Extracted from the Transactions of the American ºº
- Association, Vol. xxxvi, 1906. VED
WILLIAM H E R BERT Hoºgs º
Univ. 0^T I 1915
Ann A. E. – T | | ||c. E "NTV. of Mich
IX. — The 77tle of Caesar's Work on the Gallic and Civil
Wars.
By PROF. FRANCIS W. KELSEY,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
It is noteworthy that the two editors, Nipperdey and
Meusel, who in the last century contributed most to the
criticism of the text of Caesar, adopted forms of the title
of the Gallic War which are not only unlike but incon-
sistent with each other; and a third form is presented by
Du Pontet, the editor of Caesar's text in the Oxford Biblio-
theca, who combines elements that appear in the title as
printed by the other two.
Nipperdey considers that the correct designation of Cae-
sar's Civil and Gallic Wars taken together is commentariº, each
separate book being a commentarius, with the characterizing
part of the title in the ablative; the title-page of his large
edition has C. Juſid Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A.
Hirti et aſiorum, while at the beginning of the Gallic War we
find C /u/ii Caesaris de bello Gal/ico commentarius primus.
Meusel discards the word commentarius, plural as well as
singular, adopting as the general title of the Gallic War
C. ſº Caesaris be//, Ga//ic: /ihri V//, and as the title of
the first book C ///iſſ Caesaris belli Gallic: /iffer primus; he
substitutes liber for commentarius, and has the genitive of
bellum Gallicum in place of the ablative with de. Du Pontet
uses commentarii as a common designation of the Gallic and
Civil Wars, but liber of the individual books; at the begin-
ning of the first book he has C. Juli Caesaris commentariorum
de bello Gal/ico liber primus.
To trace the variant forms of the title down from the edizio
princeps to the present time might be of interest in another
connection, but no light would thus be shed on the question
what title Caesar himself gave to these works. The cause of
º
©o
*


2I2 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
the diversity lies farther back; the manuscript transmission
of the title is hopelessly corrupt.
To begin with the codices of the a class, in the Moissac
manuscript which, as the other good codices of the same
class (with possibly a single exception), contains only the
eight books of the Gallic War, this work is ascribed to
Suetonius. The text of the Gallic War is preceded by a
Latin version of a part of the Antiquities of the Jews by
Josephus; the title of the Caesarian work immediately fol-
lows the subscription of the other, thus:
loPPINI QVI ET IOSEPHI LIBER X
|VDAICE ANT QVITATIS EXPLICIT
| N C | P | T LI B E R S V
ET O N | | T R A N Q V | L L
V I c T o R A R V M
G A | | W L || C E S A R IS
M W L T | M O D A R V M
B E L L | G A L L | C |
| NCI PIT DE TRI MODA O'M NIS
GALL | A E D | V |S| ONE
All this occupies a little less than a quarter of a page
of the manuscript, which is written in a characteristic hand
assigned by Châtelain (Paléographie des Classiques lat. I,
p. 13) to the eleventh century; it fills out the greater part of
the space left in the second column (each page being written
in two columns) after the last sentence of the text of
Josephus, and a new page is begun with the first word
of Caesar's text, Gallia, which is provided with an elaborate
initial letter. There is, however, no good reason to doubt
that the title is of the same age as the rest of the manuscript.
The Amsterdam codex (Bongarsianus) has a double title:
INCIPIT LIBER GAII CESARIS BELLI GALLICI IvliANI DE NAR-
RATIONE TEMPORVM ; then, in red, INCIPIT LIBER SvetoNII.
The text of this manuscript in general agrees with that of
the Moissac codex; the second part of the title, Incipit liber
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar's Work. 2I3
Suetonii, is probably derived from the common ancestor of
the two codices, which is designated by Meusel as X. The
parent codex very likely had the fuller form which we find
in the Moissac manuscript, which was abbreviated in the
Amsterdam codex to make room for the long first part of
the title ascribing the work to Caesar, this being borrowed,
as we shall see, from a manuscript of the other group of
the a class, and inserted as a correction. O
The other group of a manuscripts, best represented by
Cod. Paris. Lat. 5763 (designated as B by the editors) and
Cod. Vatic. 3864, assign the Gallic War to Caesar; the
parent codex from which they were derived, designated by
Meusel as p, evidently had as title INCIPIVNT LIBRI GAII
CAESARIS BELLI GALLICI IVLIANI DE N ARRATIONE TEMPORVM.
From this form evidently came the first part of the title in
the Amsterdam codex, Incipiunt libri being changed to Incipit
liber to accord with the second part of the title, Incipit liber
Suetonii, derived from X.
The manuscripts of the S class show less variation in the
form of the title; the lost codex to which their origin is
traced apparently had INCIPIVNT LIBRI GAII IvLII CAESARIS
BELLI GALLICI DE NARRATIONE TEMPORVM.
With this last form before us it is possible to understand
how the awkward Iuliani may have found its way into the
title as it appears in the second group of manuscripts in
the a class. Without entering into the question of the rela-
tive value of the a and Å readings in constituting Caesar's
text, we may suppose that a scribe or reader of a manuscript
in the line of transmission between the archetype and the p
group had before him, either in his own manuscript or in
another to which he had access, the title libri Gait Iulii
Caesaris belli Gallici de narratione temporum ; that this
seemed to him ambiguous or defective, because it does not
necessarily assign the war as well as the literary work to
Caesar; that he was familiar with the use of the adjective
Julianus with definite reference to Julius Caesar, as, for
example, de Bello Afr. 15 equites Juliani, ibid. 78 turmas
Julianas, Cic. Phil. xiii, 31 vectigalia Iuliana ; that he
2I4 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
therefore corrected the title in his manuscript so as to read
/ibri Gait Caesaris belli Gallic: Iuliant de marratione tempo-
rum, intending to convey the meaning, ‘the books of Gaius
(Julius) Caesar concerned with the recountal of the events
of the Gallic War waged by Julius (Caesar)”; and that the
manuscript thus corrected transmitted the changed title to
its descendants. Such an explanation seems less improbable
than that suggested by Hauler (Wien. Stud. XVII, p. 128),
which accounts for Juliani de narratione temporum as origi-
nating in a misunderstanding of the title CRONICA IVLII
CAESARIs and the opening words of a fragment of the Cos-
mography of Aethicus Hister thus attributed to Caesar in
Cod. Paris. suppl. 685; the same fragment immediately
follows the eighth book of the Gallic War in Cod. Vatic.
3864.
As the beginning of the text of the Civil War is lacking in
all the manuscripts, we find preceding this work a title of the
simplest character, as INCIPIT LIBER PRIMvs BELLI civilis.
In the Ashburnham Codex appears DE BELLO CIVILI. INCIPIT
LIBER NONVs (Philologus, XLV, p. 214); the first book of
the Civil War (including Books i and ii of the current edi-
tions), immediately following the eighth of the Gallic War,
is here reckoned as the ninth of the Corpus Caesarianum. In
a manuscript in the British Museum (Addit. IOO84, identified
by Holder with Lovaniensis) the subscription of Book viii of
the Gallic War and the title of the first book of the Civil
War read as follows (cf. Châtelain, op. cit. p. 30): C. Cesaris
pontificis maximi ephemeris rerum gestarum belli gallici
lib. VIII. expl. feliciter. Iulius Celsus Constantinus v.c. legi
tantum. Incipit liber monus. Little help may be expected
from this source for the solution of our problem.
Nor do the subscriptions of the other books yield much of
value. The word liber constantly appears, but commentarius,
so far as I am aware, only at the end of Book vii of the Gallic
War, in certain manuscripts of the a class, as B: Julius Cel.
sus Constantinus v. c. legi commentarius Caesaris liber septi-
mus explicit. The references to the revision of Julius Celsus
Constantinus and of Flavius Licerius Firminus Lupicinus
Vol. xxxvi.] . The Title of Caesar's Work. 2I 5
(at the end of Book ii) raise interesting questions, but con-
tribute no evidence bearing upon the authenticity of any
part of the title. A detailed analysis of the subscriptions
would be a waste of labor.
Whether the title libri Gait Iulii Caesaris belli Gallici de
narratione temporum descended from the archetype (X) into
the a as well as the S manuscripts and in some codex in the
line of descent to the X group of the former class was replaced .
by a title attributing the Gallic War to Suetonius; or whether
the first title was confined to the A class and was thence
carried over, in a corrected form, to some codex in the line of
descent to B and the other manuscripts of the ‘p group, there
replacing a title, previously common to the a class, in which
Suetonius was named as author; or whether, finally, the
confusion in the forms of the title as they appear in the manu-
scripts is to be explained in some other way, - it is not nec-
essary, so far as our present problem is concerned, to inquire.
It will be sufficient to observe that a title so un-Caesarian in
both choice of words and manner of expression cannot pos-
sibly have come from the hand of the author. We are there-
fore justified in adopting another line of approach in order to
ascertain, first, whether there is any evidence tending to show
that Caesar published his Gallic War anonymously; and in
the second place, whether, in case the evidence seems to indi-
cate that it was provided with a title from the beginning, we
are able to determine, with any degree of probability, what
that title was.
If, as has frequently been assumed, Caesar wrote the Gallic
War primarily in order to justify his career of conquest before
his fellow countrymen, he might well have thought that some-
thing was to be gained by anonymous publication; for if a
document containing a favorable view of one side of a con-
troversy can be circulated without a knowledge of its source,
it is more apt to be received without prejudice and so to carry
greater weight than if it is known to have emanated from a
conspicuous partisan. Furthermore, on the supposition that
the work was intended to be circulated without the name of
the author, we have an adequate explanation of the studied
2 I6 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
self-repression of Caesar the writer in always using the third
person when referring to Caesar the commander, a circum-
stance which in later times facilitated the circulation of the
work under the name of Suetonius. On the other hand,
though by the middle of the first century B.C. the book trade
in Rome had begun to be well organized, – the references in
Cicero's letters are sufficient proof, - if an author not wishing
to avail himself of the services of professional copyists and
booksellers had prepared a work for private distribution he
would, as Dziatzko suggests (Ausgewöhlte Kapitel des antiken
Buchwesens, p. 158), probably have sent the transcripts with
a personal note or greeting to the recipients and would not
have provided such gift copies with a formal title even though
he had had no intention of concealing the authorship. The ex-
istence of early manuscripts of the Gallic War without a full
title is conceivable, then, upon either of two hypotheses: that
of anonymous publication, and that of private distribution; in
the latter case, as there was nothing corresponding with our
copyright laws, copies might begin to be multiplied and
offered for sale as soon as a bookseller should be able to get
permission to transcribe one of the gift copies.
We know nothing of the circumstances and manner of
composition of the Gallic War except what may be gleaned
from internal evidence and from the statement of Hirtius in
the preface to Book viii, that Caesar wrote his ‘commenta-
ries’ with great ease and rapidity. According to the current
view the work was composed in the winter of 52–51 B.C., and
began to be circulated within a few months thereafter; the
place of writing was Bibracte, where, as we learn from the
closing chapter of Book vii, Caesar had resolved to spend
the winter after the fall of Alesia. At Bibracte, his head-
quarters, the military records would be available in case he
should wish to refresh his memory in regard to details; and
though he heard cases there (viii, 4, 2), it might be presumed
that he would be better able to command leisure for writing
than when in the field or even when sojourning in Cisalpine
Gaul. Nevertheless his winter in Bibracte was not unbroken.
He could have been at most only a few weeks in camp when
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar's Work. 217
he again took the field, on the last day of December, 52 (viii,
2, 1); since the date as given is according to the unreformed
calendar, the real date must have been considerably earlier,
probably in the first week of December according to our
reckoning. Having chastised the Bituriges into complete
submission, “on the fortieth day’ he was back in Bibracte.
But after a sojourn of only eighteen days in camp (viii, 4, 3)
he started out again, probably in the first half of February,
51, by our reckoning, and became involved in a series of
operations which kept him occupied in various parts of Gaul
till the end of the summer of 5 I.
In the winter of 51–50 B.C. Caesar established himself in
Nemetocenna in Belgium, where, as we may understand from
the narrative of Hirtius (viii, 49), not being disturbed by the
necessity of campaigning, he was free to devote himself to the
problems of civil organization and administration in antici-
pation of his departure from the country in the not remote
future. & s
That the Gallic War left Caesar's hands before he went
into winter quarters in the fall of 51 seems clear, not merely
by reason of the oft-quoted favorable reference to Pompey
in the seventh book (chap. 6), but also because he did not
include the military operations of that year. While the fall
of Alesia formed a literary as well as a military climax, the
operations of the year 51 were nevertheless important enough
to deserve treatment in any account of the campaigns in Gaul
that was intended to be authoritative and complete. It would
be easier for us to find time for Caesar to do the writing in
the winter of 51–50 than in that of 52–51, and at least Holmes
is of the opinion (Conquest of Gaul, p. 172) that, in view of
Caesar's attitude of conciliation and politic forbearance toward
Pompey, the sixth chapter of the seventh book might have
been penned as late as the year 50. But for a man of Cae-
sar's energy, literary training, and power of concentration, the
composition of the Gallic War could have been no great task.
The events narrated fall within the comparatively short pe-
riod of seven years. They had been a part of his life--he
had analyzed situations, formed plans, directed movements,
218 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
secured results; in a word, he had that perfect understanding
of his subject which no one else had or could ever attain.
The work contains some forty-five thousand words, which
would about equal the amount that a good newspaper writer,
collecting his material from various sources and averaging
fifteen hundred words a day, would hand in as “copy” in
thirty days. -
The more frequently the seven books of the Gallic War
are read through in succession, the more irresistible will be-
come the conviction that they were written under one impulse,
that they could not have been composed at considerable inter-
vals and put forth separately. Had they been written at the
end of the year 51 or in 50, it is difficult to understand why
Caesar should not have planned to add another book; and
had he included in his design a book devoted to the events
of the year 51, it is still more difficult to understand why he
should not have been able to take three or four days to finish
the task which he had so nearly completed. The explanation
of Nipperdey (edition, p. 4) that he stopped at the end of
Book vii because he was interrupted in the midst of writing by
the beginning of the civil war, seems far-fetched. From the
statement of Suetonius about the composition of the de Ana-
Jogia, Anticatones, and Iter (Div. Iul. 56; quoted p. 227) as
well as the reference in Cicero's Brutus (253) to the prepara-
tion of the former work in maximis occupationibus, it is evi-
dent that Caesar wrote when the spirit moved him and did
not wait for a favorable opportunity, for leisure and quiet, to
finish what he had begun.
More probable is the supposition that, elated over the cap-
ture of Alesia, which he considered the decisive blow of the
long struggle, appreciating better than his contemporaries
the strategic value of his military operations, and understand-
ing also what effect a better knowledge of them would pro-
duce at Rome, Caesar felt moved to write, and commenced
the composition of the Gallic War in Bibracte shortly after
he had gone into winter quarters there in the fall of 52; that,
composing rapidly, he had completed a good part of the writ-
ing when he left camp, in December, to ravage the country
Vol. xxxvi.) The Title of Caesar's Work. 219
of the Bituriges; that after returning from this expedition,
during the eighteen days spent in Bibracte, he either finished
the work or brought it so near to completion that he was able
to finish it while campaigning in the earlier months of 51.
If there was a break in the composition caused by the stren-
uous expedition against the Bituriges, we might hazard a
guess that it came at the end of Book iv ; for the end of the
fourth and the beginning of the fifth books seem to be less
neatly joined than the corresponding parts of the other
books.
In camp, however, whether at Bibracte or at Nemetocenna,
the conditions were far from favorable for the composition of
a finished historical work such as that of Thucydides, with
which Caesar must have been familiar and of which he was
perhaps a sympathetic reader. Burdened with executive
duties, civil as well as military, when he essayed the task of
composition he did not set before himself as an aim the writ-
ing of history, as in earlier life in composing orations he
must have held in mind an ideal of oratory; rather he turned,
as was natural under the circumstances, to the method of the
annalists and attempted to set forth, in the simplest and most
direct way, the events of each year in their chronological
order, adding, however, such explanations as seemed to be
needed. Fortunate from the beginning of the work in his
perspective, which led him with unerring judgment to exclude
irrelevant detail, a master of language in respect to concise-
ness as well as elegance of expression, he under such condi-
tions, probably without realizing it himself, produced a literary
masterpiece of the first rank. Regarding leisure as an indis-
pensable condition of the writing of history, Caesar would
probably have found himself in accord with Cicero (de Leg.
i, 9): historia vero nec institui potest nisi praeparato otio nec
exiguo tempore absolvi.
We are now in a position to understand how Cicero in the
Brutus (262) could say that Caesar wished merely to furnish
historical writers with a store of material on which they might
draw, and could at the same time feel justified in lavishing
unstinted praise upon the ‘commentaries' as an example of
22O Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
historical writing: Tum Brutus: “Orationes quidem eius
(Caesaris) mihi vehementer probantur; compluris autem legi;
atdue etiam commentarios quosdam scripsit rerum Suarum.”
‘Valde quidem,' inquam, ‘probandos; nudi enim sunt,
recti et venusti, omni ornatu orationis tamguam veste detracta.
Sed dum voluit alios habere parata, unde sumerent, qui vel-
lent scribere historiam, ineptis gratum fortasse fecit, qui
volent illa calamistris inurere; sanos quidem homines a
scribendo deterruit. Nihil est enim in historia pura ét in-
lustri brevitate dulcius.'
Strikingly similar is the statement of Hirtius (viii, praef.
4, 5): Constat enim inter omnes nihil tam operose ab aliis
esse perfectum quod non horum elegantia commentariorum
superetur. Qui sunt editi ne scientia tantarum rerum scrip-
toribus deesset, adeoque probantur omnium iudicio, ut
praerepta, non praebita, facultas scriptoribus videatur. Not-
withstanding the allusion in the earlier part of the pref-
ace to Caesar's writings treating of the Civil as well as
those relating to the Gallic War, Hirtius seems here to have
only the latter in mind; the bitterness of feeling toward
Caesar, after the subduing of the Pompeian party, ren-
dering a fair judgment of him and his works impossible
on the part of a large body of citizens, not to mention the
criticism of Asinius Pollio obviously referring to the Civil
War (Suet. Div. Jul. 56; cf. Hor. Od. ii, I), would make pro-
bantur omnium iudicio inapplicable to any ‘commentaries'
except those of the Gallic War; and possibly in praerepta,
mon praebita facultas scriptoribus we may catch an echo of a
bon mot of some friend of Caesar's who epigrammatically
expressed the contrast between the modest purpose and sur-
passing merit of that work. However that may be, from the
references near the end of the preface to personal intimacy
with Caesar and direct knowledge of events we can see that
Hirtius was in a better position even than Cicero to judge
what was Caesar's aim in writing. The agreement between
Cicero and Hirtius in their appreciation of Caesar's elegantia
has been pointed out by Woelfflin (Arch. f. lat. Lex. und
Gram. VIII, pp. 142-143).
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar’s Work. 221
This understanding of Caesar's purpose, to prepare a col-
lection of historical facts rather than a formal history, is con-
firmed by the irregularity in the size of the different books,
to which Birt directed attention in his well-known work
(Das antike Buchwesen, pp. 339–340). The lengths of the
books of the Gallic War are computed by Birt in lines as
follows:
Book i. 1431 Book v. I299
Book ii. 707 Book vi. 903
Book iii. 638 Book vii. 2073
Book iv. 813 Book viii. 1246 (incomplete)
The first book is thus seen to be more than twice as long
as the second, while the third is only about half as long as
the fifth, and one-third the length of the seventh, this in turn
containing more than twice the number of lines in the sixth
book. So wide a departure from well-understood conventions
regarding the relative size of the books of a prose work, in
the case of a writer so sensitive as Caesar was to literary
form, is only explicable on the ground that, having adopted
the annalistic method of arranging his material, he rigidly
adhered to the plan of grouping all the events of each year
in a single book, excluding from consideration any such
arrangement of the matter of the whole work as should make
possible a symmetrical division into books of the normal size.
Hirtius, though writing a supplement to Caesar's work, thought
it best, as he tells us, to abandon Caesar's plan of presenting
the events of each year in a separate ‘commentary,’ and
treated the events of two years (51 and 50) in a single book
of moderate length because those of the second year needed
only brief mention (viii, 48, IO): Scio Caesarem singulorum
annorum singulos commentarios confecisse; quod ego non
existimavi mihi esse faciendum, propterea quod insequens
annus, L. Paulo, C. Marcello consulibus, nullas res Galliae
habet magno opere gestas. Ne quis tamen ignoraret, quibus
in locis Caesar exercitusque eo tempore fuissent, pauca esse
scribenda coniungendaque huic commentario statui. In this
passage Hirtius not only has commentarios, as in the preface,
222 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
referring to Caesar's work, but also uses the singular, com-
mentario, instead of libro, when speaking of his addition.
We may now return to the question whether it is probable
that Caesar either published the Gallic War anonymously or,
having prepared it for private circulation, had only a com-
paratively small number of copies made for his friends, these
copies not being provided with a regular title, but passed
from hand to hand with the understanding that the work was
Caesar's. To both alternatives a negative answer may safely
be given. The language of Hirtius (p. 220) leaves no room
for doubt that in his view the Gallic War, though not per-
haps a history in the technical sense, was intended for
general circulation as a literary work; and the words qui sunt
editi imply that it was published, as books were ordinarily
published at that time. -
Let us assume for a moment that Caesar thought of put-
ting forth the Gallic War anonymously; must he not have
perceived that the frequent and convincing presentation of
the motives of Caesar in connection with the operations
of Caesar would stamp the work as his own in the face of
any possible denial? Besides, he was too wise to resort to
indirect methods when the employment of a direct method
would better accomplish results; and while on the one hand
the Gallic War was too serious a piece of composition to
have been designed merely for the information or gratifica-
tion of friends, in view of the trend of affairs at Rome it was
on the other hand obviously to Caesar's interest to secure for
the work immediately the largest possible circulation, and to
lend to it the prestige of his name. The argument er silentio
is rarely of weight; yet one is tempted to remark that if the
authorship of a work by so prominent a man appearing in a
period of controversy had for any reason been a matter of
doubt, it is singular that there is no evidence of a break in
the literary tradition regarding the authorship till the begin-
ning of the fifth century. It is not improbable that more
than one copy of the Gallic War was sent from camp into
Italy; but whether the friends receiving presentation copies
were few or many, we may be sure that the work was at
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar's Work. 223
once made accessible to the general public under the name
of the author, its distribution being in every way encouraged
and facilitated by Caesar's supporters. For while it was in
reality, as in appearance, a dispassionate and authoritative
narrative of events, it answered the purpose of a political
pamphlet, being put forth at a time when the significance of
the events treated was beginning to be fully appreciated in
their bearing upon momentous issues affecting the existence
of the Republic, when on the part of all, partisan and oppo-
nent alike, there was the keenest desire for information in
regard to Caesar as well as affairs in Gaul. If then the
Gallic War from the beginning must have had a title, we
may next inquire what that title was.
The language of Cicero in regard to Caesar’s ‘commenta-
ries’ in the passage of the Brutus already quoted (p. 220) is
so complimentary as to persuade Nipperdey that at the time
of writing it he could not have seen the Civil War (edition,
p. 5): ‘Quod iudicium Ciceronem facturum fuisse, si iam tum
libri de bello civili editi fuissent, incredibile est. In hoc
enim bello tradendo certum est alia omnia requisisse Cicero-
nem, quam ut Caesaris narratio calamistris inureretur.” Nip-
perdey apparently overlooked the fact that in 46 B.C., the
year of the publication of the Brutus, there was a temporary
reconciliation between Caesar and Cicero, who in the address
of thanks for the pardon of Marcus Marcellus in the autumn
of that year expressed in glowing terms his admiration of
Caesar's clemency and other good qualities, manifesting a
disposition to judge him in all things without prejudice, as
witness the following words (pro Mar. 31): Ingratus est
iniustusque civis, qui armorum periculo liberatus animum
tamen retinet armatum, ut etiam ille melior sit, qui in acie
cecidit, qui in causa animam profudit. The sincerity of
Cicero's feeling toward Caesar at this time, as Tyrrell
and Purser have shown (Correspondence of Cicero, V, pp.
xiv—xix) is revealed in his letters. However, on other
grounds it is probable that the Civil War was not published
until after Caesar's death, and by commentarios we may
believe that Cicero meant the seven books of the Gallic War.
224 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
In this passage of the Brutus Cicero is either using the
word commentarios as a descriptive term to characterize a
work, known under some other name, in such a way that the
reference will be plainly understood by his readers, or else
he is quoting it as a title or part of a title. With regard to
the significance of commentarius in Cicero's writings there is
generally no uncertainty.
In the same Brutus we find commentarii used of records of
the pontifices, perhaps a compilation of decrees or resolutions
(55 ex pontificum commentariis); of other records, possibly
family records (60 in veteribus commentariis, 72 in antiquis
commentariis); and a neuter form commentarium (sc. volu-
men), of a summary of the points or heads of a speech ampli-
fied in delivery (164 Ipsa illa censoria contra Cn. Domitium
conlegam non est oratio, sed quasi capita rerum et orationis
commentarium paulo plenius). In a letter of Caelius to
Cicero written in the year 50 B.C., commentarius is applied
to a collection of memoranda relating to important events in
the city which was sent to Cicero in Cilicia for his informa-
tion (ad. Fam. viii, II, 4 Quam quisque sententiam dixerit, in
commentario est rerum urbanarum; ex quo tu, quae digna
sunt, selige; multa transi. . .); while in the Philippics the
plural is used of Caesar's papers, documents and memoranda
found after his death, both those that were really Caesar's
(i, 2 nihil tum, nisi quod erat notum omnibus, in C. Caesaris
commentariis reperiebatur) and those that Antony was
accused of having forged (v, I 1 Decreta falsa vendebat,
regna, civitates, immunitates in aes accepta pecunia iubebat
incidi. Haec se ex commentariis Caesaris, quorum ipse
auctor erat, agere dicebat), and in a letter of Antony the
singular occurs referring to a purpose or promise of Caesar
expressed in a memorandum (ad Att. xiv, I 3, A. 2 Quam-
quam videor debere tueri commentarium Caesaris). In a
letter to Lucceius (56 B.C. ad Fam. v., 12) Cicero urges a full
treatment of the events of his consulship in the historical
work upon which Lucceius was then engaged, offering, if he
will undertake to do this, to furnish for the purpose commen-
tarios rerum omnium, which can be nothing else than a col-
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar's Work. 225
lection of notes and memoranda, the plural implying that
these would be classified and arranged in series for con-
venience of reference.
These instances, and others that might be cited, illustrate
the freedom with which the word commentarius was used in
Caesar's time to designate sources or collections of material
which a writer or speaker might utilize; the transition is
easy to the use of the term in relation to literary works.
In 60 B.C. Cicero and Atticus, working independently,
each finished about the same time an account of the events
of Cicero's consulship, written in Greek. To both works the
term commentarius was applied (ad Att, i, 19, Io Commen-
tarium consulatus mei Graece compositum misi ad te; ii, I, I
Is mihi litteras abs te et commentarium consulatus mei
Graece scriptum [i.e. by Atticus] reddidit), and Cicero gives
also the Greek name of his book as irrduvmua. The precise
character of these works cannot now be determined. In the
letter last cited Cicero notes their similarity in respect to
matter, humorously remarking that had he seen Atticus's
book first he might have been accused of stealing. Never-
theless he criticises the style of Atticus, in a way that
reminds us of the characterization of the style of Caesar's
‘commentaries’ in the Brutus: Quamguam tua illa — legi
enim libenter — horridula mihi atque incompta visa sunt, sed
tamen erant ornata hoc ipso, quod ornamenta neglexerant,
et, ut mulieres, ideo bene olere, quia nihil olebant, videbantur;
by contrast he jestingly speaks of his own book (liber) as
perfumed and painted, but he adds that he sent a copy to
Posidonius, -ut ornatius de iisdem rebus scriberet. It can-
not be doubted that Cicero thought of commentarius as a part
of the Latin form of the title of his book as well as Atticus's,
even though in another letter he condenses the title into two
words (ad Att. i., 20. 6 De meis scriptis, misi ad te Graece
perfectum consulatum meum). He had a high ideal of the
literary quality of history as distinguished from annals, as
shown by the rambling but instructive passage in the de Ora-
tore (ii, 51–58); and we shall probably not go astray if we
suppose that he adopted irrduvmua, commentarius, as a part
226 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
of his title because he designed the tract to be primarily a
source book for Posidonius and other Greek writers; how
anxious he was that his deeds should be commemorated in
the writings of others is evident from the letter to Lucceius.
The Greek Commentary was put into circulation so promptly
that Atticus saw a copy at Corfu before he received from
Cicero the carefully corrected presentation copy intended for
him; and this was followed by the naïve request that if he
liked it he should see that the work be well circulated in the
Greek cities (ad Att. ii, I. 2): Tu, si tibi placuerit liber, cura-
bis ut et Athenis sit et in ceteris oppidis Graeciae.
Cicero makes reference also to commentarii (= irropºvij-
Plata) of several Greek philosophers, as Aristotle, Cratippus,
and Zeno; but he himself gives a clue to his conception of
the significance of the term in such cases in the de Finibus
(V, 12) De summo autem bono quia duo genera librorum sunt,
unum populariter scriptum, quod Śēotepukdu appellabant,
alterum limatius, quod in commentariis reliquerunt, non
semper idem dicere videntur. From this we may understand
that the commentarii were more technical books, containing
perhaps outlines of lectures and similar material intended
primarily for the use of the writer and his pupils and friends
(cf. Madvig's de Fin.”, Excursus vii).
It seems evident that commentarius used by Cicero as a
characterizing term would be referred to an assemblage of
material lacking in literary quality. Since precisely this
quality is predicated of the commentarii of Caesar, and since
the term had already come into use in titles (p. 225), we may,
I think, conclude that commentarii was a part of the title of
the Gallic War as the work was known to Cicero, who was
writing the Brutus within six years at most after it was pub-
lished. Hirtius, as already noted, is consistent in the use of
commentarii when referring to the same work.
Suetonius uses commentarii of both the Gallic and the
Civil Wars (Div. Jul. 56): Reliquit et rerum suarum com-
mentarios Gallici civilisque belli Pompeiani. Nam Alexan-
drini Africigue et Hispaniensis incertus auctor est; alii
Oppium putant, alii Hirtium, qui etiam Gallici belli novissi-
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar’s Work. 227
mum imperfectumque librum suppleverit. After quoting
from Cicero and Hirtius, de commentariis Caesaris, and re-
cording the criticism of Asinius Pollio, he adds: Reliquit et
de Analogia duos libros et Anticatones totidem, ac praeterea
poema quod inscribitur Iter. Quorum librorum primos in
transitu Alpium, cum exciteriore Gallia conventibus peractis
ad exercitum rediret, sequentes sub tempus Mundinensis proe-
lii fecit; novissimum, dum ab urbe in Hispaniam ulteriorem
quarto et vicesimo die pervenit. Though Suetonius uses liber
as a descriptive term when referring to Hirtius's supplement
to the Gallic War, it is not easy to see why, even with the
passages of Cicero and Hirtius before him, he should consist-
ently have used commentarii of Caesar's Gallic and Civil
wars and libri of the other works of Caesar, unless con-
sciously or unconsciously reflecting a difference in the titles
of the works as they were known to him. -
As a part of the title of the Gallic War commentarii must
have been preceded by the name of the author in the genitive
case, and followed by some word or phrase limiting its mean-
ing; for the concept ‘source book’ or “memoranda'suggests
the question, “Of what?” We should expect to find the
limiting word, if a noun, in the genitive. Aulus Gellius, to be
sure, speaking of a family record (xiii, 20, 17) has laudationes
funebres et librum commentarium de familia Porcia; but here
commentarium is an adjective agreeing with librum, which is
regularly used with the name of a work in the ablative, and
elsewhere he not infrequently has a genitive, as in commenta-
riis lectionum antiquarum, referring to a work by Caesellius
Vindex (vi, 2, 1 ; xx, 2, 2); commentariis harum noctium,
speaking of his own work which he professed to regard merely
as a collection of excerpts (xviii, 4, II); and earum omnium
rerum commentarios, of the writings of Aristotle (xx, 5, 6).
Cicero, Hirtius, and Suetonius, all have a genitive limiting
commentarii referring to the works of Caesar; and this
genitive will give us a clue to the remaining part of our title.
Cicero, in the Brutus, has commentarios quosdam rerum sua-
rum ; Hirtius, near the beginning of his preface, Caesaris
nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae; and Suetonius,
228 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
as we have seen, writes rerum suarum commentarios Gallic:
civilisque belli Pompeiani. While we know less about the
sources and literary methods of Suetonius than we should
like to know, it is, nevertheless, safe to say that his cast of
mind was that of a grammarian rather than of a historian.
In the case of one of Caesar's orations he took the pains to
consult several copies (Div. Jul. 55 in quibusdam exemplari-
bus invenio . . .) in regard to a doubtful point; and it may be
taken for granted that he had a first-hand acquaintance with
the Dictator's other works. But if, as one familiar with the
usage of some modern editors might assume, the titles of the
Gallic and the Civil War in Suetonius's manuscripts were
commentarii Gallici belli and commentarii civilis belli, why do
we have rerum suarum in his descriptive phrase thrust into
the construction between commentarios and belli ? The an-
swer is plain: he is using rerum suarum, as Cicero did, for
rerum suarum gestarum, but he is not copying Cicero, because
he writes with much more detail than Cicero does in the pas-
sage of the Brutus which he quotes in this connection; he is
adapting the title C. Jult Caesaris commentarii rerum gesta-
rum, quoted by Hirtius as Caesaris commentarios rerum ges-
tarum, so that it will form a part of a sentence and fit into
his narrative. But what of Gallici civilisque belli Pompeiani º
The point of view of the student to whom the events of the
end of the Republic appear in a distinct and colorless per-
spective is very different from that of a Roman of Caesar's
time. Looking back upon the conquest of Gaul as an accom-
plished fact, we think of the Gallic War as a single series of
operations, just as we think of the American Revolution,
which lasted nearly as long, or even of the Thirty Years' War,
though the impression of unity is perhaps less distinctly felt
in the English designation of the last than in the German,
der dreissigjährige Krieg. But there is nothing in Caesar's
work to warrant the view that he would have used Gallicum
bellum or bellum Gallicum as a part of his title.
The operations of Caesar in Gaul were directed against
many peoples, differing as widely as Aquitanians from Galli,
Galli from Germans, and Belgians from Britons. We are,
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar's Work. 229
therefore, not surprised to notice that, in addition to the fre-
quent employment of bellum in common idioms, he uses the
word to designate a single campaign or definite and decisive
movement against a particular enemy ; when more than one
campaign is thought of, he has the plural. Thus we find
bellum Helvetiorum (B.G. i, 3o, 1) of the campaign against
the Helvetians; Ariovisti be//um (v, 55, 2) of the campaign .
against Ariovistus; duo maxima be//a (i, 54, 2) of the cam-
paigns against the Helvetians and against Ariovistus viewed
as a single season's work; bellum Vemetorum (iii, 16, 1), and
Vemeticum be//um (iii, 18, 6; iv, 21, 4) of the conquest of the
maritime states ; Germamicum bellum (iv, 16, 1) of the anni-
hilation of the Usipetes and Tencteri; Britammicum bellum
(v, 4, I) of the second expedition to Britain; be//um Trevero-
rum et Ambiorigis (vi, 5, 1) and bellum Ambiorigis (vi, 29, 4)
of the operations against the Treveri and Ambiorix; Gallica
bella (iv, 2o, 1 quod omnibus fere Gallicis bellis hostibus nos-
tris inde subministrata auxilia intellegebat) of all the cam-
paigns of the first three years and the early part of the fourth ;
also, and especially to be noted, Ga//ica be//a admitted by the
editors in two passages of the Civil War where the reference
is to all the campaigns in Gaul reckoned together: (iii, 2, 3)
Atque eae ipsae copiae hoc infrequentiores imponuntur, quod
multi Gallicis tot bellis defecerant; and (iii, 59, 1) Erant apud
Caesarem equitum numero Allobroges II fratres . . . quorum
opera Caesar omnibus Gallicis bellis optima fortissimaque
erat usus. The singular Gallicum bellum occurs in one pas-
sage (B. G. v, 54, 4): . . . ut praeter Haeduos et Remos, quos
praecipuo semper honore Caesar habuit, alteros pro vetere ac
perpetua erga populum Romanum fide, alteros pro recentibus
Gallici belli officiis, nulla fere civitas fuerit non suspecta
nobis. The services referred to were rendered in the cam-
paign of 57; their character may be inferred from the details
given in Book ii, 3—6. There is no evidence that any help
was received from the Remi in any other campaign prior to
the latter part of the year 54, the period treated toward the
end of Book v; ' the Gallic campaign ' is then the campaign
of the year 57, which is so designated to distinguish it from
23O Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
the campaigns against the Helvetians and Ariovistus in 58
and the various operations of the years 56, 55, and 54.
The operations recorded in the Civil War, though widely
extended, were in reality directed against a single enemy,
and here, if anywhere, one might expect to meet with the
singular bellum covering the entire series. But the campaign
in 49 against Afranius and Petreius in Spain is called mari-
mum bellum (iii, 47, 5); in Curio's address to his soldiers
before Utica we find Africum bellum (ii, 32, 13), and at the
end of the work, bellum Alexandrinum (iii, I 12, 12). In the
light of these passages it seems necessary to conclude that
when in the third book Caesar writes confecto bello (as 57, 5)
and bello perſecto (18, 5), he has in mind not the civil war as a
whole, but the operations against Pompey in 48, on the east
coast of the Adriatic and in Thessaly, which culminated in
the battle of Pharsalus. Nor does he use civile bellum in
such a way as to reflect the comprehensive signification
required for a title. In one of the two passages in which the
phrase is found, though the text is in an unsatisfactory con-
dition, the reference is clearly to a state of civil war (ii, 29, 3);
in the other (iii, 1, 4 qui se illi initio civilis belli obtulerant),
the thought is of the breaking out of hostilities between citi-
zens, “at the commencement of civil strife,' rather than of the
civil war as a historical unity; in ante bellum (iii, 1, 2) the sense
more nearly approaches that of bellum in titles. Caesar seems
to avoid the use of civile bellum, as he sought to avoid the war
itself; so in the letter in which he tried to persuade Cicero,
after hostilities had commenced, to remain neutral, mild
phrases are used instead (Cic. ad Att. x, 8, B. 2): Postremo,
quid viro bono et quieto et bono civi magis convenit quam
abesse a civilibus controversiis 2 . . . neque tutius neque
honestius reperies quicquam quam ab omni contentione
abesse. In the Civil War civilis dissensio also occurs (i, 67,
3; cf. iii, I, 3).
When Caesar wrote the Gallic War the events of the civil
war were yet in the future. Still, apart from the evidence
furnished by an examination of his usage, we may well ques-
tion whether he would have thought it expedient to use bellum
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar's Work. 23 I
in the title of this work, even in the plural. His appointment
in Gaul, as in the case of other proconsuls, included civil as
well as military functions; and, though in his administration
deeds of war overshadowed and obscured the deeds of peace,
it must be remembered that his career of conquest had been
sharply criticised and even viewed with alarm at Rome. He
was not so lacking in tact as to characterize the work in .
which he gave to the Roman people an account of his stew-
ardship by a term exclusively, to some offensively, military.
A chief distinction of the Gallic War as a narrative of events
at the same time truthful and favorable to the author, lies in
the skill with which Caesar the writer unobtrusively leads the
reader, step by step, to see how Caesar the proconsul, in
order to protect the interests which Rome already had in
Gaul, was obliged to carry the work of conquering on from
one stage to another until the whole country was subdued.
The case is still stronger against the use of civile bellum
as a part of the original title of the Civil War; even Hirtius
in his preface avoids a phrase of so unpleasant associations,
and instead has civilis dissensio, though he does not hesitate
to speak of the Alexandrine and African “wars” both sepa-
rately and together (Mihi ne illud quidem accidit, ut Alexan-
drino atque Africano bello interessem; quae bella . . .).
But with rerum gestarum in the title of the Gallic War,
there was no need of Gallici belli or another phrase to define
the scope of the work more closely. Caesar uses res gestae,
as also res gesta, with almost a complete blending of noun
and verb concepts to express a single idea, as B.C. ii, 31, 3
Quasi non et felicitas rerum gestarum exercitus benevolen-
tiam imperatoribus et res adversae odia concilient! Ibid. iii,
IO6, 3 Sed Caesar confisus fama rerum gestarum infirmis
auxiliis proficisci non dubitaverat aeque omnem sibi locum
tutum fore existimans; B. G. v., 47, 4 Labienus interitu Sabini
et caede cohortium cognita . . . rem gestam in Eburonibus
perscribit. An indication of the content of res gestae in
Caesar's mind is given in the same speech of Curio, previ-
ously quoted (B.C. ii, 32, 5): An vero in Hispania res gestas
Caesaris non audistis 2 duos pulsos exercitus 2 duos superatos
232 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
duces 2 duas receptas provincias2 haec acta diebus XL, quibus
in conspectum adversariorum venerit Caesar 2 The associa-
tions of the phrase in these passages are military, except in so
far as the allusion to the recovery of the two provinces may
imply civil reorganization. More clear is the extension of
res gestae to civil administration in various passages of Cicero,
as in Pis. 72 res gestas consulatus met ; in the Marcellus, res
tuae gestae, spoken in the laudation of Caesar, and including
not only his military successes (4, 5) but also his plans for
the rehabilitation of the state (25 omnium salutem civium
cunctamgue rem publicam res tuae gestae complexae sunt;
tantum abes a perfectione maximorum operum, ut funda-
menta nondum quae cogitas ieceris), seems almost like an
echo from the title of his work, a play upon words by no
means unpleasing to him to whom the speech was addressed;
still Cicero uses the phrase frequently elsewhere, and none
was more fitting. How Gallici belli came to be added to the
title after Caesar's time involves the consideration of the
formation and history of the Corpus Caesarianum, a subject
that will be touched upon later.
In the quotation from Curio's address in the last paragraph
the field of Caesar's operations is designated by in Hispania.
Does Galliae in Hirtius's Caesaris commentarios rerum gesta-
rum Galliae reflect a geographical designation in the original
title 2 I think not; for if Caesar had added in Gallia to his
title it would have been more natural for Hirtius to use this
than the difficult Galliae, the authenticity of which has been
questioned, though on insufficient grounds (cf. viii, 48, IO
res Galliae gestas). When the Gallic War was published no
word was needed to indicate the field of operations, known to
all and besides defined in the opening sentences of the first
book; and Caesar was not the man to waste words, least of
all in a title. Hirtius, having completed a supplement to the
Gallic War and bridged the gap between it and the Civil War,
was obliged in some way to distinguish the books of the
former from those of the latter.
In the fragments of the work of Sempronius Asellio pre-
served by Aulus Gellius (v, 18) the difference is pointed out
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar’s Work. 233
between anmales and res gestae as species of historical com-
position; and it is probable that res gestae appeared in the
title of his work, at least in the copy from which Gellius
made excerpts (cf. Gell. ii, I3, 2; iv, 9, I2; xiii, 22, 8), though
he is cited a few times by the grammarians with the title his-
toriae. In Caesar's youth then the distinction was already,
made that in the composition of res gestae it was not enough .
to tell what was done, sed etiam quo consilio quaque ratione
gesta essent. It is a fair inference from the words of Gellius
(ii, 13, 3 Is Asellio sub P. Scipione Africano tribunus mili-
tum ad Numantiam fuit resque eas, quibus gerendis ipse in-
terfuit, conscripsit), that the res gestae of Asellio, dealing
with events of which he had personal knowledge, contained
an autobiographical element. The forerunner of Caesar in
this species of composition, however, was not Asellio but Sulla.
The title of Sulla's memoirs has been restored by Peter with
good reason as commentarii rerum gestarum (Hist. Rom. Rel.
p. cclxxviii); and Plutarch at least believed that Sulla in-
tended the work to be a source book rather than a history,
as is indicated by the surprising statement in his Lucullus (i):
‘O 8é AoûcovXXos jokmto cal Aéyetv incavós éicatépav y\óTrav,
ôare kal 2% Aas Tās airrot Tpdéets àvaypdqov ékeſvg trpoore-
$6vmorav čos avvrašouévº cal 8taðijaovrt rºw ioTopſav ćueuvov.
The designation of Caesar's books relating to the Gallic
War as commentarii rerum gestarum was not only appropriate
but had the support of literary precedent. From the brevity
and directness with which he was wont to express himself, it
might be inferred that in the title of the exemplar prepared
for the copyists he would have given his own name as Caesaris
rather than in full. Outside the circle of personal friends
however, such a use of the name might have seemed to
smack of presumption; it is safer to conclude that the
original title was:
C. VLI CAESARIS COMMENTARI RERVM GESTARVM
There yet remain the questions of the designation of the
individual books; of the loss of the original title and the
origin of those found in the manuscripts, as well as of
234 Francis W. Kelsey. - [1905
the secondary titles used by Suetonius; and as bearing upon
the choice of a title, the point of view of both Greek- and
Roman writers with reference to the place of personal nar-
rative in relation to other forms of historical composition.
The limitations of this paper make it impracticable to fol-
low out these or other lines of inquiry here; but it may be
worth while to outline what may be considered as on the
whole a not improbable explanation of the way in which the
titles of both the Gallic and the Civil Wars came to be as
they are.
I.
Caesar wrote the seven books of the Gallic War rapidly,
arranging the material by years and numbering the rolls
(volumina) I to VII as he finished them, so as to indicate the
order; referring back when necessary to preceding portions
of the work by memory, and using indefinite references (as
at or ut ante or ut supra demonstravimus, ut or ut supra
demonstratum est) instead of the more definite references
ordinarily used by writers who make a greater labor of com-
position and write more deliberately. Thus Hirtius, referring
to Caesar's Book vii, has superiore commentario (viii, 4, 3; 30,
I ; 38, 3). -
Avoiding the use of definite references, he had no occasion
to employ in his text a word referring to an individual book;
had he done so, we may suppose that, consistently with his
use of the plural commentarii and with the usage exemplified
by Hirtius, he would have chosen commentarius instead of
liber, and that this word would have been supplied by him
with the numeral adjective had he thought it necessary to
designate the separate books by formal inscriptions (as com-
mentarius tertius) instead of the simple numbers.
2. º
At some time between the end of the year 48 and March of
44 (probably after July, 46), encouraged by the reception of
his commentarii i-vii, and desiring for many reasons to put
into circulation a summary of the events of the Civil War from
his own point of view, Caesar undertook to continue the work;
Vol. xxxvi.] The Title of Caesar’s Work. 235
though harried and worn and interrupted, he succeeded in
completing (probably by dictation) two rolls, of which the
first contained an account of the events of the year 49 and
included Books i and ii, as the work is divided in modern
editions, while the second treated the events of 48, being
Book iii of the editions. It may be that he expected at some
future time to write an account of the events of 51 and 50;
but the battle of Pharsalus, as the fall of Alesia, marked a
climax and turning-point of his fortunes, and taking up first
that which was most important, he commenced the first of the
new rolls with the negotiations at the beginning of January,
49, from which the course of events led rapidly and naturally
to Pharsalus and Egypt; circumstances did not permit him
to carry the narrative beyond the beginnings of the Alexan-
drian War. The two rolls that were finished may have been
numbered X and XI, space being left in the enumeration for
two other rolls covering the events of 51 and 50; or possibly
they were numbered VIII and IX to follow immediately the
first series.
After Caesar's death either his trusted friend Cornelius
Balbus, to whom he had committed the charge of important
interests when absent from Rome, or Aulus Hirtius, obtained
possession of the two finished rolls. Balbus, desiring out of
regard for Caesar's memory not to allow them to be published
without a presentation, from Caesar's point of view, of the
events immediately preceding and following those of 49 and
48, persuaded Hirtius to fill out the missing portions of the
commentarii (B.G. viii, praef. 1, 2).
3.
Hirtius, troubled by ill health and pressed by many affairs,
nevertheless found time to finish and send to Balbus, with a
dedicatory preface, an account of the events of the years.
5 I and 50, so bridging the chasm between the old commen-
tarii and the new ; the final revision and transmission to
Balbus of the latter part of his work, continuing his narrative
to the death of Caesar, may have been prevented by his own
death, only a year after that of the Dictator. -
236 Francis W. Kelsey. [1905
The commentarius covering the events of 51 and 50 was
viewed by Hirtius as something interjected into the writings
of Caesar (praef. 3 qui me mediis interposuerim Caesaris
scriptis); either Hirtius or Balbus (probably the latter)
arranged in order a copy of the first seven commentarii, the
interjected roll of Hirtius, and the two new rolls left by
Caesar, so as to make an orderly collection of the whole as
follows: t
ROLL YEAR AUTHOR
I–VII 58–52 Caesar
VIII 51 and 5o Hirtius
IX 49 Caesar (Books i and ii of the
Civil War as it appears in
the editions)
X 48 Caesar (Book iii of the Civil
War in the editions)
All these were included under the general title C. Jult Cae-
saris commentarii rerum gestarum ; the question of the author-
ship and addition of the Alexandrian, African, and Spanish
Wars need not be raised here. The eighth roll had a special
inscription, in which the word commentarius and the name
of Hirtius appeared; traces of this special inscription, in a
corrupt form, are found in certain manuscripts, as are also
traces of the original numbering of the books.
. 4.
Strabo knew Caesar's commentarii (irropºvijuata) as only a
single work; he refers to the Gallic War under the general title
(iv, I of to 8é kai à 6eos Kataap Év roſs irropºvijuaa welpmaceu).
But the subject-matter was so sharply differentiated that the
rolls composing the work naturally came to be reckoned in
two groups, those relating to the Gallic War and those relat-
ing to the Civil War. Livy in his own work recognizes a
similar grouping of the books relative to the Samnite Wars
(x, 31, Io). To the readers of a work written in rolls the
grouping of books related in subject-matter was even more a
matter of convenience than with us, who use a different kind
of volume.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3901
5 O7372 61 12
vol. xxxvil The Title of Caesar’s Work. 237
The two groups of Caesar's commentarii were probably
offered for sale separately by the booksellers. By the time
of Suetonius the division of the work into two parts was so
generally recognized that to his adaptation of the title, rerum
suarum commentarii, he added as epexegetical secondary
titles Gallici civilisque belli Pompeiani, the adjective Pompei-
ani being added to indicate that Caesar's own books on the .
Civil War, as distinguished from the continuations mentioned
in the next sentence, covered only the struggle with Pompey.
The continuations known to Suetonius were apparently the
same as those which we have; they were probably arranged
as they appear in the Ashburnham manuscript, the Alexan-
drian War being numbered XI, the African War XII, and
the Spanish War XIII. :
5.
The thirteen rolls of the Caesarian corpus in their proper
order were copied into a manuscript of the ordinary codex
form, each roll being of course reckoned a separate book
(liber). This codex, or an early descendant, became badly
worn. The parts which suffered most were the first page,
the last page, and the page containing the opening sentences
of Book ix, to which, as the beginning of the Civil War,
those looking at the manuscript would turn more frequently
than to any other part between the two covers. At last the
leaves on which were these pages became loose and disap-
peared; thus were lost the first page containing the title,
which was usually put on the first page of a codex (Aug. Ep.
40, 2, Corp. Script. Eccl. Lat. XXXIV, 2, p. 71 ; cited by
Dziatzko, Ausg. Kapitel des ant. Buchwesens, p. 179), a leaf
containing the end of Book viii and the beginning of Book
ix, and one or more leaves with the end of the Spanish War.
Of the origin of other lacunae it is not necessary here to speak.
6.
From this mutilated codex came at least three descendants
to all of which titles were supplied:
a. In one copy, by an error easily explicable, the new title
/
238 Francis W. Kelsey. tºs
assigned the work to Suetonius; descendants of this exem-
plar, or the exemplar itself, were used in the fifth century by
Orosius (cf. vi, 7, 2 and Jahresherichte des phil. Vereins au
Berlin, 1885, pp. 154-156) and Apollinaris Sidonius (Ep. ix,
I4, 7 opera Suetonii = opera Caesaris). -
6. In another copy, though the work was recognized as
Caesar's, Ephemeris Gait Iulii Caesaris or C. Juliº Caesaris
was supplied as a title by some reader of Plutarch's life of
Caesar (22 & pºev Kataap Év Taºs éqnueptort yeypadhev) or a
similar Greek source now lost; this manuscript or a de-
scendant of it was used by Symmachus in the year 396
(Ep. iv., 18, 5 Sume ephemeridem C. Caesaris decerptam biblio-
theculae meae, ut tibi muneri mitteretur). - -
c. In the third copy, which was in the line of descent to
the archetype of all existing manuscripts, libri Gait Iulii
Caesaris was supplied as a general title, and then de narra-
tione temporum belli Gallici, or something similar, was added
as a secondary title of Books i-viii; hence came the form of
the title which appears in the 8 manuscripts. As the begin-
ning of Book ix had disappeared, one of the scribes who
copied from the archetype (X) or from the princeps of the S
class, noticing that this book commenced a new subject,
supplied a form of bellum civile as a title, divided the book
into two parts, numbering these as Books i and ii of a
separate work, and changing the number of Book x to iii;
hence the division of the Civil War as it is found in most
manuscripts. -
7. -
The variant forms of the titles of Caesar's work found in
the manuscripts and in the early editions may all be explained
as arising in part from the acquaintance of scribes and editors
with more than one manuscript, and in part from attempts to
restore the ancient title from literary sources.