The first few chapters of Caesar's Bellum Civile are notoriously untrustworthy. Much has been done by Nissen, Schmidt and others towards re-telling the story more truthfully, but our accounts are not yet fully satisfactory. Caesar's statement that he met the tribunes only after crossing the Rubicon is at first sight startling and does not accord with the story as told by Plutarch and Appian; for both of these historians make much of the fact that Caesar exhibited the tribunes upon their (...) arrival to his army, thus stirring the soldiers to action. Plutarch and Appian are evidently following Pollio, who was with Caesar on the day of crossing: they ought therefore to furnish testimony of some weight. Suetonius makes no direct statement about the matter, but the order of events as given by him seems to place him in agreement with the statement of the Bellum Civile. We have therefore Pollio, Plutarch, and Appian against the words of the Bellum Civile and Suetonius; or, more simply, Pollio against Caesar, both of whom were eye-witnesses of what occurred that day. Pollio, moreover, is the critic who questions the veracity of these very commentaries. Our acceptance of one side or the other can, therefore, hardly depend upon preponderance of authority. It will be a question of probability and probability I think we shall find resting with Plutarch and Appian. The only objection against adopting this conclusion at once, is that it seems to assume that Caesar has falsified to his own disadvantage. (shrink)

The first few chapters of Caesar's Bellum Civile are notoriously untrustworthy. Much has been done by Nissen, Schmidt and others towards re-telling the story more truthfully, but our accounts are not yet fully satisfactory. Caesar's statement that he met the tribunes only after crossing the Rubicon is at first sight startling and does not accord with the story as told by Plutarch and Appian; for both of these historians make much of the fact that Caesar exhibited the tribunes upon their (...) arrival to his army, thus stirring the soldiers to action. Plutarch and Appian are evidently following Pollio, who was with Caesar on the day of crossing: they ought therefore to furnish testimony of some weight. Suetonius makes no direct statement about the matter, but the order of events as given by him seems to place him in agreement with the statement of the Bellum Civile. We have therefore Pollio, Plutarch , and Appian against the words of the Bellum Civile and Suetonius; or, more simply, Pollio against Caesar, both of whom were eye-witnesses of what occurred that day. Pollio, moreover, is the critic who questions the veracity of these very commentaries. Our acceptance of one side or the other can, therefore, hardly depend upon preponderance of authority. It will be a question of probability and probability I think we shall find resting with Plutarch and Appian. The only objection against adopting this conclusion at once, is that it seems to assume that Caesar has falsified to his own disadvantage. (shrink)

The Pavian inscription , which is usually interpreted as indicating Augustus' last settlement of the succession, contains the name of Claudius besides those of the Julian line. Mommsen takes this fact as indicating that Claudius, though not adopted into the Julian line, was still in some way considered a member of the imperial household. I think that there is good ground for suspecting the part relating to Claudius as probably added by him at a later day, and that all arguments (...) regarding his early life which are based upon its presence on the arch should submit to a resifting. (shrink)