first startled by the masterly rapidity and energy of his movements, and then agreeably surprised by his lenity and moderation. No proscriptions or confiscations followed his victories, and all his acts evinced an unmistakable desire to effect a sober and reasonable settlement of the pressing questions of the hour; of this, and of his almost superhuman energy, the long list of measures he carried out or planned is sufficient proof. The “children of the proscribed” were at length restored to their rights,[1] and with them many of the refugees[2] who had found shelter in Caesar's camp during the two or three years immediately preceding the war; but the extreme men among his supporters soon realized that their hopes of novae tabulae and grants of land were illusory. In allotting lands to his veterans, Caesar carefully avoided any disturbance of existing owners and occupiers,[3] and the mode in which he dealt with the economic crisis produced by the war seems to have satisfied all reasonable men.[4] It had been a common charge against Caesar in former days that he paid excessive court to the populace of Rome, and now that he was master he still dazzled and delighted them by the splendour of the spectacles he provided, and by the liberality of his largesses. But he was no indiscriminate flatterer of the mob. The popular clubs and gilds which had helped to organize the anarchy of the last few years were dissolved.[5] A strict inquiry was made into the distribution of the monthly doles of corn, and the number of recipients was reduced by one-half;[6] finally, the position of the courts of justice was raised by the abolition of the popular element among the judices.[7] Nor did Caesar shrink from the attempt, in which so many had failed before him, to mitigate the twin evils which were ruining the prosperity of Italy—the concentration of a pauper population in the towns, and the denudation and desolation of the country districts. His strong hand carried out the scheme so often proposed by the popular leaders since the days of Gaius Gracchus, the colonization of Carthage and Corinth. Allotments of land on a large scale were made in Italy; decaying towns were reinforced by fresh drafts of settlers; on the large estates and cattle farms the owners were required to find employment for a certain amount of free labour; and a slight and temporary stimulus was given to Italian industry by the reimposition of harbour dues upon foreign goods.[8]
The reform of the calendar, which is described elsewhere,[9] completes a record of administrative reform which entitles Caesar to the praise of having governed well, whatever may be thought of the validity of his title to govern at all. But how did Caesar deal with what was after all the greatest problem which he was called upon to solve, the establishment of a satisfactory government for the Empire? One point indeed was already settled. Some centralization of the executive authority was indispensable, and this part of his work Caesar thoroughly performed. From the moment when he seized the moneys in the treasury on his first entry into Rome[10] down to the day of his death, he recognized no other authority but his throughout the Empire. He alone directed the policy of Rome in foreign affairs; the legions were led, and the provinces governed, not by independent magistrates, but by his “legates”;[11] and the title Imperator which he adopted was intended to express the absolute and unlimited nature of the imperium he claimed, as distinct from the limited spheres of authority possessed by republican magistrates.[12] In so centralizing the executive authority over the Empire at large, Caesar was but developing the policy implied in the Gabinian and Manilian laws, and the precedent he established was closely followed by his successors. It was otherwise with the more difficult question of the form under which this new executive authority should be exercised and the relation it should hold to the republican constitution. We must be content to remain in ignorance of the precise shape which Caesar intended ultimately to give to the new system. The theory that he contemplated a revival of the old Roman kingship[13] is supported by little more than the popular gossip of the day, and the form under which he actually wielded his authority can hardly have been regarded by so sagacious a statesman as more than a provisional arrangement. This form was that of the dictatorship; and in favour of the choice it might have been urged that the dictatorship was the office naturally marked out by republican tradition as the one best suited to carry the state safely through a serious crisis, that the powers it conveyed were wide, that it was as dictator that Sulla had reorganized the state, and that a dictatorship had been spoken of as the readiest means of 701-2. legalizing Pompey's protectorate of the Republic in 53-52. The choice nevertheless was a bad one. It was associated with those very Sullan traditions from which Caesar was most anxious to sever himself; it implied necessarily the suspension for the time of all constitutional government; and, lastly, the dictatorship as held by Caesar could not even plead that it conformed to the old rules and traditions of the office. The “perpetual dictatorship” granted him after his crowning 709. victory at Munda (45) was a contradiction in terms and a repudiation of constitutional government which excited the bitterest animosity.[14]
A second question, hardly less important, was that of the position to be assigned to the old constitution. So far as Caesar himself was concerned, the answer was for the time sufficiently clear. The old constitution was not formally abrogated. The senate met and deliberated; the assembly passed laws and elected magistrates; there were still consuls, praetors, aediles, quaestors and tribunes; and Caesar himself, like his successors, professed to hold his authority by the will of the people. But senate, assembly and magistrates were all alike subordinated to the paramount authority of the dictator; and this subordination was, in appearance at least, more direct and complete under the rule of Caesar than under that of Augustus. Caesar was by nature as impatient as Augustus was tolerant of established forms; and, dazzled by the splendour of his career of victory and by his ubiquitous energy and versatility, the Roman public, high and low, prostrated themselves before him and heaped honours upon him with a reckless profusion which made the existence of any authority by the side of his own an absurdity.[15] Hence under Caesar the old constitution was repeatedly disregarded, or suspended in a way which contrasted unfavourably with the more respectful attitude assumed by Augustus. For months together Rome was left without any regular magistrates, and was governed like a subject town by Caesar's prefects.[16] At another time a tribune was seen exercising authority outside the city bounds and invested with the imperium of a praetor.[17] At the elections, candidates appeared before the people backed by a written recommendation from the dictator, which was equivalent to a command.[18] Finally, the senate itself was
- ↑ Dio xli. 18.
- ↑ App. ii. 48; Dio xli. 36.
- ↑ Plut. Caes. 51; Suet. 38, “adsignavit agros, sed non continuous, ne quis possessorum expelleretur.” Cf. App. ii. 94.
- ↑ For the lex Julia de pecuniis mutuis, see Suet. Jul. 42; Caesar, B.C. iii. 1; Dio xli. 37; App. ii. 48. The faeneratores were satisfied; Cic. Ad Fam. viii. 17. But the law displeased anarchists like M. Caelius Rufus and P. Cornelius Dolabella.
- ↑ Suet. Jul. 42.
- ↑ Ibid. 41; Dio xliii. 21.
- ↑ Suet. Jul. 41; Dio xliii. 25.
- ↑ Suet. Jul. 42, 43.
- ↑ See Calendar; Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, v. 438, and Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, 292 seq.
- ↑ Plut. Caes. 35.
- ↑ Dio xliii. 47.
- ↑ Dio xliii. 44. For this use of the title Imperator, see Mommsen, Hist. of Rome. v. 332, and note.
- ↑ See Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, v. 333, and Ranke, Weltgeschichte, ii. 319 seq. According to Appian ii. 110, and Plutarch, Caes. 64, the title rex was only to be used abroad in the East, as likely to strengthen Caesar's position against the Parthians.
- ↑ Cicero, Phil. i. 2, 4, praises Antony, “quum dictatoris nomen . . . propter perpetuae dictaturae recentem memoriam funditus ex republic sustulisset.”
- ↑ For the long list of these, see Appian ii. 106; Dio xliii. 43-45; Plut. Caes. 57; Suet. Jul. 76. Cf. also Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, v. 329 ff.; Watson, Cicero's Letters, App. x.; Zumpt, Studia Romana, 199 seq. (Berlin, 1859).
- ↑ Zumpt, Stud. Rom. 241; Suet. Jul. 76.
- ↑ Cic. Ad Att. x. 8a.
- ↑ Suet. Jul. 41, “Caesar dictator . . . commendo vobis illum et illum, ut vestro suffragio suam dignitatem teneant.”
