piercing the isthmus of Corinth ; of making a road from the Adriatic to the Tiber ; and further, of subduing the Parthians, and returning through Scythia and Germany into Italy, after extending the limits of the empire to the
stream of the ocean.However this may be, it is certain that at the time of his death he was preparing an expedition against the Parthians. It is useless to speculate whether his absence from the city would have been short or long. There is evidence that he did not feel at his ease in the capital, that he considered his personal work to be accomplished, and that his plans could be better carried out by his suc cessor. Yet nothing can excuse the shortsighted wicked ness and folly of those who murdered him. We need not repeat the well-known story, how in the Ides of March, 44 B.C., Caesar was murdered in a meeting of the senate, and fell at the feet of the statue of Pompeius, piercsd with wounds from head to foot, only one of which was fatal. There is no reason to believe that the con spiracy had been long in preparation, or that it was motived on the one hand by a desire for personal aggrandizement, or still less, on the other, by a devoted patriotism. It began in spite, and continued in folly. A very slight degree of political foresight might have convinced those who assented to the plot that the people would not be on their side, and that they would precipitate the very conclusion which they desired to avert. Those who deified Brutus in the French Revolution knew but little of Eoman history, or confounded him with the expeller of the Tarquins. Dante is a better judge, whose ardent love of liberty did not blind him to the necessity of a strong and united government for his native land. The divine poet relates to us with an appalling realism, that in the centre of the earth, in the bottom of the pit of hell, Lucifer holds in his three mouths the three greatest malefactors the world has ever seen, Brutus and Cassius, who betrayed their sovereign and their country, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Master with a kiss.
Under different circumstances Caesar might have won as great a reputation as a man of letters as he has acquired as a general and a statesmen. He was fully aware that a change in the literary language of his countrymen was as necessary as in their government and constitution. The rude though vigorous dialect of Plautus, or even of Varro, was not suited to be the organ of civiliza tion throughout a subject world. A widespread knowledge of Greek had made the Romans aware of their own deficiencies, and the united efforts of all men of culture to give form and refinement to the Latin tongue culminated in the glories of the Augustan age. Cicero and Livy, Virgil and Horace, have remained as examples of Latin style during the whole of the Christian era. The language in which they wrote must have differed widely from any thing which was spoken by their most cultivated contem poraries. It is not unreasonable to feel some regret that the cultivated language did not follow a course of develop ment more suited to its inherent character, and that Lucretius and Caesar were not adopted by the rhetoricians of the empire as models for precept and imitation. The excellence of the Latin language lies in its -solidity and precision ; its defects lie in a want of lightness and flexibility. Lucretius found it sufficient to express with admirable clearness very complex philosophical reasoning and Caesar exhibited its excellencies in their purest and chastest form. It is a misfortune that the Commentaries are not more often studied as a masterpiece of literature, but are relegated by the irony of fortune to the lower forms of schools. Their style is faultless, not a word is thrown away or used with a doubtful meaning, every expression is in its place, and each touch serves to enhance the effect of the whole. Had Caesar been writing history instead of military memoirs, ho might have allowed himself greater freedom of ornament. We know, from his treatise on grammar (De Analoyia), often quoted by grammarians, that his success in literature was the result of careful study and meditation. As an orator he was acknowledged to bo second to Cicero alone, and he is one of the few men in history who have quelled a rebellion by a speech.
In this sketch of Caesar s life we have found but little to blame, and have been able to add few shadows to tho picture. The stories which the jealousy of contemporaries have preserved against him are too frivolous to be recorded, while the dignity, sweetness, and nobleness of his character cannot be concealed. We have preferred rather to attempt to construct from very imperfect materials some faint resemblance of the marvellous personality of him whom the genius of Shakespeare rightly recognized as " the fore most man of all this world."
The principal ancient authorities for the life of Ceesar are the biographies of Plutarch and Suetonius, the letters and orations of Cicero, and the Commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars written by or ascribed to Caesar himself. To these may be added Appian s Civil War, Dion Cassius, Velleius Paterculus, Sallust s Catiline, the Epitomes of Livy, and Lucan s Pharsalia. His life has been perpetually narrated in ancient and modern times, and has been the battle-field of imperialists and republicans. For English readers, the account given by Merivale, both in his History of the, Romans under tlie Empire, and in the Fall of the Roman Republic, is readable and adequate ; the fullest and fairest examination of the original authorities is in Long s Decline of the Roman Republic, vols. iii.-v. The article in Smith s Biographical Dictionary is excellent, but by far the most brilliant picture of Caesar s character and work is to be found in Mommsen s History of Rome (published 1856, translated into English 1866). Mommsen is extremely favourable to Cresar, but unfair to his opponents. The Histoire dc Cesar of Napoleon III., which extends only to tho outbreak of the civil war, is especially valuable from the maps and plans which accompany it. The German student will find a full and satisfac tory repertory of all that is known about the subject in Drumann, Gcschichte, Roms.
CÆSAR, Sir Julius (1557-1636), a learned civilian, descended by the female line from tho Dukes de Cesarini in Italy, was born near Tottenham in Middlesex. He was educated at Oxford, and afterwards studiad at the university of Paris, where in the year 1581 he was created doctor of the civil law. Two years later he was admitted to the same degree at Oxford, and also became doctor of the canon law. He held many high offices during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., and for the last twenty years of his life was master of the rolls. He was so remarkable for his bounty and charity to all persons of worth, that it was said of him that he seemed to be the almoner-general of the nation. His manuscripts, many of which are now in the British Museum, were sold by auction in 1757 for up wards of 500. See E.Lodge, Life of/SirJuliiisCcesar,l8W.
CÆSAREA, the name of two towns in Palestine:—
metropolis of Palestine, 30 miles north of Joppa, and about the same distance north-west of Jerusalem. It was built about 22 B.C. by Herod, on the site of an earlier town called Turris Stratonis. Vast sums of money were spent in the erection of its more important buildings, among which were a temple dedicated to Caesar, a theatre, and an amphitheatre. Tho most stupendous work, however, was the semicircular mole, .constructed of immense blocks of stone brought from a great distance, and sunk to the depth of twenty fathoms in the sea. It protected the port on the south and west, leaving only a sufficient opening for vessels to enter from the north, so that within the enclosed space (which, according to Lieutenant Condor, measures 300 yards across) a fleet might ride in all weathers in perfect security. The site of the city is now marked by an extensive mass of ruins, among which may still be traced the substructions
of all the above-mentioned buildings, as well as those of