He had been created dictator in 49 and 48, with the tribunician power in perpetuity; and on his return to Rome in 45 he was made consul for ten years, dictator, and praefectus morum, with the title of imperator for life. In the intervals between his campaigns he carried out numerous reforms, including the rectification of the calendar, B.C. 46 (see p. 110). His assassination by Brutus and Cassius and the other conspirators took place on 15th March, B.C. 44.

(2) WORKS.

1. De Bello Gallico, in seven Books. The title used by Caesar himself was probably Commentarii rerum suarum (as in Cic. Brut. 262, and Sueton. Iul. 56; cf. Strabo, iv. 1, 1 ὑπομνήματα), although this does not appear in the best MSS., which give variously libri, historiae, or ephemeris rerum gestarum belli Gallici.

The work describes Caesar’s operations in Gaul, Germany, and Britain during the years B.C. 58-52, the events of each year occupying a separate Book. It was written and published as a whole, not in parts at the end of each year’s campaign. Otherwise it is difficult to see why Cicero should not have heard of it from his brother Quintus or his friend Trebatius, both of whom were with Caesar; or why Hirtius should have spoken of the rapidity with which the work was composed (B.G. viii. praef. 6, ‘Ceteri quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam quam facile atque celeriter eos perfecerit, scimus’). This view is corroborated by the statement of Asinius Pollio, that there were mistakes in the work due to defective memory (Sueton. Iul. 56, ‘quae ... memoria lapsus perperam ediderit’); and by some expressions in the earlier Books pointing forward to events mentioned later (i. 28 compared with vii. 9, and iv. 21 with vii. 76).

The time of composition was probably the winter after the last campaign narrated in the Book (B.C. 52-51). It was certainly published before B.C. 46, the date of Cicero’s Brutus, and probably before the rupture with Pompey, of whom Caesar speaks with approbation (vii. 6, ‘Cum iam ille urbanas res virtute Cn. Pompei commodiorem in statum pervenisse intellegeret’).

The aim of the book was twofold: (1) to provide material for professed historians: Hirt. B.G. viii. praef. 5, ‘qui sunt editi, ne scientia tantarum rerum scriptoribus deesset’; (2) to furnish a defence of the author’s own conduct—an object carefully kept in the background. It has been proved that Caesar suppressed facts which would have told against him at Rome (e.g. his rapacity, Sueton. Iul. 54), and the plausible motives which he assigns for some of his actions cannot be accepted as genuine. Cf. the criticism of Asinius Pollio, Sueton. Iul. 56, ‘Pollio Asinius parum diligenter parumque integra veritate compositos putat, cum Caesar pleraque et quae per alios erant gesta temere crediderit, et quae per se vel consulto vel etiam memoria lapsus perperam ediderit, existimatque rescripturum et correcturum fuisse.’ The style is remarkable for its brevity, directness, and the absence of ornament and emotion (Cic. Brut. 262, ‘Nudi sunt, recti et venusti, omni ornatu orationis, tamquam veste, detracto’).

Among the materials used by Caesar in writing the Commentarii were his own despatches to the Senate (ii. 35, iv. 38, vii. 90) and the reports of his legati. Late writers speak of his ἐφημερίδες (e.g. Plut. Caes. 22), but there is no ground for supposing that he kept a regular diary. He depended to a great extent on his own memory (cf. Pollio’s criticism, above).

2. De Bello Civili, in three Books, similar in plan to the Bell. Gall. Book iii. ends abruptly with an event of no great importance, and, as the death of Pompey would have formed a natural ending, we must suppose that Caesar had intended to continue the narrative with the Alexandrian, Spanish, and African wars, but was prevented from carrying out his plan. The work was published after his death, without undergoing revision (Sueton. Iul. 56, ‘Pollio existimat rescripturum et correcturum fuisse’).

Other works in the Corpus Caesarianum.—Sueton. Iul. 56 says, ‘Alexandrini Africique et Hispaniensis [belli] incertus auctor est. Alii Oppium putant, alii Hirtium, qui etiam Gallici belli novissimum imperfectumque librum suppleverit.’

Suetonius evidently believed that Hirtius was the author of B.G. viii., for he introduces a quotation from the preface to that Book with the words, ‘Hirtius ita praedicat’ (ibid.). Hirtius is also mentioned in the MSS. as the author of B.G. viii., and there is no reason to doubt that this is the case. That he is the author of any of the others is rendered doubtful by the fact that his bad health (which lasted to November, B.C. 44) and his position as consul would leave him little time for literature between the death of Caesar (15th March, B.C. 44) and his own death at Mutina (27th April, B.C. 43). Hirtius was thus able to carry out only the first part of the plan sketched in B.G. viii. praef. 2, ‘Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum, non cohaerentibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui, novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris.’

G. Landgraf, Untersuchungen zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern (Erlangen, 1888), arrives at the following conclusions:

1. In the Bellum Africum we possess the notes of Asinius Pollio, who took part in the war. That the work partook of the nature of a journal is shown by the style; e.g. interim is used about eighty times as a connecting link, and dates and hours of the day are given carefully. Landgraf supports his position by instancing similarities of expression in the Bell. Afr. and in three letters from Pollio to Cicero (ad Fam. x. 31; 32; 33).

2. Ch. 48-64 of the Bell. Alex. on events in Spain in B.C. 48-7 were sent to Hirtius by Pollio, who was governor of Hispania Ulterior in B.C. 45, and as such was best acquainted with these incidents.

3. On the death of Hirtius, Pollio, on searching for his own papers (which he had lent Hirtius to help him in his work), found Hirtius’ Bell. Gall. viii., and made some additions.

4. The Bell. Civ. was in Hirtius’ possession unedited at his death. Hirtius evidently intended to publish it along with B.G. viii. The third Book had been left unfinished by Caesar, whose notes, some of which were very brief, Hirtius had extended, and filled up the gaps in the narrative. There were also some notes on the Bell. Alex. The Bell. Alex. in the narrower sense (cc. 1-33) Hirtius began with, and in the early chapters contented himself with making small additions. In the later parts are found considerable additions both by Hirtius and by Pollio. Landgraf attempts to distinguish the work of the two: cc. 34-41, on the Bellum Ponticum, being mostly by Pollio, and cc. 65-76, on the wars in Illyria and against Pharnaces, mostly by Hirtius.

5. The authorship of the Bellum Hispaniense, which in style is far below the Bellum Africum, Landgraf leaves an open question.

E. Wölfflin (Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akad. der Wissenschaften zu München, 1889, pp. 323 sqq., and ed. of the Bell. Afr., 1889) holds the same views as Landgraf, and gives many instances of difference in diction between Bell. Afr. on the one hand, and Gall. viii. and Alex. on the other; e.g.

On the other hand, Widmann, Philologus, L. (1891), p. 565, proves that the author of the note-book worked up in the Bell. Afr. was an officer of the 5th legion, that Pollio was not connected with the 5th legion, and probably did not go through the whole African war, as the author clearly must have done. This, of course, also proves that Hirtius cannot have been the author.

On the whole, we think it proved that the Bell. Afr. was not written by the author of B. Gall. viii. and B. Alex., and that the author was not in any case Pollio. The B. Alex. is probably worked up from note-books written by several hands. The attempt to distinguish the work of Hirtius and another hand in B. Gall. viii. is against the evidence of Suetonius; and though several hands have co-operated in B. Alex., it is hardly possible to distinguish them precisely.

The Bell. Hisp. is evidently the work of an eye-witness, cf. c. 29, ‘nostri ad dimicandum procedunt, id quod adversarios existimabamus esse facturos.’ He is apt to be bombastic (c. 5, ‘hic alternis non solum morti mortem exaggerabant, sed tumulos tumulis exaequabant’), and makes a ridiculous show of learning (quoting the combat of Achilles and Memnon, c. 25, and Ennius, c. 23, ‘nostri cessere parumper’; c. 31, ‘pes pede premitur, armis teruntur arma.’)

(3) CAESAR’S LOST WORKS.

1. De Analogia, a treatise on grammar in two Books, dedicated to Cicero (Cic. Brut. 253) and composed in the interval between two of the campaigns in Gaul. Sueton. Iul. 56, ‘Reliquit et de Analogia duos libros ... In transitu Alpium, cum ex citeriore Gallia conventibus peractis ad exercitum rediret ... fecit.’ It supported the view that analogia, not anomalia, should be the governing principle in grammar, i.e. that order should be introduced into the chaos of varying usages. Gellius i. 10, 4 has a notable quotation from the first Book, ‘Habe semper in memoria atque in pectore, ut tamquam scopulum sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum.’

2. De Astris, a book on astronomy, written apparently in connexion with the rectification of the calendar, B.C. 46, perhaps in Greek. Suetonius says nothing about it, but it was known to Macrobius, Saturn., i. 16, 39, ‘Iulius Caesar ... siderum motus, de quibus non indoctos libros reliquit, ab Aegyptiis disciplinis hausit.’ The liber de computatione and liber fastorum, attributed to Caesar by the Scholiast on Lucan, x. 185, 187, may have formed part of the De Astris.

3. Anticatones, written B.C. 45, in reply to Cicero’s panegyric on Cato, with flattering references to Cicero himself. Sueton. Iul. 56, ‘Reliquit et de Analogia duos libros et Anticatones totidem. ... Sub tempus Mundensis proelii fecit.’ Cicero expresses himself as highly pleased with the book, ad Att. xiii. 51, ‘bene existimo de illis libris, ut tibi coram’; but his tone is different in Topica, 94, ‘quibus omnibus generibus usus est nimis impudenter Caesar contra Catonem meum.’

4. Apophthegmata, a collection of notable sayings, probably growing out of the Dicta Collectanea of Sueton. Iul. 56, and completed B.C. 46-5. Cic. ad Fam. ix. 16, 4, ‘audio Caesarem, cum volumina iam confecerit ἀποφθεγμάτων, si quod afferatur ad eum pro meo, quod meum non sit, reicere solere.’

5. Letters.—In the time of Suetonius, Caesar’s official despatches to the Senate were extant, and also private letters to Cicero and other friends, e.g. his confidants Balbus and Oppius. In these a cypher was, where necessary, employed. Cf. Sueton. Iul. 56, and Gell. xvii. 9, 1.

6. Speeches.—About a dozen titles of speeches are known, but only a few detached words and phrases survive. As an orator, Caesar stood in the front rank (Sueton. Iul. 55). For encomiums on his style see Cic. Brut. 252, and Quintilian, x. 1, 114, who considered him second only to Cicero, and remarkable for vis, acumen, concitatio, and elegantia. The language of Tac. Dial. 21 is less complimentary, ‘Nisi forte quisquam aut Caesaris pro Decio Samnite aut Bruti pro Deiotaro rege ceterosque eiusdem lentitudinis ac teporis libros legit, nisi qui et carmina eorumdem miratur.’

7. Poems.—Caesar in his youth composed a poem in praise of Hercules, and a tragedy, Oedipus. Plutarch (Caes. 2) speaks of him as reciting poems of his own composition to the pirates who took him prisoner. On his journey from Rome to Spain, B.C. 46, he wrote a descriptive poem with the title of Iter.

Sueton. Iul. 56, ‘Reliquit ... poema quod inscribitur Iter ... [fecit] dum ab urbe in Hispaniam ulteriorem quarto et vicensimo die pervenit ... Feruntur et a puero et ab adulescentulo quaedam scripta, ut Laudes Herculis, tragoedia Oedipus, item Dicta Collectanea: quos omnes libellos vetuit Augustus publicari, in epistula quam brevem admodum ac simplicem ad Pompeium Macrum, cui ordinandas bibliothecas delegaverat, misit.’

Pliny the younger mentions Caesar as a love poet (Ep. v. 3, 5). His poetry is spoken of by Tacitus in no flattering terms, Dial. 21, ‘fecerunt enim [Caesar et Brutus] et carmina et in bibliothecas rettulerunt, non melius quam Cicero, sed felicius, quia illos fecisse pauciores sciunt.’

The only extant lines are those on Terence (q.v.).

C. ASINIUS POLLIO.

C. Asinius Pollio (B.C. 76-A.D. 5), governor of Farther Spain B.C. 44, consul B.C. 40, retired from public life after his Dalmatian triumph, B.C. 39. He was famous as an orator, and was the author of (1) A history of the civil wars from B.C. 60 (Hor. Od. ii. 1, 1 sqq.). (2) Tragedies (Verg. Ecl. 8, 10; Hor. Sat. i. 10, 42; Od. ii. 1, 9 sqq.) and love poems (Plin. Ep. v. 3, 5). (3) A work in which the style of Sallust was criticized (Sueton. Gramm. 10). His remarks on Caesar, Cicero, and Livy may be from the same book (Sueton. Iul. 56; Quint. xii. 1, 22; i. 5, 56).

For Pollio’s style, cf. Quint. x. 1, 113, ‘A nitore et iucunditate Ciceronis ita longe abest ut videri possit saeculo prior.’ Pollio founded the first public library at Rome, in the Atrium Libertatis, B.C. 38 (Plin. N.H. xxxv. 10), For his intimacy with the poet Cinna, who wrote the Propempticon Pollionis in his honour, see p. 142; and for his patronage of Virgil and Horace, see Verg. Ecl. 3, 84; 8, 6-13; Hor. Sat. i. 10, 42. Pollio, of course, belongs to the Augustan Age, but is mentioned here because of his connexion with the Corpus Caesarianum.

CORNELIUS NEPOS.

(1) LIFE.

The praenomen of Cornelius Nepos is unknown. In Pliny, N.H. iii. 127, he is called ‘Padi adcola,’ and in Pliny, Ep. iv. 28, 1 (to Vibius Severus), he is mentioned as a townsman of T. Catius, ‘Imagines municipum tuorum, Cornelii Nepotis et T. Cati.’ Now T. Catius was an Insubrian (Cic. ad Fam. xv. 16, 1), and as the only Insubrian town on the Padus was Ticinum, Nepos was probably born there.

There is no direct evidence as to the date of his birth but we may infer from the following facts that he was born not long before B.C. 100.

1. Jerome puts his literary activity under B.C. 40 = yr. Abr. 1977, ‘Cornelius Nepos scriptor historicus clarus habetur.’

2. A son of his died B.C. 44 while a boy, and unknown to Cicero.

Cic. ad Att. xvi. 14, 4, ‘Male narras de Nepotis filio: valde mehercule moveor et moleste fero; nescieram omnino esse istum puerum.’

3. The respect with which he looks up to Atticus, who was born B.C. 109.

4. A fragment of his Exempla quoted by Pliny, N.H. ix. 136, regarding the changes of fashion in purple robes: ‘Nepos Cornelius, qui divi Augusti principatu obiit, “Me,” inquit, “iuvene violacea purpura vigebat, ... nec multo post rubra Tarentina. Huic successit dibapha Tyria... Hac P. Lentulus Spinther aedilis curulis (B.C. 63) primus in praetexta usus improbabatur. Qua purpura quis non iam,” inquit, “triclinaria facit?”’

Nepos held no public office, but confined himself to literature, in which he was associated with Atticus. Their intimacy must have begun after B.C. 65, when Atticus returned to Rome from Athens, where he had lived more than twenty years.

Pliny, Ep. v. 3, 6, ‘P. Vergilius, Cornelius Nepos ... Non quidem hi senatores.’

Nep. Att. 13, 7, ‘Atque hoc non auditum, sed cognitum praedicamus: saepe enim propter familiaritatem domesticis rebus interfuimus.’

Nepos knew Cicero, doubtless, through Atticus, but there is no evidence that they were intimate, except Gell. xv. 28, 1, who is probably mistaken, ‘Cornelius Nepos ... M. Ciceronis ut qui maxime amicus familiaris fuit.’ A fragment of a letter from Cicero to Nepos is quoted by Sueton. Iul. 55; from Nepos to Cicero by Lactant. inst. div. iii. 15, 10; and Fronto (p. 20, ed. Naber) speaks of a collection of Cicero’s works revised by Nepos and Atticus.

Nepos was on intimate terms with Catullus, whom, as coming from Verona, he may have known in early life. Catullus, who is mentioned by Nepos (Att. 12, 4), dedicated a collection of poems to him (Catull. 1). Nepos was alive in B.C. 29, in which, or the following year, he completed the life of Atticus.

As regards Nepos’ character and views, Pliny, Ep. v. 3, 6, attributes to him sanctitas morum. The words of Cicero, ad Att. xvi. 5, 5, imply only a playful compliment, ‘Et ais, “μετ’ ἀμύμονα.” Tu vero ἀμύμων, ille [Nepos] quidem ἄμβροτος.’

Nepos’ slight regard for philosophy is shown by a letter to Cicero quoted by Lactant. inst. div. iii. 15, 10, ‘Tantum abest, ut ego magistram esse putem vitae philosophiam beataeque vitae perfectricem, ut nullis magis existimem opus esse magistris vivendi quam plerisque, qui in ea disputanda versantur.’

Cf. also Cic. ad Att. xvi. 5, 5, ‘Nepotis epistulam exspecto. Cupidus ille meorum? qui ea, quibus maxime γαυριῶ, legenda non putet.’

Philosophy, according to Nepos, ought to be practical.

Nep. Att. 17, 3, ‘Nam principum philosophorum ita percepta habuit praecepta, ut his ad vitam agendam, non ad ostentationem uteretur.’

Nepos, as is shown by his works, supported government by the Senate.

(2) WORKS.

1. Erotic poems; mentioned by Pliny, Ep. v. 3, 6.

2. Chronica, in three books, embracing universal history. Catull. 1,

‘Quoi dono lepidum novom libellum
arida modo pumice expolitum?
Corneli, tibi; namque tu solebas
meas esse aliquid putare nugas
iam tum, cum ausus es unus Italorum
omne aevom tribus explicare chartis,
doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis.’

It is clear, from the above, that Nepos had mentioned Catullus in the work. That the mythical period was treated of is shown by Ausonius, Ep. 16, ‘Apologos Titiani et Nepotis chronica quasi alios apologos (nam et ipsa instar sunt fabularum) ... misi ... ad institutionem tuorum.’

From Catullus we may possibly infer that the Chronica were written before B.C. 63[31]; unus Italorum would imply that they were written before the similar works of Varro and Atticus.

3. Exempla, in at least five Books, treating of the history of Roman manners.

Gell. vi. 18, 11, ‘Cornelius Nepos in libro exemplorum quinto.’

4. Life of the elder Cato.

Nep. Cat. 3, 5, ‘Huius de vita et moribus plura in eo libro persecuti sumus, quem separatim de eo fecimus rogatu T. Pomponii Attici. Quare studiosos Catonis ad illud volumen delegamus.’

5. Life of Cicero, written after his death (B.C. 43). Gell. xv. 28, 2, ‘in primo librorum, quos de vita illius composuit.’

6. A geographical work, referred to by Pliny, N.H. v. 4, etc. All the above works are lost.

7. De Viris Illustribus, his last work, was dedicated to Atticus (praef. i); an addition to the life of Atticus was made after his death.

Att. 19, 1, ‘Hactenus Attico vivo edita a nobis sunt. Nunc, quoniam fortuna nos superstites ei esse voluit, reliqua persequemur.’

From Att. 12, 1-2, we may conclude that the publication took place between B.C. 35 and 33. The addition to the life of Atticus was written at some time between B.C. 31 and 27, as in Att. 19, 2, Octavian is called imperator, but not Augustus, a title which he received in the last-mentioned year.

The work contained at least sixteen Books: cf. Charis. G.L. i. 141 (ed. Keil), ‘Cornelius Nepos illustrium virorum libro xvi.’; and was divided into sections of two Books each, the first on distinguished foreigners, the second on distinguished Romans of the same class. We possess the book de excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium; from de historicis Latinis the lives of Cato the Censor and Atticus, and fragments of the letters of Cornelia, mother of the Gracci. There are also mentioned the books de regibus (Nep. de reg. 1, 1; 3, 5); de excellentibus ducibus Romanorum (Nep. Hann. 13, 4); de historicis Graecis (Nep. Dion, 3, 2); de poetis (Sueton. p. 31 R.); de grammaticis (Sueton. p. 103 R.). The work probably dealt also with iurisconsulti, oratores, and philosophi. The book is biographical rather than historical, and is designed to compare foreigners with Romans, and to please, as well as instruct, those ignorant of Greek culture.

Pel. 1, 1, ‘Vereor ... ne non vitam eius enarrare, sed historiam videar scribere.’

Hann. 13, 4, ‘Tempus est ... Romanorum explicare imperatores, quo facilius collatis utrorumque factis, qui viri praeferendi sint, possit iudicari.’

Pel. 1, 1, ‘Medebor cum satietati tum ignorantiae lectorum.’

Praef. 2, ‘Hi erunt fere, qui expertes litterarum Graecarum,’ etc.

Besides tradition and his own recollection, Nepos mentions the following sources: Thucydides (Them. 1, 4, etc.); Xenophon (Ag. 1, 1); Plato’s Symposium (Alc. 2, 2); Theopompus (Alc. 11, 1); Dinon (Con. 5, 4); Timaeus (Alc. 11, 1); Silenus, Sosilus, Polybius, Sulpicius Blitho, Atticus (Hann. 13, 1 and 3); the writings of Hannibal (Hann. 13, 2); Speeches and Origines of Cato (Cat. 3, 2); Cicero’s works, especially Epp. ad Att. (Att. 16, 3). The book contains lives of twenty Greek generals from the Persian wars to the time of Alexander’s successors; a short article on Persian and Macedonian kings who were also generals; and the lives of Hamilcar and Hannibal, Cato and Atticus. The work possesses little independent value, and the following are the chief faults:

1. There are many mistakes in history and geography.

2. The biographies, and the events recorded in them, are badly arranged; eulogy is employed indiscriminately, and petty anecdotes are too frequent.

3. Important names, as Cimon and Lysander, are dismissed too briefly; others, as Atticus and Datames, are treated too fully. Many are left out altogether, as some of the leaders in the Peloponnesian war.

4. Important authorities are not used: so Herodotus, for Miltiades, Themistocles, and Pausanias. No use is made of the Hellenica of Xenophon.

For views on Nepos, cf. Gell. xv. 28, 1, ‘Cornelius Nepos rerum memoriae non indiligens.’

Pliny, N.H. v. 4, ‘Portentosa Graeciae mendacia ... quaeque alia Cornelius Nepos avidissime credidit.’

Nepos is not mentioned by Quintilian in his list of Roman historians.

In the MSS. only the Atticus and the Cato are ascribed to Nepos, the rest being entitled Liber Aemilii Probi de excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium. It has been suggested that this arose from a misapprehension of em(endavi) Probus. There is an epigram by this Probus in the MSS., referring to poems of his and standing after the Life of Hannibal, which informs us that he was a contemporary of Theodosius (probably Theodosius I., A.D. 379-395). That the work cannot be by him is shown by the political references, which suit only the beginning of the empire, by the mention of Atticus in the preface, and by the correspondence in style between the book and the lives of Atticus and Cato, admittedly the work of Nepos; also by the fact that L. Ampelius, who probably wrote before the time of Diocletian, used the work in his Liber Memorialis.

LUCRETIUS.

Our information about Lucretius’ life is very scanty. Jerome yr. Abr. 1922 = B.C. 95, ‘T. Lucretius poeta nascitur, qui postea amatorio poculo in furorem versus, cum aliquot libros per intervalla insaniae conscripsisset, quos postea Cicero emendavit, propria se manu interfecit anno aetatis xliiii.’ (B.C. 52 or 51).

Donatus, vit. Verg. 2, ‘Initia aetatis Cremonae egit [Vergilius] usque ad virilem togam, quam xv. anno natali suo accepit isdem illis consulibus iterum duobus quibus erat natus, evenitque ut eo ipso die Lucretius poeta decederet’ (October 15).

Teuffel thinks xliiii. is wrong, and would read xlii., thus giving the dates as B.C. 96-55, as he thinks that Jerome has fixed the date of birth one year too late. Munro (vol. ii. p. 1) accepts xliiii., but thinks that Jerome (as elsewhere) is a few years wrong in the date of Lucretius’ birth, and gives the dates as B.C. 99-55. It is impossible to decide as to the date of birth, but most authorities agree on B.C. 55 as the date of death, a view which is supported by the only contemporary reference to the poet: Cic. ad Q.F. ii. 11, 4 (written in February, B.C. 54), ‘Lucreti poemata, ut scribis, ita sunt: multis luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis; sed cum veneris. Virum te putabo, si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo.’

The above extract is given in the reading of the MSS. Some editors read non before multis, others non before multae, but it is best to follow the MSS. (with Tyrrell), translating “But when you come (we shall talk about it). I shall consider you a hero, if you read Sallust’s Empedoclea; I shall not consider you a human being.”

As regards Lucretius’ madness, there is no absolute impossibility in the story. Munro (vol. ii. pp. 2, 3) accepts Jerome’s account of Cicero’s editorship; others, less probably, believe that Q. Cicero was editor. The first view is rendered probable by the high opinion Lucretius had of Cicero, as seen from the frequency with which he imitates his Aratea (Munro on Lucr. v. 619), and from the knowledge Cicero shows of Lucretius’ work, as in Tusc. i. 48.

The poet’s full name is given in the MSS. as T. Lucretius Carus.

This is all the direct evidence regarding Lucretius’ life.[32] The de rerum natura is addressed to C. Memmius.[33] From Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 1 (where Cicero tells us he employed his good offices with Memmius on behalf of Patro for the preservation of the gardens of Epicurus), it appears that he was not an Epicurean. Memmius is the only contemporary mentioned by Lucretius; i. 24,

‘Te sociam studeo scribendis versibus esse
quos ego de rerum natura pangere conor
Memmiadae nostro, quem tu, dea, tempore in omni
omnibus ornatum voluisti excellere rebus.’

Many, arguing from the fact that Carus is not known elsewhere as a cognomen of the gens Lucretia, think that the poet was a freedman or a freedman’s son, but from the tone of equality in which he addresses Memmius, it is more probable that he was a patrician; cf. i. 140,

‘Sed tua me virtus tamen et sperata voluptas
suavis amicitiae quemvis sufferre laborem
suadet.’

Several personal characteristics may be inferred from the poem:

1. His earnestness and sincerity; iii. 28,

‘His ibi me rebus quaedam divina voluptas
percipit atque horror,’ etc.

Cf. the importance he attaches to his subject, i. 926,

‘Avia Pieridum peragro loca nullius ante
trita solo.’

2. His admiration for the great men of the past. Cf. iii. 1024-52, where Ancus, the Scipios, Homer, Democritus, and Epicurus are praised; the introductions to Books i., iii., v., vi., on Epicurus; i. 716-33 on Empedocles; i. 117-9 on Ennius.

3. His powers of observation and love of nature. Cf. i. 716-25; ii. 29 sqq., 40 sqq.; 323-32; iv. 572 sqq.

4. His experience of women. Book iv. 1037-the end.

5. His wide reading. The poem shows knowledge of Epicurus, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Plato, the Stoic writers, Thucydides, Hippocrates, Homer, Euripides. Among Latin writers Ennius, Naevius, Pacuvius, Lucilius, and Accius are all imitated.

There is a reference to contemporary history in i. 41-3,

‘Nam neque nos agere hoc patriai tempore iniquo
possumus aequo animo nec Memmi clara propago
talibus in rebus communi desse saluti.’

Munro thinks that these lines were written B.C. 59, when Memmius was praetor designatus, in fierce opposition to Caesar, and on the side of the Senate. If this is so, the poem was probably written between B.C. 60 and 55. The lines on ambition and its attendant evils (as iii. 931 sqq., v. 1117-35, etc.) may have been written with a special view to the facts of Memmius’ life. Lucretius may refer to his recollection of the civil wars in v. 999,

‘At non multa virum sub signis milia ducta
una dies dabat exitio.’

In ii. 40 sqq. there is perhaps a reference to Caesar’s army in the Campus Martius at the beginning of B.C. 58.

The de rerum natura is an exposition of Epicureanism, especially on its physical side; i. 54,

‘Nam tibi de summa caeli ratione deumque
disserere incipiam et rerum primordia pandam,’ etc.

The title is taken from Epicurus’ περὶ φύσεως, which Lucretius followed closely, as is evident from the account of the Epicurean philosophy in Diogenes Laertius, x., and from the fragments of Epicurean writers discovered at Herculaneum in 1752. He probably used as his model Empedocles’ poem περὶ φύσεως.

The object of the poem is to deliver men from the fear of death and of the gods; iii. 37,

‘Et metus ille foras praeceps Acheruntis agendus’;

i. 62-101; cf. l. 101,

‘Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.’

Note that the invocation to Venus at the beginning of the poem is not inconsistent, but is an address to the universal principle of generation; cf. i. 21,

‘Quae quoniam rerum naturam sola gubernas.’

The scope of the Books is as follows: Books i. and ii. state the physical theories of Democritus and Epicurus. Book i. states the Atomic Theory of Democritus, held by Epicurus, that the world consists of atoms and void. The theories of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, etc. are refuted; i. 740,

‘Principiis tamen in rerum fecere ruinas
et graviter magni magno cecidere ibi casu.’

Book ii. treats of the combinations of atoms, and the principle of the swerve introduced to explain free-will. The varieties of atoms are shown to be limited. In Book iii. the nature of the mind and life is shown to be material. Religio and the fear of death (cf. ll. 978 sqq.) are attacked principally in this Book; iii. 830,

‘Nil igitur mors est ad nos neque pertinet hilum,
quandoquidem natura animi mortalis habetur.’

Book iv. treats of the theory of simulacra or images, of the senses, and particularly of love. Book v. treats of the formation of the earth and the heavenly bodies, the origin of life, and the progress of civilization. It is shown that nothing has been created, and that everything must perish. Book vi. treats of abnormal phenomena, such as thunder and lightning, tempests, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. The plague at Athens is described (from Thucydides). Books v. and vi. are unfinished.

Ethical views are given only by the way, the poem being primarily on physics. Pleasure is the end of action: ii. 172, ‘dux vitae dia voluptas.’ This pleasure is the absence of disturbance (ἀταραξία), hence all passion (as of love, iv. 1121-40) is deprecated; ii. 14,

‘O miseras hominum mentes, o pectora caeca!
qualibus in tenebris vitae quantisque periclis
degitur hoc aevi quodcumque est! nonne videre
nil aliud sibi naturam latrare, nisi utqui
corpore seiunctus dolor absit, mente fruatur
iucundo sensu cura semota metuque?’

Lucretius, as Epicurus, is often weak in physics. Cf. v. 564 sqq., of the sun’s size,

‘Nec nimio solis maior rota nec minor ardor
esse potest, nostris quam sensibus esse videtur.’

In i. 1052 sqq. he states well the theory of the antipodes but his dependence on Epicurus will not allow him to accept it. Reasons are sometimes given for a thing that never existed, as in iv. 710-21 for the fear that a lion has for a cock. Some passages come near the results of modern science, cf. v. 837 sqq. on extinct species; v. 855 sqq. on the struggle for existence; v. 610-3, on the invisible rays of the sun.

The references to Lucretius by name are few.

Nep. Att. 12, 4, ‘L. Iulium Calidum, quem post Lucreti Catullique mortem multo elegantissimum poetam nostram tulisse aetatem vere videor posse contendere.’

Ovid, Am. i. 15, 23,

‘Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucreti,
exitio terras cum dabit una dies.’

Trist. ii. 425,

‘Explicat ut causas rapidi Lucretius ignis.’

Stat. Silv. ii. 7, 76,

‘docti furor arduus Lucreti.’

Quint. x. 1, 87, ‘Macer et Lucretius legendi quidem, sed non ut phrasin, id est, corpus eloquentiae faciant; elegantes in sua quisque materia, sed alter humilis alter difficilis.’

Cf. Tac. Dial. 23.

His influence on Virgil is seen passim. Cf. Gell. i. 21, 7, ‘Non verba sola sed versus prope totos et locos quoque Lucreti plurimos sectatum esse Vergilium videmus.’

Verg. Georg. ii. 490 sqq. and Ecl. 6, 31 sqq. refer to Lucretius. Georg. ii. 490,

‘Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum
subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avari.’

Horace has also imitated him in several places: so Sat. i. 3, 99-110 (on primitive man) = Lucr. v. 1028 sqq.; Sat. i. 5, 101 sqq. = Lucr. v. 82 sqq. Most of the poets after him, particularly Manilius, came under his influence.

SALLUST.

(1) LIFE.

C. Sallustius Crispus was born B.C. 86 at Amiternum, in the country of the Sabines, and died B.C. 35.

Jerome yr. Abr. 1931 = B.C. 86, ‘Sallustius Crispus, scriptor historicus, in Sabinis Amiterni nascitur.’ Ibid. 1982 = B.C. 35, ‘Sallustius diem obiit, quadriennio ante Actiacum bellum.’

Sallust was of plebeian family, as is seen from the fact that he was afterwards tribunus plebis. According to the Pseud.-Cic. in Sallustium declamatio, 13-14, he led an evil life in youth, and brought his father with sorrow to the grave.

Cf. § 14, ‘Cuiquam dubium potest esse, quin mori coegerit eum [patrem]?’

There is a story that Milo punished him for an amour with his wife.

Gell. xvii. 18, ‘M. Varro ... in libro quem scripsit “Pius aut de pace,” C. Sallustium scriptorem seriae illius et severae orationis, in cuius historia notiones censorias fieri atque exerceri videmus, in adulterio deprehensum ab Annio Milone loris bene caesum dicit et, cum dedisset pecuniam, dimissum.’

The story is corroborated by Pseud.-Cic. in Sall. 15; by Macrob. iii. 13, 9, ‘alienae luxuriae obiurgator et censor,’ and others; and Sallust himself appears to admit that there was something wrong; Cat. 4, ‘a quo incepto studioque me ambitio mala detinuerat.’[34]

Sallust speaks of the political offices he filled, and of the class of men who were unsuccessful candidates about the same time—a supposed reference to M. Cato’s candidature for the praetorship, B.C. 55.

Iug. 4, ‘Qui si reputaverint, et quibus ego temporibus magistratus adeptus sim et quales viri idem adsequi nequiverint,’ etc.

After being quaestor (Pseud.-Cic. in Sall. 15), he was, in B.C. 52, tribunus plebis, when he and other two tribunes opposed Cicero in his defence of Milo.

Ascon. in Cic. pro Mil. p. 33 (Kiessl. and Schöll), ‘C. Sallustius et T. Munatius Plancus tr. pleb. inimicissimas contiones de Milone habebant.’

In B.C. 50, Sallust was legatus pro quaestore to Bibulus in Syria, according to Mommsen (Hermes, i. 171), who thinks that the Sallust to whom Cicero writes ad Fam. ii. 17 is the historian. In the same year he was expelled from the Senate by the censors, Appius Claudius and L. Piso.

Pseud.-Cic. in Sall. 16, ‘neque post illum delectum senatus vidimus te.’

In B.C. 49, Caesar reappointed him quaestor, and he resumed his place in the Senate.

Pseud.-Cic. in Sall. 17, ‘in senatum post quaesturam est reductus.’

In B.C. 48, he commanded a legion in Illyria without distinction (Orosius vi, 15, 8), and next year he was Caesar’s agent with the insurgent legions in Campania (Appian, B.C. ii. 92). In B.C. 46 he was praetor, and as such commanded successfully an expedition to seize the enemy’s stores in Cercina.

Bell. Afr. 8, ‘Item C. Sallustium Crispum praetorem ad Cercinam insulam versus, quam adversarii tenebant, cum parte navium ire iubet.’ (See also c. 34.)

At the end of the year he was appointed proconsul of Numidia.

Ibid. 97, ‘Ibi Sallustio pro consule cum imperio relicto ipse Zama egressus Uticam se recepit.’

As proconsul, he plundered the province, and bought, probably with the spoils, the horti Sallustiani, which afterwards belonged to the Roman emperors (see Tac. Ann. xiii. 47; Hist. iii. 82).

Pseud.-Cic. in Sall. 19, ‘Nonne ita provinciam vastavit, ut nihil neque passi sint neque exspectaverint gravius in bello socii nostri, quam experti sint in pace hoc Africam interiorem obtinente?’

Sallust is said to have married Terentia, whom Cicero had divorced (Jerome adv. Iov. 1). Probably he had no son, as he adopted a grandson of his sister.

Tac. Ann. iii. 30, ‘Crispum equestri ortum loco C. Sallustius, rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor, sororis nepotem in nomen adscivit.’

After Caesar’s death, Sallust retired from public life, and, having no taste for sport or agriculture, spent his leisure in writing history.

Cat. 4, ‘Ubi ... mihi reliquam aetatem a re publica procul habendam decrevi, non fuit consilium socordia atque desidia bonum otium conterere, neque vero agrum colundo aut venando servilibus officiis intentum aetatem agere; sed ... statui res gestas populi Romani carptim, ut quaeque memoria digna videbantur, perscribere.’

Sallust, as above stated, died B.C. 35.

(2) WORKS.

1. De Catilinae Coniuratione (so Cat. 4). The book is called bellum Catilinae by Quint. iii. 8, 9, and in some MSS.; in MSS. also bellum Catilinarium. The work was written after Caesar’s death (Cat. 53-4). It is, as Mommsen (R.H. iv. 184, note) states, a political pamphlet in the interests of the democratic party (on which the monarchy was based), and tries to clear Caesar from the charge of being implicated in the Catilinarian conspiracy, and collaterally performing the same service for C. Antonius, the uncle of the triumvir.

Cf. Cat. 49, ‘Sed isdem temporibus Q. Catulus et C. Piso neque pretio neque gratia Ciceronem inpellere potuere, uti per Allobroges aut alium indicem C. Caesar falso nominaretur. Nam uterque cum illo gravis inimicitias exercebant ... Sed ubi consulem ad tantum facinus inpellere nequeunt,’ etc. (Cf. also Caesar’s speech in Cat. 51.)

Cat. 59, ‘At ex altera parte C. Antonius pedibus aeger, quod proelio adesse nequibat, M. Petreio legato exercitum permittit.’ Dion Cassius, xxxvii. 39, on the other hand, says that this was a pretence, Antonius being unwilling to fight against his old confederate.

2. Bellum Iugurthinum. (So in MSS. and Quint. iii. 8, 9.)

Iug. 5, ‘Bellum scripturus sum, quod populus Romanus cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum et atrox variaque victoria fuit, dehinc quia tunc primum superbiae nobilitatis obviam itum est.’

The object of the book is to give a picture of the low state of the oligarchical government (cf. Iug. 8, ‘Romae omnia venalia esse’), and to glorify Marius, the chief of the democratic party.

Of his sources, Sallust mentions Sisenna (Iug. 95) for information about Sulla, and native authorities for African ethnography.

Iug. 17, ‘Sed qui mortales initio Africam habuerint, quique postea adcesserint, aut quo modo inter se permixti sint ... uti ex libris Punicis, qui regis Hiempsalis dicebantur, interpretatum nobis est ... dicam.’

Sallust probably also used the memoirs of Scaurus, Sulla, and Catulus.

3. Historiae.—This work dealt with the events from B.C. 78 to 67. Cf. Ausonius, p. 264 (ed. Peiper),

‘Ab Lepido et Catulo iam res et tempora Romae
orsus his senos seriem conecto per annos.’

There is no reference in the fragments to any event after B.C. 67. The book took up the history where Sisenna had left off, B.C. 78. Cf. i. frag. 1 (ed. Maurenbrecher), ‘Res populi Romani M. Lepido Q. Catulo coss. ac deinde militiae et domi gestas composui.’

Four speeches and two letters from the Histories have been preserved in a collection of Sallustian speeches and letters made for rhetorical purposes, probably in the second century A.D. Besides these there are considerable fragments, chiefly from Books ii. and iii. We may conclude from Iug. 95, ‘neque enim alio loco de Sullae rebus dicturi sumus,’ that the career of Sulla was not treated of in the Histories. He is, however, repeatedly mentioned.

Two works are falsely attributed to Sallust:

1. Oratio invectiva in Tullium, composed, along with an Oratio invectiva in Sallustium falsely ascribed to Cicero, by the same ancient rhetorician. The Or. in Tull. is quoted by Quintilian, if the MSS. are right, e.g. iv. 1, 68.

2. An oration and an epistle ad Caesarem senem de re publica, both probably belonging to the imperial period.

Sallust as a historian.—1. He departed from the annalistic arrangement, and took a broader view of his subject, endeavouring to connect events together, and to trace the motives of actions.

2. He shows a want of precision in his facts. Instead of giving dates, he often says vaguely interea; isdem temporibus; dum haec aguntur. One year in the Jugurthine war is left unaccounted for, and Marius is represented as consul in B.C. 105. So in geography and ethnography (as in the Iugurtha) he is not to be trusted. In Iug. 21 he forgets that Cirta is fifty miles from the sea, and that city is besieged in the usual way, though surrounded on three sides by gorges.

He prides himself on his impartiality.

Cat. 4, ‘Mihi a spe, metu, partibus rei publicae animus liber erat.’ So Hist. i. fr. 6.

His leaning to the popular party, however, has been shown above.

3. His speeches do not always suit the speaker or his audience, and are not historical. Thus the speech of Catiline (Cat. 20) does not suit his audience and is not authentic, and that of Marius (Iug. 85) is too learned for the speaker.

4. His prefaces have little to do with what follows. Cf. Quint. iii. 8, 9, ‘C. Sallustius in bello Iugurthino et Catilinae nihil ad historiam pertinentibus principiis orsus est.’

5. He is too fond of hackneyed moral maxims and trite sayings. Thus:

Cat. i, ‘Sed nostra omnis vis in animo et corpore sita est,’ etc.

Iug. 2, ‘Nam uti genus hominum compositum ex corpore et anima est, ita res cunctae studiaque omnia nostra corporis alia, alia animi naturam secuntur.’

His tone is that of a severe moralist.

Cat. 3, ‘Sed ego adulescentulus initio sicuti plerique studio ad rem publicam latus sum, ibique mihi multa advorsa fuere. Nam pro pudore, pro abstinentia, pro virtute audacia, largitio, avaritia vigebant,’ etc.

As this moralizing did not fit in with the facts of his life he was censured for it, as shown above.

Sallust’s authorities and models.—Besides the authorities mentioned above, he used a breviarium rerum omnium Romanarum prepared for him by the grammarian Ateius (Sueton. Gramm. 10). He is said to have borrowed phrases from Cato.

Quint. viii. 3, 29, ‘Nec minus noto Sallustius epigrammate incessitur:

“Et verba antiqui multum furate Catonis,
Crispe, Iugurthinae conditor historiae.”’

The similarity of Sallust’s style to that of Thucydides, whom he tried to emulate, was remarked by the ancients.

Quint. ix. 3, 17, ‘Ex Graeco vero translata vel Sallustii plurima, quale est “volgus amat fieri”’ [Iug. 34, a poor instance, and wrongly quoted]. Cf. Cat. 6, ‘magisque dandis quam accipiundis beneficiis amicitias parabant,’ and Thuc. ii. 40, 4, οὐ γὰρ πάσχοντες εὖ ἀλλὰ δρῶντες κτώμεθα τοὺς φίλους: Iug. 73, ‘in maius celebrare,’ and Thuc. i. 10, 3, ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον κοσμῆσαι.

Sallust’s popularity is shown by the numerous references to him, particularly in Quintilian. Cf. Quint. x. 1, 101, ‘At non historia cesserit Graecis, nec opponere Thucydidi Sallustium verear’; § 102, ‘immortalem illam Sallustii velocitatem.’ Cf. also Martial, xiv. 191, ‘primus Romana Crispus in historia.’ Tacitus is the most important writer influenced by Sallust. For imitations cf. Tac. Agr. 37, where part of the description of a battle is modelled on Iug. 101. Cf. also Cat. 43, ‘facto non consulto in tali periculo opus esse,’ and Tac. Hist. i. 62, ‘ubi facto magis quam consulto opus esset.’

CATULLUS.

The poet’s full name, C.[35] Valerius Catullus, is got from Jerome and other authorities quoted below, as also his birthplace, Verona, to which Catullus himself refers (c. 67, 34, ‘Veronae meae’; 68, 27; 100, 2). The dates of his birth and death are uncertain. Jerome gives them as B.C. 87-58.

Yr. Abr. 1930 = B.C. 87, ‘Gaius Valerius Catullus scriptor lyricus Veronae nascitur.’

Yr. Abr. 1959 = B.C. 58, ‘Catullus xxx. aetatis anno Romae moritur.’ His early death is referred to by Ovid, Am. iii. 9, 61,

‘Obvius huic [Tibullo] venias hedera iuvenilia cinctus
tempora, cum Calvo, docte Catulle, tuo’;

but it is quite certain that the year of his death given by Jerome as B.C. 58 is wrong. In c. 113, 2, the second consulship of Pompeius in B.C. 55 is referred to, and cc. 11 and 29 were written after Caesar’s expedition to Britain in B.C. 55. C. 52 used to be taken as referring to B.C. 47, from l. 3, ‘per consulatum perierat Vatinius,’ but, as shown below, was written in B.C. 55 or 54. As no clear reference is found to any event after B.C. 54 (a highly important time, which would have been likely to produce some sarcastic poetry from Catullus), it is best to accept the view that Catullus lived from 87 to 54 or 53 B.C. B. Schmidt (ed. mai. 1887, prolegomena), on the other hand, fixes the dates as 82-52 B.C. (accepting Jerome’s account of Catullus’ age), and attributes c. 38 (to Cornificius) to the latter year.

Catullus’ family was wealthy and of good position, as is seen from his having estates at Sirmio (c. 31) and Tibur (c. 44), and from the fact that his father was a friend of Julius Caesar.

Sueton. Iul. 73, ‘Hospitioque patris eius [Catulli], sicut consueverat, uti perseveravit.’

Catullus went to Rome early, and there, as Schmidt thinks, was taught by the grammarian Valerius Cato, to whom c. 56 is probably addressed. From c. 68, 34-5, we see that he was settled at Rome.

          ‘Romae vivimus: illa domus,
illa mihi sedes, illic mea carpitur aetas.’

Catullus wrote love-poetry soon after taking the toga virilis; c. 68, 15,

‘Tempore quo primum vestis mihi tradita purast,
   iucundum cum aetas florida ver ageret,
multa satis lusi.’

Catullus’ love for Lesbia is the outstanding fact of his life. Her real name was Clodia, the sister of P. Clodius, nicknamed for her immorality ‘quadrantaria.’

Apuleius, Apol. 10, ‘Accusent C. Catullum quod Lesbiam pro Clodia nominarit.’

Ovid, Trist. ii. 427,

‘Sic sua lascivo cantata est saepe Catullo
   femina, cui falsum Lesbia nomen erat.’

The name Lesbia (which scans like Clodia) may be got from Sappho, the Lesbian poetess, on whom c. 51 (probably the first addressed to Clodia) is modelled. The facts known about Clodia all fit in with what Catullus tells us of Lesbia. For Lesbia’s beauty, cf. cc. 43 and 86; Clodia was called βοῶπις from her large and lustrous eyes (Cic. ad Att. ii. 9, 1; 12, 2, etc.). For her relations with her husband, cf. Cic. ad Att. ii. 1, 5 (written B.C. 60), ‘Est enim seditiosa: cum viro bellum gerit.’ A hint of the real name is got from c. 79, where the Lesbius mentioned is Clodius, just as Lesbia is Clodia,

‘Lesbius est pulcer: quid ni? quem Lesbia malit
   quam te cum tota gente, Catulle, tua.’

It is probable that the acquaintance began in B.C. 61. In B.C. 62 Clodia was the wife of Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (Cic. ad Fam. v. 2, 6), and in that year Metellus was governor of Gallia Cisalpina. Now from c. 83 it is evident that Lesbia’s husband was in Rome when she began to be annoyed by Catullus’ attentions. We may conclude from c. 30 that P. Alfenus Varus introduced Catullus to Lesbia. In that poem Catullus blames Varus for leading him on and then leaving him in the lurch. M’. Allius is next mentioned (c. 68) as a friend in whose house Catullus met Lesbia; and cc. 2, 3, 5, and 7 probably belong to this fortunate period of the poet’s love. C. 8 speaks of Lesbia’s leaving him (cf. c. 92), probably on account of her husband’s suspicions. Cf. c. 5, 1,

‘Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus,
rumoresque senum severiorum
omnes unius aestimemus assis.’

C. 107 speaks of an unexpected reconciliation (celebrated in c. 36). C. 107, 5,

‘Restituis cupido atque insperanti, ipsa refers te
   nobis. O lucem candidiore nota!’

When Catullus, on account of his brother’s death, left Rome for Verona, he already knew that Lesbia had other lovers (c. 68, ll. 27 sqq., 135 sqq.). There are many poems against his rivals: c. 82, against Quintius; c. 40, against Ravidus; cc. 74, 80, 88-91, 116, against Gellius; c. 77, against Rufus, who is attacked also in cc. 59 and 69 (this is M. Caelius Rufus, the orator, who intrigued with Clodia: Cic. pro Cael. 17, etc.); c. 79, against Lesbius (see above). After Catullus returned to Rome, he found that he had lost Lesbia’s affections. C. 70 was then written,

‘Nulli se dicit mulier mea nubere malle
   quam mihi, non si se Iuppiter ipse petat.
Dicit: sed mulier cupido quod dicit amanti,
   in vento et rapida scribere oportet aqua.’

The words of this poem show that it must have been written after the death of Clodia’s husband Metellus, which took place in B.C. 59, and it was probably written soon after that event, when Catullus had returned to Rome from Verona.

Nos. 72, 85, and especially 58, show increasing bitterness, and must, with the possible exception of 58, be assigned to the years B.C. 59 or 58. In c. 76 he prays for power to give Lesbia up; cf. ll. 23-6,

‘Non iam illud quaero, contra ut me diligat illa,
   aut, quod non potis est, esse pudica velit:
ipse valere opto et taetrum hunc deponere morbum.
   O di, reddite mi hoc pro pietate mea.’

It is probable that the separation between the lovers occurred not later than B.C. 58; otherwise Catullus would not have left for Bithynia in the next year. In c. 11, the last poem that refers to Lesbia, which, from the reference to Britain in l. 12, cannot have been written before B.C. 55, we see that Catullus is cured of his passion; cf. ll. 21-4,

‘Nec meum respectet, ut ante, amorem,
qui illius culpa cecidit velut prati
ultimi flos, praetereunte postquam
          tactus aratro est.’

In the spring of B.C. 57 Catullus went to Bithynia on the staff of the propraetor C. Memmius (cc. 10 and 28). From c. 10, 29, ‘meus sodalis Cinna est Gaius,’ we see that C. Helvius Cinna accompanied him. In c. 46, 9 he speaks of the pleasant meetings of the staff, ‘O dulces comitum valete coetus.’ C. 46 shows that Catullus left Bithynia in the spring of the following year: ll. 1-4,

‘Iam ver egelidos refert tepores ...
Linquantur Phrygii, Catulle, campi.’

The dirge in c. 101 shows that Catullus, on his way to Italy, visited his brother’s tomb in the Troad, and paid the last rites to it. C. 4, written soon after his return to Sirmio, tells us how he made his way home again. About the same time was composed the address to Sirmio in c. 31; c. 10 proves that he soon went back to Rome.

The poems against Caesar’s party belong to the years B.C. 55 and 54. In cc. 41 and 43 Catullus calls a Transpadane girl ‘decoctoris amica Formiani,’ the reference being to Mamurra, ‘the bankrupt from Formiae,’ who had been Caesar’s praefectus fabrum in Gaul, and who may have been a successful rival of Catullus in love. C. 29, written probably in B.C. 54, attacked Mamurra, and also his patrons, Caesar and Pompey. From l. 24, ‘socer generque, perdidistis omnia,’ it is clear that the poem was written before Julia’s death in September, B.C. 54; and from ll. 11-12,

‘eone nomine, imperator unice,
fuisti in ultima occidentis insula,’

that it was written after Caesar’s first expedition to Britain in B.C. 55. The poem is referred to by Sueton. Iul. 73, ‘Valerium Catullum, a quo sibi versiculis de Mamurra perpetua stigmata imposita non dissimulaverat, satis facientem eadem die adhibuit cenae hospitioque patris eius sicut consueverat uti perseveravit.’

C. 52 (against Vatinius) was written B.C. 55 or 54. It used to be assigned to B.C. 47, when Vatinius was consul, but l. 3, ‘per consulatum perierat Vatinius’ means ‘Vatinius perjures himself by his hope of the consulship’ (his name stood on the list agreed on at Luca, which is mentioned by Cic. ad Att. iv. 8b, 2); and l. 2, ‘Sella in curuli struma Nonius sedet,’ cannot refer to B.C. 47, as the only ordinary curule magistrates in that year were P. Vatinius and Q. Fufius Calenus. Among other poems against personal enemies are c. 98, against Vettius, and c. 108, against Cominius, both of them informers; and c. 84, against Arrius, who aspirated his words wrongly, and who, from l. 7, ‘hoc misso in Syriam,’ is supposed to have gone out to Syria as legatus to Crassus in B.C. 55. C. 49 is an attack on Cicero:

‘Disertissime Romuli nepotum,
quot sunt quotque fuere, Marce Tulli,
quotque post aliis erunt in annis,
gratias tibi maximas Catullus
agit, pessimus omnium poeta,
tanto pessimus omnium poeta
quanto tu optimus omnium patronus.’

The sting lies in the double entendre in the last two lines, which really mean ‘so much the worst poet of all poets, as you are the best advocate of all clients, good and bad.’ So Cicero is called in a good sense omnium patronus by Caecina in Cic. ad Fam. vi. 7, 4. The poem has special reference to B.C. 54, when Cicero defended Vatinius (whom he had reviled two years before in the speech Pro Sestio), when prosecuted by Catullus’ friend, Calvus (cf. c. 14, 1-3); and thanks Cicero ironically for some criticism he had passed on his poems. Catullus attacks several contemporary poets; so in c. 22, Suffenus, who in c. 14 is coupled with Caesius and Aquinus; Volusius in cc. 36 and 95; cf. 36, 1, ‘Annales Volusi, cacata charta.’[36]

Among Catullus’ friends were Veranius and Fabullus (cc. 9, 28, etc.); P. Alfenus Varus of Cremona (cc. 10, 22, 30), consul B.C. 39, and a famous iurisconsultus. C. 61 celebrates the marriage of L. Manlius Torquatus (who was praetor B.C. 49) and Vinia Aurunculeia. Several poems are addressed to brother poets; c. 35 is to Caecilius of Novum Comum; c. 38 to Cornificius, a writer of slight love poems (Ovid, Trist. ii. 436) who died B.C. 41; c. 95 is on Cinna’s Zmyrna; cc. 14, 50, and 96 are addressed to C. Licinius Calvus; c. 56 to Valerius Cato (see above); c. 65 to Hortensius Ortalus, who asked Catullus to translate Callimachus; c. 1, and possibly c. 102, to Cornelius Nepos.

Catullus’ longer poems.—These, unlike the shorter personal poems, are mostly due to Alexandrian influence, to which Catullus may have been introduced by his teacher, Valerius Cato. To these poems Catullus owes his title doctus (Tibull. iii. 6, 41; Martial, i. 62, 1, etc.). They include: c. 66, ‘coma Berenices,’ from Callimachus; cf. c. 65, ll. 15-6,

‘Sed tamen in tantis maeroribus, Ortale, mitto
   haec expressa tibi carmina Battiadae’;

c. 68 to Allius, also Alexandrian; c. 64, the ‘Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis,’ l. 30 of which,

‘Oceanusque, mari totum qui amplectitur orbem,’

is from Euphorion, fr. 158 (Meineke), Ὠκεανὸς, τῷ πᾶσα περίρρυτος ἐνδέδεται χθών; c. 63, the ‘Attis’ in Galliambic metre; c. 62, a translation of a Sapphic epithalamium. C. 51, and possibly some parts of c. 61, are from Sappho. Catullus was the first Roman to use the Sapphic measure (in cc. 11 and 51).

Publication of the Poems.—From the arrangement of the poems, which accords neither with chronology nor with subjects, and from the large number of lines extant (2286), which does not suit libellus (c. i. 1), it is highly probable that they were not left by Catullus as we find them. C. 2, beginning ‘Passer, deliciae meae puellae,’ was the first of a series of short poems. Cf. Martial, iv. 14, 13,

‘Sic forsan tener ausus est Catullus
magno mittere passerem Maroni’;[37]

the book being named from its first word, like Arma virumque of the Aeneid. C. 1 (to Cornelius Nepos) is the first of another series of short pieces (cf. the epithet nugae in l. 4). Catullus doubtless published his larger pieces together. The traditional arrangement, due to a later hand, is as follows: (1) The lyric poems in various metres; (2) the larger poems and the elegies; (3) the shorter poems written in elegiacs. Catullus began to be popular as soon as his works were published; cf. Nep. Att. 12, 4 (quoted p. 124). He is imitated in the Priapea, in Ovid, in Ausonius, in the Ciris, in Martial, etc. C. 4 is closely parodied in Verg. Catal. 8.