%
%    Holmes' commentary on Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
%    How and When Caesar Wrote the Commentaries (preface 1).
%
%    Contributor: Konrad Schroder  <perseant@u.washington.edu>
%
%    Original publication data:
%         Holmes, T. Rice.  _C._Iuli_Caesaris_Comantarii_Rerum_in_
%                   _Gallia_Gestarum_VII_A._Hirti_Commentarius_VIII._
%                             Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914.
%
%    Version: 0.01 (Alpha), 7 April 1993
%
%    This file is in the Public Domain.
%
\input ks_macros.tex
\centerline{LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS}
\bigskip

{\it A.~B.} = Rice Holmes's {\it Ancient Britain and the Invasions of
Julius Caesar,} 1907.

{\it A.~C.~S.} = A. Holder's {\it Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz.}

{\it A.~J.} = {\it Archaeological Journal.}

{\it B.~ph.~W.} = {\it Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift.}

{\it C.~G.} = Rice Holmes's {\it Caesar's Conquest of Gaul} 2nd ed., 1911.

{\it C.~I.~L.} = {\it Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.}

{\it C.~J.} = {\it Classical Journal} (Chicago).

{\it Cl.~Ph.} = {\it Classical Philology} (Chicago).

{\it C.~Q.} = {\it Classical Quarterly.}

{\it C.~R.} = {\it Classical Review.}

{\it C.~S.} = A. Klotz's {\it C\"asarstudien.}

{\it D.~R.~R.} = G. Long's {\it Decline of the Roman Republic.}

{\it D.~S.} = Daremberg and Saglio's {\it Dictionniaire des antiquit\'es
grecques et romaines.}

{\it G.~C.} = Stoffel's {\it Histoire de Jules C\'esar,---Guerre civile.}

{\it G.~K.} = A. von G\"oler's {\it Caesars Gallischer Krieg,} 2nd ed.,
1880.

{\it H.~G.} = C. Jullian's {\it Histoire de la Gaule.}

{\it H.~R.} = Th. Mommsen's {\it History of Rome.}

{\it J.~B.} = {\it Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin.}

{\it L.~C.} = H. Meusel's {\it Lexicon Caesarianum.}

{\it N.~J.} = {\it Neue Jahrb\"ucher f\"ur Philologie,} \&c.

{\it N.~Ph.~R.} = {\it Neue philologische Runschau.}

{\it Ph. } = {\it Philologus.}

{\it Ph.~Suppl.} = {\it Philologus, Supplementband.}

{\it P.~S.~A.} = {\it Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London.}

{\it R.~E.~A.} = {\it Revue des  \'etudes anciennes.}

{\it Rh.~M.} = {\ir Rheinisches Museum.}

{\it S.~P.~A.} = {\it Sitzungsberichte der k\"oniglich preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.}

{\it Th.~l.~L} = {\it Thesaurus linguae Latinae.}

{\it Tr.} = Rice Holmes's {\it Caesar's Commentaries .~.~. translated into
English.}

{\it W. kl. Ph.} = {\it Wochenschrift f\"ur klassiche Philologie.}

{\it Z.G.} = {\it Zeitschrift f\"ur das Gymnasailwesen.}

{\it Z.~\"o.~Gy.} = {\it Zeitschrift f\"ur die \"osterreichischen
Gymnasien.}
\vfill\eject

\centerline{HOW AND WHEN CAESAR WROTE}
\centerline{THE \it COMMENTARIES}
\bigskip
T{\sc HE} {\it Commentaries on the Gallic War} were published not later
that 46 {\sc B.C.}, for Cicero notices them with admiration in his {\it
Brutus} (75, \S 262), which appeared in that year.  Most probably indeed
they were both written and published several years earlier; for it is more
than unlikely that Caesar would have had time for literary composition
during the intense labour of the civil war, and moreover, as Mommsen says
({\it Hist. of Rome,} v, 1894, p.~499), the book was doubtless intended [at
least in part] to justify before the Roman public what Caesar had done in
Gaul.  I will explain this in discussing the trustworthiness of the
narrative.

There are two main theories about the way in which Caesar composed his
book.  Some critics believe that he wrote each commentary year by year,
after the campaign which it described: others that he wrote the whole
seven---for it must be remembered that the eighth was written by his
friend, Aulus Hirtius---in the winter of 52--51 {\sc B.C.} or in the year
50.  The latter view is supported by Hirtius, who says (Praef., \S 6), {\it
ceteri enim quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam quam facile atque celeriter
eos perfecerit scimus} (`others know the flawless excellence of his work; I
know more---how easily and rapidly it was done').  If this remark is no
absolutely inconsistent with the position that each commentary was written
in the winter that followed the campaign which it described, the natural
meaning is that the whole was the result of one continuous effort.  The
statement of Hirtius, who was one of Caesar's most intimate friends, and
probably also his literary secretary, is the only original testimony that
we have, and must be accepted unless it can be shown to be inconsistent
with facts.  Some critics think that it is.  In ii, 28, \S 1 we read that
`the Nervian people .~.~. was brought to the verge of extinction', whereas
in v, 39--42 we are told that they vigorously attacked Quintus Cicero and
in vii, 75, \S 3 Caesar says that they were called upon to contribute 6,000
men to the army which attempted to relieve Vercingetorix. Again, in vi, 2,
\S 3 Caesar affirms that `all the Cisrhenane Germans, who included the
Segni and Condrusi, were in arms against him: in vi, 31, \S\S 1--2 he
implies that these two tribes proved their innocence. But many of the
Nervians who fought against Cicero had doubtless been too young to fight
three years before; the statement that the tribe was wellnigh exterminated
may have been only a rhetorical flourish, based upon misleading reports,
which Caesar or his secretary had not had time or inclination to sift; and
the inconsistency between vi, 2 and vi, 31 only proves that he did not
thoroughly revise his work. Even real inconsistencies, which are very few,
can be accounted for by hasty use of discordant materials, lapse of memory,
or mere carelessness.

It may be regarded, then, as certain that Caesar wrote the Commentaries
after the campaign of 52 {\sc B.C.}; and the only question is whether he
wrote them in the winter following that campaign or later. I am not sure
that he would have had time to write them in the winter; for from the very
beginning of 51 he was hard at work, campaigning against the Bituriges and
other tribes. Mommsen, indeed, argues (Hist. of Rome, v, 1895, p.~499,
n.~1) that the book must have been not only written but published before
the end of 51, because in vii, 6, \S 1 Caesar `approves the exceptional
laws [passed under the influence of Pompey] of 702' (52 {\sc B.C.}), and he
could not have done this after his rupture with Pompey, when he reversed
certain judgements which were based upon those laws. But why should not the
publication have taken place in 50 {\sc B.C.},---the year before that in
which the civil war began? It seems to me most probable that it did, for
this was the only year between Caesar's first consulship and the last year
of his life in which he was not fighting; and, as far as we know, he was
then comparatively at leisure (Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, pp.~202--10). See
p.~436.
\bye