearing that
the Roman province was threatened, he marched westward, defeated
Vercingetorix near Dijon and shut him up in Alesia (Mont-Auxois), which he
surrounded with lines of circumvallation. An attempt at relief by
Vercassivellaunus was defeated after a desperate struggle and Vercingetorix
surrendered. The struggle was over except for some isolated operations in
51 B.C., ending with the siege and capture of Uxellodunum (Puy d'Issolu),
whose defenders had their hands cut off. Caesar now reduced Gaul to the
form of a province, fixing the tribute at 40,000,000 sesterces (L350,000),
and dealing liberally with the conquered tribes, whose cantons were not
broken up.

In the meantime his own position was becoming critical. In 56 B.C., at the
conference of Luca (Lucca), Caesar, Pompey [Sidenote: Break-up of the
Coalition.] and Crassus had renewed their agreement, and Caesar's command
in Gaul, which would have expired on the 1st of March 54 B.C., was renewed,
probably for five years, _i.e._ to the 1st of March 49 B.C., and it was
enacted that the question of his successor should not be discussed until
the 1st of March 50 B.C., by which time the provincial commands for 49 B.C.
would have been assigned, so that Caesar would retain _imperium_, and thus
immunity from persecution, until the end of 49 B.C. He was to be elected
consul for 48 B.C., and, as the law prescribed a personal canvass, he was
by special enactment dispensed from its provisions. But in 54 B.C. Julia,
the daughter of Caesar and wife of Pompey, died, and in 53 B.C. Crassus was
killed at Carrhae. Pompey now drifted apart from Caesar and became the
champion of the senate. In 52 B.C. he passed a fresh law _de jure
magistratuum_ which cut away the ground beneath Caesar's feet by making it
possible to provide a successor to the Gallic provinces before the close of
49 B.C., which meant that Caesar would become for some months a private
person, and thus liable to be called to account for his unconstitutional
acts. Caesar had no resource left but uncompromising obstruction, which he
sustained by enormous bribes. His representative in 50 B.C., the tribune C.
Scribonius Curio, served him well, and induced the lukewarm majority of the
senate to refrain from extreme measures, insisting that Pompey, as well as
Caesar, should resign the _imperium_. But all attempts at negotiation
failed, and in January 49 B.C., martial law having been proclaimed on the
proposal of the consuls, the tribunes Antony and Cassius fled to Caesar,
who crossed the Rubicon (the frontier of Italy) with a single legion,
exclaiming "_Alea jacta est._"

Pompeys available force consisted in two legions stationed in Campania, and
eight, commanded by his lieutenants, Afranius [Sidenote: The Civil war ]
and Petreius, in Spain; both sides levied troops in Italy. Caesar was soon
joined by two legions from Gaul and marched rapidly down the Adriatic
coast, overtaking Pompey at Brundisium (Brindisi), but failing to prevent
him from embarking with his troops for the East, where the prestige of his
name was greatest. Hereupon Caesar (it is said) exclaimed "I am going to
Spain to fight an army without a general, and thence to the East to fight a
general without an army." He carried out the first part of this programme
with marvellous rapidity. He reached Ilerda (Lerida) on the 23rd of June
and, after extricating his army from a perilous situation, outmanoeuvred
Pompey's lieutenants and received their submission on the 2nd of August.
Returning to Rome, he held the dictatorship for eleven days, was elected
consul for 48 B.C., and set sail for Epirus at Brundisium on the 4th of
January. He attempted to invest Pompey's lines at Dyrrhachium (Durazzo),
though his opponent's force was double that of his own, and was defeated
with considerable loss. He now marched eastwards, in order if possible to
intercept the reinforcements which Pompeys father-in-law, Scipio, was
bringing up; but Pompey [v.04 p.0941] was able to effect a junction with
this force and descended into the plain of Thessaly, where at the battle of
Pharsalus he was decisively defeated and fled to Egypt, pursued by Caesar,
who learnt of his rival's murder on landing at Alexandria. Here he remained
for nine months, fascinated (if the story be true) by Cleopatra, and almost
lost his life in an _emeute_. In June 47 B.C. he proceeded to the East and
Asia Minor, where he "came, saw and conquered" Pharnaces, son of
Mithradates the Great, at Zela. Returning to Italy, he quelled a mutiny of
the legions (including the faithful Tenth) in Campania, and crossed to
Africa, where a republican army of fourteen legions under Scipio was cut to
pieces at Thapsus (6th of April 46 B.C.). Here most of the republican
leaders were killed and Cato committed suicide. On the 26th to 29th July
Caesar celebrated a fourfold triumph and received the dictatorship for ten
years. In November, however, he was obliged to sail for Spain, where the
sons of Pompey still held out. On the 17th of March 45 B.C. they were
crushed at Munda. Caesar returned to Rome in September, and six months
later (15th of March 44 B.C.) was murdered in the senate house at the foot
of Pompey's statue.

It was remarked by Seneca that amongst the murderers of Caesar were to be
found more of his friends than of his enemies. [Sidenote: Caesar's
dictatorship ] We can account for this only by emphasizing the fact that
the form of Caesar's government became as time went on more undisguised in
its absolutism, while the honours conferred upon seemed designed to raise
him above the rest of humanity. It is explained elsewhere (see ROME:
_History, Ancient_) that Caesar's power was exercised under the form of
dictatorship. In the first instance (autumn of 49 B.C.) this was conferred
upon him as the only solution of the constitutional deadlock created by the
flight of the magistrates and senate, in order that elections (including
that of Caesar himself to the consulship) might be held in due course. For
this there were republican precedents. In 48 B.C. he was created dictator
for the second time, probably with constituent powers and for an undefined
period, according to the dangerous and unpopular precedent of Sulla. In May
46 B.C. a third dictatorship was conferred on Caesar, this time for ten
years and apparently as a yearly office, so that he became Dictator IV. in
May 45 B.C. Finally, before the 15th of February 44 B.C., this was
exchanged for a life-dictatorship. Not only was this a contradiction in
terms, since the dictatorship was by tradition a makeshift justified only
when the state had to be carried through a serious crisis, but it involved
military rule in Italy and the permanent suspension of the constitutional
guarantees, such as _intercessio_ and _provocatio_, by which the liberties
of Romans were protected. That Caesar held the _imperium_ which he enjoyed
as dictator to be distinct in kind from that of the republican magistrates
he indicated by placing the term _imperator_ at the head of his titles.[2]
Besides the dictatorship, Caesar held the consulship in each year of his
reign except 47 B.C. (when no curule magistrates were elected save for the
last three months of the year); and he was moreover invested by special
enactments with a number of other privileges and powers; of these the most
important was the _tribunicia potestas_, which we may believe to have been
free from the limits of place (_i.e._ Rome) and collegiality. Thus, too, he
was granted the sole right of making peace and war, and of disposing of the
funds in the treasury of the state.[3] Save for the title of dictator,
which undoubtedly carried unpopular associations and was formally abolished
on the proposal of Antony after Caesar's death, this cumulation of powers
has little to distinguish it from the Principate of Augustus; and the
assumption of the perpetual dictatorship would hardly by itself suffice to
account for the murder of Caesar. But there are signs that in the last six
months of his life he aspired not only to a monarchy in name as well as in
fact, but also to a divinity which Romans should acknowledge as well as
Greeks, Orientals and barbarians. His statue was set up beside those of the
seven kings of Rome, and he adopted the throne of gold, the sceptre of
ivory and the embroidered robe which tradition ascribed to them. He allowed
his supporters to suggest the offer of the regal title by putting in
circulation an oracle according to which it was destined for a king of Rome
to subdue the Parthians, and when at the Lupercalia (15th February 44 B.C.)
Antony set the diadem on his head he rejected the offer half-heartedly on
account of the groans of the people. His image was carried in the _pompa
circensis_ amongst those of the immortal gods, and his statue set up in the
temple of Quirinus with the inscription "To the Unconquerable God." A
college of Luperci, with the surname Juliani, was instituted in his honour
and _flamines_ were created as priests of his godhead. This was intolerable
to the aristocratic republicans, to whom it seemed becoming that victorious
commanders should accept divine honours at the hands of Greeks and
Asiatics, but unpardonable that Romans should offer the same worship to a
Roman.

Thus Caesar's work remained unfinished, and this must be borne in mind in
considering his record of legislative and [Sidenote: Legislative reforms.]
administrative reform. Some account of this is given elsewhere (see ROME:
_History, Ancient_), but it may be well to single out from the list of his
measures (some of which, such as the restoration of exiles and the children
of proscribed persons, were dictated by political expediency, while others,
such as his financial proposals for the relief of debtors, and the steps
which he took to restore Italian agriculture, were of the nature of
palliatives) those which have a permanent significance as indicating his
grasp of imperial problems. The Social War had brought to the inhabitants
of Italy as far as the Po the privileges of Roman citizenship; it remained
to extend this gift to the Transpadane Italians, to establish a uniform
system of local administration and to devise representative institutions by
which at least some voice in the government of Rome might be permitted to
her new citizens. This last conception lay beyond the horizon of Caesar, as
of all ancient statesmen, but his first act on gaining control of Italy was
to enfranchise the Transpadanes, whose claims he had consistently
advocated, and in 45 B.C. he passed the _Lex Julia Municipalis_, an act of
which considerable fragments are inscribed on two bronze tables found at
Heraclea near Tarentum.[4] This law deals _inter alia_ with the police and
the sanitary arrangements of the city of Rome, and hence it has been argued
by Mommsen that it was Caesar's intention to reduce Rome to the level of a
municipal town. But it is not likely that such is the case. Caesar made no
far-reaching modifications in the government of the city, such as were
afterwards carried out by Augustus, and the presence in the _Lex Julia
Municipalis_ of the clauses referred to is an example of the common process
of "tacking" (legislation _per saturam_, as it was called by the Romans).
The law deals with the constitution of the local senates, for whose members
qualifications of age (30 years) and military service are laid down, while
persons who have suffered conviction for various specified offences, or who
are insolvent, or who carry on discreditable or immoral trades are
excluded. It also provides that the local magistrates shall take a census
of the citizens at the same time as the census takes place in Rome, and
send the registers to Rome within sixty days. The existing fragments tell
us little as to the decentralization of the functions of government, but
from the _Lex Rubria_, which applies to the Transpadane districts
enfranchised by Caesar (it must be remembered that Cisalpine Gaul remained
nominally a province until 42 B.C.) we gather that considerable powers of
independent jurisdiction were reserved to the municipal magistrates. But
Caesar was not content with framing a uniform system of local government
[v.04 p.0942] for Italy. He was the first to carry out on a large scale
those plans of transmarine colonization whose inception was due to the
Gracchi. As consul in 59 B.C. Caesar had established colonies [Sidenote:
Colonies.] of veterans in Campania under the _Lex Julia Agraria_, and had
even then laid down rules for the foundation of such communities. As
dictator he planted numerous colonies both in the eastern and western
provinces, notably at Corinth and Carthage. Mommsen interprets this policy
as signifying that "the rule of the urban community of Rome over the shores
of the Mediterranean was at an end," and says that the first act of the
"new Mediterranean state" was "to atone for the two greatest outrages which
that urban community had perpetrated on civilization." This, however,
cannot be admitted. The sites of Caesar's colonies were selected for their
commercial value, and that the citizens of Rome should cease to be rulers
of the Mediterranean basin could never have entered into Caesar's mind. The
colonists were in many cases veterans who had served under Caesar, in
others members of the city proletariat. We possess the charter of the
colony planted at Urso in southern Spain under the name of _Colonia Julia
Genetiva Urbanorum_. Of the two latter titles, the first is derived from
the name of Venus Genetrix, the ancestress of the Julian house, the second
indicates that the colonists were drawn from the _plebs urbana_.
Accordingly, we find that free birth is not, as in Italy, a necessary
qualification for municipal office. By such foundations Caesar began the
extension to the provinces of that Roman civilization which the republic
had carried to the bounds of the Italian peninsula. Lack of time alone
prevented him from carrying into effect such projects as the piercing of
the Isthmus of Corinth, whose object was to promote trade and intercourse
throughout the Roman dominions, and we are told that at the time of his
death he was contemplating the extension of the empire to its natural
frontiers, and was about to engage in a war with Parthia with the object of
carrying Roman arms to the Euphrates. Above all, he was determined that the
empire should be governed in the true sense of the word and no longer
exploited by its rulers, and he kept a strict control over the _legati_,
who, under the form of military subordination, were responsible to him for
the administration of their provinces.

Caesar's writings are treated under LATIN LITERATURE. It is sufficient here
to say that of those preserved to us the [Sidenote: The Commentaries.]
seven books _Commentarii de bello Gallico_ appear to have been written in
51 B.C. and carry the narrative of the Gallic campaigns down to the close
of the previous year (the eighth book, written by A. Hirtius, is a
supplement relating the events of 51-50 B.C.), while the three books _De
bello civili_ record the struggle between Caesar and Pompey (49-48 B.C.).
Their veracity was impeached in ancient times by Asinius Pollio and has
often been called in question by modern critics. The _Gallic War_, though
its publication was doubtless timed to impress on the mind of the Roman
people the great services rendered by Caesar to Rome, stands the test of
criticism as far as it is possible to apply it, and the accuracy of its
narrative has never been seriously shaken. The _Civil War_, especially in
its opening chapters is, however, not altogether free from traces of
misrepresentation. With respect to the first moves made in the struggle,
and the negotiations for peace at the outset of hostilities, Caesar's
account sometimes conflicts with the testimony of Cicero's correspondence
or implies movements which cannot be reconciled with geographical facts. We
have but few fragments of Caesar's other works, whether political pamphlets
such as the _Anticato_, grammatical treatises (_De Analogia_) or poems. All
authorities agree in describing him as a consummate orator. Cicero (_Brut.
22_) wrote: _de Caesare ita judico, illum omnium fere oratorum Latine loqui
elegantissime_, while Quintilian (x. i. 114) says that had he practised at
the bar he would have been the only serious rival of Cicero.

The verdict of historians on Caesar has always been coloured by their
political sympathies. All have recognised his commanding [Sidenote:
Character.] genius, and few have failed to do justice to his personal charm
and magnanimity, which almost won the heart of Cicero, who rarely appealed
in vain to his clemency. Indeed, he was singularly tolerant of all but
intellectual opposition. His private life was not free from scandal,
especially in his youth, but it is difficult to believe the worst of the
tales which were circulated by his opponents, _e.g._ as to his relations
with Nicomedes of Bithynia. As to his public character, however, no
agreement is possible between those who regard Caesarism as a great
political creation, and those who hold that Caesar by destroying liberty
lost a great opportunity and crushed the sense of dignity in mankind. The
latter view is unfortunately confirmed by the undoubted fact that Caesar
treated with scant respect the historical institutions of Rome, which with
their magnificent traditions might still have been the organs of true
political life. He increased the number of senators to 900 and introduced
provincials into that body; but instead of making it into a grand council
of the empire, representative of its various races and nationalities, he
treated it with studied contempt, and Cicero writes that his own name had
been set down as the proposer of decrees of which he knew nothing,
conferring the title of king on potentates of whom he had never heard. A
similar treatment was meted out to the ancient magistracies of the
republic; and thus began the process by which the emperors undermined the
self-respect of their subjects and eventually came to rule over a nation of
slaves. Few men, indeed, have partaken as freely of the inspiration of
genius as Julius Caesar; few have suffered more disastrously from its
illusions. See further ROME: _History_, ii. "The Republic," Period C _ad
fin._

AUTHORITIES.--The principal ancient authorities for the life of Caesar are
his own _Commentaries_, the biographies of Plutarch and Suetonius, letters
and speeches of Cicero, the _Catiline_ of Sallust, the _Pharsalia_ of
Lucan, and the histories of Appian, Dio Cassius and Velleius Paterculus
(that of Livy exists only in the _Epitome_). Amongst modern works may be
named the exhaustive repertory of fact contained in Drumann, _Geschichte
Roms_, vol. iii. (new ed. by Groebe, 1906, pp. 125-829), and the brilliant
but partial panegyric of Th. Mommsen in his _History of Rome_ (Eng. trans.,
vol. iv., esp. p. 450 ff.). J.A. Froude's _Caesar; a Sketch_ (2nd ed.,
1896) is equally biased and much less critical. W. Warde Fowler's _Julius
Caesar_ (1892) gives a favourable account (see also his _Social Life at
Rome_, 1909). On the other side see especially A. Holm, _History of Greece_
(Eng. trans., vol. iv. p. 582 ff.), J.L. Strachan Davidson, _Cicero_
(1894), p. 345 ff., and the introductory Lections in Prof. Tyrrell's
edition of the _Correspondence of Cicero_, particularly "Cicero's case
against Caesar," vol. v. p. 13 ff. Vol. ii. of G. Ferrero's _Greatness and
Decline of Rome_ (Eng. trans., 1907) is largely devoted to Caesar, but must
be used with caution. The Gallic campaigns have been treated by Napoleon
III., _Histoire de Jules Cesar_ (1865-1866), which is valuable as giving
the result of excavations, and in English by T. Rice Holmes, _Caesar's
Conquest of Gaul_ (1901), in which references to earlier literature will be
found. A later account is that of G. Veith, _Geschichte der Feldzuege C.
Julius Caesars_ (1906). For maps see A. von Kampen. For the Civil War see
Colonel Stoffel (the collaborator of Napoleon III.), _Histoire de Jules
Cesar: guerre civile_ (1887). There is an interesting article, "The
Likenesses of Julius Caesar," by J.C. Ropes, in _Scribner's Magazine_, Feb.
1887, with 18 plates.

(H. S. J.)

_Medieval Legends._

In the middle ages the story of Caesar did not undergo such extraordinary
transformations as befell the history of Alexander the Great and the Theban
legend. Lucan was regularly read in medieval schools, and the general facts
of Caesar's life were too well known. He was generally, by a curious error,
regarded as the first emperor of Rome,[5] and representing as he did in the
popular mind the glory of Rome, by an easy transition he became a pillar of
the Church. Thus, in a French pseudo-historic romance, _Les Faits des
Romains_ (c. 1223), he receives the honour of a bishopric. His name was not
usually associated with the marvellous, and the _trouvere_ of _Huon de
Bordeaux_ outstepped the usual sober tradition when he made Oberon the son
of Julius Caesar and Morgan la Fay. About 1240 Jehan de Tuim composed a
prose _Hystore de Julius Cesar_ (ed. F. Settegast, Halle, 1881) based on
the _Pharsalia_ of Lucan, and the _commentaries_ of Caesar (on the Civil
War) and his continuators (on the Alexandrine, African and Spanish wars).
The author gives a romantic description of the meeting with Cleopatra, with
an interpolated dissertation on _amour courtois_ as understood by the
_trouveres_. [v.04 p.0943] The _Hystore_ was turned into verse
(alexandrines) by Jacot de Forest (latter part of the 13th century) under
the title of _Roman de Julius Cesar_. A prose compilation by an unknown
author, _Les Fails des Romains_ (c. 1225), has little resemblance to the
last two works, although mainly derived from the same sources. It was
originally intended to contain a history of the twelve Caesars, but
concluded with the murder of the dictator, and in some MSS. bears the title
of _Li livres de Cesar_. Its popularity is proved by the numerous MSS. in
which it is preserved and by three separate translations into Italian. A
_Mistaire de Julius Cesar_ is said to have been represented at Amboise in
1500 before Louis XII.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.