Art. 6.-CICERO AND THE CONQUEST OF GAUL.

1. Ciceronis Epistolæ. Edited by Tyrrell and Purser. Vols. I and II. (Third edition.) Dublin University Press, 1906-1908.

2. Julius Cæsar. (Heroes of the Nations Series.) By W. Warde Fowler. Putnam, 1892.

3. The Greatness and Decline of Rome. By G. Ferrero. Translated by Alfred E. Zimmern. Vol. II. Heinemann, 1909.

4. Cæsar's Conquest of Gaul. By T. Rice Holmes. (Second edition.) Oxford University Press, 1911.

5. Cicero of Arpinum. By E. G. Sihler. Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn., 1914.

CESAR'S conquest of Gaul may well be thought to be the most important event in the whole history of Western Europe; it settled once and for all the line between Latin civilisation and Teutonic barbarism; it laid the foundation for the French nation, the greatest of all Rome's great creations; it saved Mediterranean culture from the destroying flood which threatened to overwhelm it. The fact that the conquest led immediately to the destruction of the Roman Republic is in itself less important, for the Roman Republic was doomed to perish from its own internal weakness; but it is on this, the constitutional result of Cæsar's work, that our modern historians lay most stress.

The great series of campaigns which accomplished the conquest of Gaul has at last received adequate treatment in English. The De Bello Gallico' had too long been treated as a mere introduction to Latin; it had been used as a school book in which uninterested boys might be shown countless examples of ablative absolute and oratio obliqua. To Mr Rice Holmes belongs the credit of having produced a book which deals fully, and in an up-to-date manner, not only with the actual narrative, but also with all the problems, ethnological, geographical, social, which are raised by Cæsar's book. The second edition, the publication of which had been rightly secured by the Oxford Press, is not a mere reissue of the first; students of Cæsar ought to retain their old copy,

while getting the new one, for the first edition contains a good deal which has not been republished in the second. But one or other edition ought to be in the possession of every student of the great things in European History.

The conquest of Gaul, as it happens, falls within a decade of Roman History on which we have fuller information than on any other decade, except that immediately following it. It can even be claimed that, thanks to Cicero's letters and, to a small extent, to other sources such as Plutarch, we know this period better than we know any other period of history before the invention of printing. Now that the interest of our own nation is concentrated on the greatest of all wars, it may be worth while to compare the attitude of Rome to this great war, more especially as Cæsar's campaigns were fought in part on the present battlefields and, to some extent, for the same ends as our own.

There is no doubt that the events in Gaul were closely followed in Rome. Our information as to what was felt and thought there depends chiefly on the fact that Cicero had, during some three years of the period, as correspondents in Cæsar's camp, his brother Quintus, and his friend, the lawyer Trebatius. Unluckily it is only during a period of about twelve months, beginning with the spring of 54 B.C., that we have letters to them -thirteen to Quintus Cicero, and a similar number to Trebatius; why this is so, we can only conjecture. Still more unluckily, their answers, which would have been even more interesting to us, have not been preserved. The usual time that a letter from Gaul took to reach Rome was from twenty to thirty days; Cicero in September 54 B.C. receives a letter from Quintus on the twentieth day,' though rather oddly a time nearly half as long again, viz. twenty-eight days, was taken by a letter from Cæsar, which was written in the same

* Q. Cicero was at Ariminum on his way to Gaul in May 54 (Q. Fr., II, 12, 1, T. 139); he was there till the end of the campaign of 52 B.C. (Cæs. B. G., VII, 90), but unfortunately no letters to him in Gaul are preserved later than the beginning of the winter of 54 B.C. As to the letters of Trebatius we are a little more fortunate; the summer campaign' (æstiva) referred to in Ad Fam., VII, 14, 1, must be that of 53 B.C., though the letter is not dated. But in any case, the letters that bear directly on the Gallic campaigns concern only one single year-54 B.C.

month from Britain, to relieve Cicero's possible anxiety. about his brother's long silence. It is characteristic of Cæsar's attitude to Cicero and of his humane courtesy that, even amid the anxieties of the British campaign, he made time to write this considerate letter. So again † we find Cicero anxious because a more than fifty days' interval' had elapsed since he had had letters or even any rumour.' As he had had Cæsar's letter of explanation, just referred to, less than a month before, Cicero must be considered a somewhat exacting correspondent. But his impatience shows at any rate how close was the intercourse between the capital and the seat of war.

On the whole, in matter of time, correspondence with Gaul compares quite favourably with our own correspondence with our men in men in Mesopotamia, and not altogether unfavourably with the letters which come from Salonica. It is true that Roman correspondence had other drawbacks which were worse than even our worries from the censorship; letters were apt to arrive in bundles as they do with our men at the front, and sometimes much out of date' (pervetus). Morever, it was necessary to be careful of your letter-carrier; if Cicero wished to send anything, he had to depend on Cæsar's special messengers, who were managed by his friend Oppius; more private correspondence went by confidential freedmen, like Hippodamus, because it might cause trouble if it fell into wrong hands.

Cicero's close correspondence with his brother and his friend is no doubt typical of that maintained by many Romans with relatives and connexions at the front. There is no reason to suppose that in 54 B.C. intercourse with Gaul was unusually well maintained; it may rather be assumed that the amount of interest shown in that year is typical of the general feeling of Rome during this eventful period. In the absence of further letters from Gaul, we are driven, in estimating the state of

Q. F., II, 1, 25, T. 148. In all quotations from Cicero's letters, I have added the number in Tyrrell's edition (1879-1890) as the most convenient for reference.

+ Q. F., 1, 3, 1, T. 151. This letter is not dated, but it was written two days before the first trial of Gabinius (ibid., § 3), which took place on Oct. 24. Cicero reckons his more than 50 days' from the date of Cæsar's writing, not from the date of his receiving the letter, which was Sept. 28. Impatience made him very unreasonable.

while getting the new one, for the first edition contains a good deal which has not been republished in the second. But one or other edition ought to be in the possession of every student of the great things in European History.

The conquest of Gaul, as it happens, falls within a decade of Roman History on which we have fuller information than on any other decade, except that immediately following it. It can even be claimed that, thanks to Cicero's letters and, to a small extent, to other sources such as Plutarch, we know this period better than we know any other period of history before the invention of printing. Now that the interest of our own nation is concentrated on the greatest of all wars, it may be worth while to compare the attitude of Rome to this great war, more especially as Cæsar's campaigns were fought in part on the present battlefields and, to some extent, for the same ends as our own.

There is no doubt that the events in Gaul were closely followed in Rome. Our information as to what was felt and thought there depends chiefly on the fact that Cicero had, during some three years of the period, as correspondents in Cæsar's camp, his brother Quintus, and his friend, the lawyer Trebatius. Unluckily it is only during a period of about twelve months, beginning with the spring of 54 B.C., that we have letters to them -thirteen to Quintus Cicero, and a similar number to Trebatius; why this is so, we can only conjecture. Still more unluckily, their answers, which would have been even more interesting to us, have not been preserved. The usual time that a letter from Gaul took to reach Rome was from twenty to thirty days; Cicero in September 54 B.C. receives a letter from Quintus' on the twentieth day,' though rather oddly a time nearly half as long again, viz. twenty-eight days, was taken by a letter from Cæsar, which was written in the same

* Q. Cicero was at Ariminum on his way to Gaul in May 54 (Q. Fr., II, 12, 1, T. 139); he was there till the end of the campaign of 52 B.c. (Cæs. B. G., VII, 90), but unfortunately no letters to him in Gaul are preserved later than the beginning of the winter of 54 B.C. As to the letters of Trebatius we are a little more fortunate; the 'summer campaign' (æstiva) referred to in Ad Fam., VII, 14, 1, must be that of 53 B.C., though the letter is not dated. But in any case, the letters that bear directly on the Gallic campaigns concern only one single year-54 B.C.

month from Britain, to relieve Cicero's possible anxiety * about his brother's long silence. It is characteristic of Cæsar's attitude to Cicero and of his humane courtesy that, even amid the anxieties of the British campaign, he made time to write this considerate letter. So again t we find Cicero anxious because a more than fifty days' interval' had elapsed since he had had letters or even any rumour.' As he had had Cæsar's letter of explanation, just referred to, less than a month before, Cicero must be considered a somewhat exacting correspondent. But his impatience shows at any rate how close was the intercourse between the capital and the seat of war.

On the whole, in matter of time, correspondence with Gaul compares quite favourably with our own correspondence with our men in Mesopotamia, and not altogether unfavourably with the letters which come from Salonica. It is true that Roman correspondence had other drawbacks which were worse than even our worries from the censorship; letters were apt to arrive in bundles as they do with our men at the front, and sometimes much out of date' (pervetus). Morever, it was necessary to be careful of your letter-carrier; if Cicero wished to send anything, he had to depend on Cæsar's special messengers, who were managed by his friend Oppius; more private correspondence went by confidential freedmen, like Hippodamus, because it might cause trouble if it fell into wrong hands.

Cicero's close correspondence with his brother and his friend is no doubt typical of that maintained by many Romans with relatives and connexions at the front. There is no reason to suppose that in 54 B.C. intercourse with Gaul was unusually well maintained; it may rather be assumed that the amount of interest shown in that year is typical of the general feeling of Rome during this eventful period. In the absence of further letters from Gaul, we are driven, in estimating the state of

Q. F., I, 1, 25, T. 148. In all quotations from Cicero's letters, I have added the number in Tyrrell's edition (1879-1890) as the most convenient for reference.

† Q. F., m, 3, 1, T. 151. This letter is not dated, but it was written two days before the first trial of Gabinius (ibid., § 3), which took place on Oct. 24. Cicero reckons his more than 50 days' from the date of Cæsar's writing, not from the date of his receiving the letter, which was Sept. 28. Impatience made him very unreasonable.