The mode and date of composition and the date of publication of both commentarii have been much debated. The preface to BG 8 (p. 178 above) suggests that Hirtius produced after Caesar’s death an edition which contained both commentarii in a more extended form than what Caesar had left, continuing them even to Caesar’s death. While the extant Bellum Alexandrinum probably is Hirtius’ work, the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense certainly are not (Cluett, chapter 14, pp. 193-4), and we wonder why the extant Corpus Caesarianum shows no trace of Hirtius’ supposed continuation beyond the end of the Bellum Alexandrinum. Suetonius’ uncertainty about the author of the bella minora [lul. 56.1) indicates that he did not know Hirtius’ comprehensive edition. The text available to him probably was already the mixed bag we have. All these uncertainties suggest that perhaps Hirtius only intended or began to complete the work (confeci) in the shape he indicates in the preface to BG 8 but did not have time to realize his intention. Balbus himself may then have published the materials he found in Hirtius’ papers, although the descriptions of the later wars were originally not intended for this purpose (Rupke 1992: 220-2). However this may be, it does not help us answer the question of the initial composition and publication of the BC.
Although some scholars contest this (e. g. Barwick 1951: 86-93; Boatwright 1988: 36-7), the BC seems not only unfinished but incomplete (Batstone and Damon 2006: 29-32). Hirtius points this out (imperfectum). The final book breaks off at an unexpected point: not with the battle of Pharsalus, not with Pompey’s assassination, but with the causes of the Alexandrian War. It lacks the polish of the BG; gaps, omissions, and contradictions are obvious (listed by Klotz 1950: ix-xiv). According to Suetonius (above), Pollio noticed errors, superficial treatment, and lack of diligence in the commentarii (presumably both) that he thinks would have been corrected - if Caesar had wanted or had had the time to do so. Cicero never explicitly refers to the BC; allusions in his ‘‘Caesarian speeches’’ to arguments and catchwords used by Caesar during the civil war need not refer to the BC: they are amply attested in independent sources and at the time of the events.
All this has prompted many scholars, led by the doyen of Caesar studies, Alfred Klotz (1910), to conclude that Caesar did not publish this work and that Hirtius’ posthumous edition was the first ever. By contrast, Klaus Barwick (1951) and others proffered linguistic, political, and historical reasons suggesting that the work was written and published with a strong propagandistic purpose during the war, Books 1-2 at the end of 49, Book 3 a year or so later.
As John Collins (1959: 115) points out, however, Barwick’s ‘‘strongest arguments indicate only that the BC was written during the progress of the war, or directly after Pharsalus, and prove nothing regarding the time of publication.’’ Collins himself, considering the tone and ‘‘political program’’ of the work in its historical context, finds that the pervasive effort the author undertakes to place himself into the framework of republican traditions and to stress his determination to respect and preserve these traditions, while his opponents played havoc with them, is incompatible with the autocratic Caesar who emerged gradually after his victory at Thapsus in 47. Hence he concludes that ‘‘Barwick is correct in fixing an early date of composition, and. . . Klotz. . . in fixing a posthumous date of publication’’ (ibid. 116-25). Why, then, did Caesar compose but not publish the work? This Collins explains by the transformation of Caesar’s political outlook under the deep impressions he received in Alexandria (the ‘‘enchantress’’ Cleopatra, the tomb of Alexander, Egyptian monarchy, and the efficient Ptolemaic administration). When he finally returned to Rome, he was no longer interested in preserving republican traditions, and the BC was forgotten in Caesar’s archive until Hirtius discovered it in 44 (ibid. 125-30). Jorg Rupke adds that perhaps the forms and narrative techniques Caesar had developed in the BG and used in the BC as well eventually proved incompatible with a content that required much more complex justification (1992: 212).
The thesis of Caesar’s profound political transformation in Egypt is the weakest link in Collins’s otherwise plausible argument. Cicero’s Pro Marcello demonstrates that the ‘‘new Caesar’’ was not yet alarmingly visible even in September 46 (Gotoff 1993: xxx-xxxii), after Thapsus and Caesar’s triple triumph. Hope for reconciliation and an appeal for the restoration of the res publica were still possible, despite the accumulation of honors mentioned by later authors. Subsequent scholarship has refined and strengthened the view of the BC’s early composition. For example, Mary Boatwright draws attention to the emphasis Caesar places on the legal restrictions observed in waiting for the ‘‘right’’ year (48) to assume his second consulship and on the way he met his obligations as the rightful consul and representative of the Roman state. Such emphasis points to ‘‘the first years of the civil war, when there was still a chance of reconciliation and Caesar was appealing to the moderate Senatorial majority’’ (1988: 32-40).
Observing a striking and obviously deliberate change in the terminology Caesar uses to designate his opponents, from inimici (personal enemies) to adversarii (opponents) and especially hostes (public enemies, occurring no less than 65 times), a change that coincides with the failure of Caesar’s political strategy at the beginning of the war (in the first 33 chapters, below), R. T. Macfarlane (1996) concludes that the first section of the BC was written during or right after the events.
Martin Jehne (2000) emphasizes the profound crisis Caesar faced when returning from the East in the summer of 47: Italy was shaken by financial turmoil, riots, and revolts, the legions in Campania were in full mutiny, and in North Africa his opponents again posed a serious threat. Hence Caesar needed to enhance his public image: he emphasized his republican convictions, the justice of his cause, and his conscientious care for the Roman state and citizens throughout the war. This need to display ostentatious republicanism disappeared only after the victory at Thapsus. Hence, Jehne concludes, the BC must have been published at the time of Caesar’s return to Rome from the East, intended, despite inaccuracies and imperfections, to convince the undecided majority of elite Romans who needed arguments to justify their passiveness and their hope for improved conditions after Caesar’s victory.
We certainly need to distinguish between composition and publication. ‘‘Publication’’ at the time could be achieved by producing a few copies and sending them to carefully chosen addressees. Given Caesar’s efforts, even after Thapsus in 47, to achieve reconciliation with opponents (Mitchell 1991: 267), we would expect Cicero to have been among the recipients. Between Caesar’s return from Egypt and the fall of 46, Cicero had ample opportunity to mention the BC. His urgent appeal to the dictator in Pro Marcello, to restore the traditional republic, could have been enhanced significantly by reference to the republican convictions expressed in that commentar-ius. That he does not mention the BC at all is a powerful argument from silence. Combining this with other indications mentioned above, I consider it most likely that the BC, though written during the war, probably in segments close to the events, was neither fully completed nor published by Caesar.
World History
