Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:54:39.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Term of Caesar's Governorship in Gaul

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

F. E. Adcock
F. E. Adcock
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It may be affirmed with some confidence that on this topic no generally accepted solution will be found in default of new evidence, for which we can only faintly hope. Against certainty on the matter it would seem that the Everlasting has fixed his canon: quis iustius induit arma scire nefas. Dogmatism is out of place; we must be content with whatever theory is least difficult to reconcile with the texts and with a reasonable interpretation of the course of events at the time and the comments on them of contemporary observers. The thesis advanced in this paper is that there are strong reasons for supposing that the Lex Pompeia Licinia contained a date by which Caesar's command ended, that this date was not the end of February of the year 50 or the year 49 or the end of December of the year 50, that it did not contain a clause forbidding the discussion of a successor to Caesar before March 1, 50, and that if the date ending his command lies between the end of February and the end of December of the year 50, it may have been in fact the Ides of November in that year.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 1932 , pp. 14 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1932

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 14 note 1 Klio IV, 76–87; V 236–40.

page 14 note 2 Neue Jahr. f. klass. Alt. XLV, 241–55; XLVII, 233–50.

page 14 note 3 Ad Att. VII, 7, 6 legis dies; B.G. VIII, 39 (see below).

page 14 note 4 Rhein. Mus. LXVIII, 1–10.

page 14 note 5 E.g. Mommsen, , Die Rechtsfrage zwischen Caesar und dem Senat, Abh. d. phil-hist. Gesellschaft in Breslau I 1–58Google Scholar(=Ges. Schriften, IV, 92–45).Holzapfel, L., Klio V, 107–116Google Scholar;Holmes, T. Rice, Class. Quart. X, 49–56Google Scholar, and The Roman Republic II, pp. 299–310; Hardy, E. G., Journ. of Phil. 34, 161–221Google Scholar.

page 15 note 1 This consideration appears to me to weigh heavily against the conclusion reached by MrStone, C. G. in C. Q., 1928, 193–201Google Scholar, although on several points, as will be seen, I accept his argumentation.

page 15 note 2 See Marsh, F. B., The Founding of the Roman Empire, Ed. 2, pp. 280–4Google Scholar, who gives a candid and judicious account of the present state of the whole question. The answer to the question whether Cicero, in a letter to Atticus, could describe nine years nine months and twenty days as ten years is ‘yes.’ See Asconius, . in Pison., § 4, pp. 5–6Google Scholar C.

page 16 note 1 See Holmes, Rice, The Roman Republic II 265, 331–3Google Scholar.

page 16 note 2 Suetonius, , Div. Iul. 29Google Scholar, ‘quoad consul fieret’ is strictly ambiguous, but is to be interpreted by Appian. Plutarch, , Caesar 31Google Scholar, μέϰρι οѷ τἠν δευτέραν νπατείαν μέτεισι must be interpreted by Plutarch's own usage in the same life, chap. 7, ίερωσννην … μετιδνΤων 13, μετιδντας νπατείαν (cf Publicola II, νπατείαν μετέναι, Cicero I, ρϰήνμετήει), and means ‘until he shall be candidate for his second consulship’—a loose way of describing his admission to the election and certainly not his actual entry upon office.

page 16 note 3 Class. Phil., 1912, 248–50.

page 16 note 4 The Roman Republic III, p. 272. In his footnote, however, Mr. Heitland follows Nissen, , Sybel's Hist. Zeitschrift, 1881Google Scholar, and Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero, in suggesting as a probable date July 1, 49.

page 17 note 1 B.C. I 7 and 9.

page 18 note 1 ‘Doluisse se, quod populi Romani beneficium sibi per contumeliam ab inimicis extorqueretur, ereptoque semestri imperio, in urbem retraheretur, cuius absentis rationem haberi proximis comitiis populus iussisset’ (B.C. I 9. 2).

page 18 note 2 It is this claim and its consequences, not the term defined in the Licinia, Lex Pompeia, to which Livy, Epit. 108Google Scholar: ‘agente M. Marcello cos… ut Caesar ad petitionem consulatus ueniret, cum is lege lata in tempus consulatus sui prouincias obtinere deberet’ refers. Cicero, , ad Att. VII 7, 6Google Scholar: ‘Quid ergo? exercitum retinentis cum legis dies transierit rationem haberi placet? Mihi uero ne absentis quidem; sed cum id datum est, illud una datum est’ accepts for the moment Caesar's contention in his anxiety to say how the troubles of the State are due to earlier errors. He forgets to mention the part he himself played in the passing of the law of theTribunes, Ten (ad Att. VII I, 4)Google Scholar.

page 18 note 3 B.C. I 9–10; Cicero, , ad fam. XVI 12, 3Google Scholar; ad Att. VII 26, 2; VIII 12, 2.

page 18 note 4 Whether a magistrate designate could legally, at this time, be put on his trial for any offence not connected with the election (as in the case of P. Sulla and Autronius) is doubtful. The candidature of Catiline was refused in 65 because he had received notice of prosecution for malversation. This suggests that election would protect him. In 57 Clodius stood for the aedileship according to Dio Cassius XXXIX, 7, 3, ώς καί τήδίκην τἧς βίας διαΦενξòμενος (pointed out to me by Dr. Cary). Against this may perhaps be set Asconius, p. 19 C of Scaurusin 54,‘timerene… antequam iudicari possit magistratum iniret.’ In any event, Caesar could remain cum imperio until the day he entered the city as consul.

page 19 note 1 Vell. Pat. II 46, 2; Suetonius, , Div. Iul. 24, IGoogle Scholar; Appian, , Bell. Civ. II 17, 63Google Scholar; 18, 65: Plutarch, , Crassus, 15, 5Google Scholar; Pompey, 52, 4; Caesar, 21, 3. On Dio see below.

page 19 note 2 Phil. II, 10, 24.

page 19 note 3 ἕπρατε δέέ(Μάρκελλος) δπως δταν τόν δεδομένον οΙΙϰρόνον διάρξη[Reiske, for the MS. διαπράξή] (τοντο δέ ονκ ές μακράν άλλ&apos ενθνς τΨ ύστέρΨ ετειϒενήσεσθαι ἔμελλε), τά τε ὃπλα κατύθηται καιίδιωτεύσων οίκαδε έπανέλθη.

page 19 note 4 XXXIX 33, 3.

page 19 note 5 That Dio is here reckoning from a point in 58 B.C. to a point in 50 B.C., the time during which Caesar was busy in Gaul, has been shown by Guiraud, , Le Lifférend entre César et le Senat, Paris, 1878Google Scholar. See XLIV 43, 2. The phrase πρό τοṽ προσήκοντος καιρος καιρο in the speech which Dio puts in the mouth of Antony (XLIV 43, 1) is hardly evidence.

page 20 note 1 Suetonius, , Diu. Iul. 25, 1Google Scholar: ‘gessit autem nouem annis, quibus in imperio fuit, haec fere,’ appears to me to state merely the fact that Caesar governed Gaul from 58 to 50 inclusive, and not to show that Suetonius believed that Caesar's command was to last until the end of 49 (Hardy, , op. cit., pp. 163–4)Google Scholar.

page 20 note 2 Cicero, , ad Att. VIII, 3, 3Google Scholar. I take this to be March of 50 B.C. See below.

page 20 note 3 The precise cure of the MSS. reading is irrelevant to this discussion.

page 20 note 4 Ad Fam. VIII, 8, 5.

page 21 note 1 Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht, III, p. 1156Google Scholar. Though, indeed, ad. Att. I, 14, 5 shows that some other senatorial business might at need be fitted in.

page 22 note 1 Cicero, , de prou. cons. 7, 17Google Scholar.

page 22 note 2 Suetonius, , Diu. Iul. 26, 1Google Scholar; Dio XL 50–1.

page 22 note 3 That Caesar, B.C. I, 32 says, ‘se nullum extraordinarium honorem appetisse, sed expectato legitimo tempore consulatus eo fuisse contentum quod omnibus ciuibus pateret,’ proves that Caesar did not in fact apply for dispensation, and proves nothing else. In ad Fam. VIII 8, 9 (written in October, 51), ‘Itaque iam, ut uideo, alteram utram ad condicionem descendere uult Caesar, ut aut maneat neque hoc anno sua ratio habeatur aut, si designari poterit, decedat,’ the words ‘hoc anno’ must refer to the ‘electoral’ year, that is the year ending with the elections of 50 B.C., and envisage the possibility of Caesar's candidature in that year. See on this Laqueur, , op. cit., p. 244Google Scholar. In the same way ‘hoc anno’ in ad Att. VII 8, 4, written in December, 50, means the electoral year which would end with the elections of 49.

page 23 note 1 This has appeared probable to several scholars, e.g. Marsh, Mr., op. cit., p. 278–9Google Scholar, MrStone, , op. cit., p. 193Google Scholar.

page 25 note 1 Dio XXXIX 39.

page 25 note 2 Dio XXXIX 60, 4.

page 26 note 1 The ingenious theory of Professor Tenney Frank is answered by DrHolmes, Rice, op. cit., p. 248Google Scholar, n. 3. The theory ofMrStone, , op. cit., p. 201Google Scholar, does not explain why this particular date was chosen, and implies, as other theories, a concession which would deceive no one, much less Caesar.