referring to Caesar's work, but also uses the singular, commentario, instead of libro, when speaking of his addition.

We may now return to the question whether it is probable that Caesar either published the Gallic War anonymously or, having prepared it for private circulation, had only a comparatively small number of copies made for his friends, these copies not being provided with a regular title, but passed from hand to hand with the understanding that the work was Caesar's. To both alternatives a negative answer may safely be given. The language of Hirtius (p. 220) leaves no room for doubt that in his view the Gallic War, though not perhaps a history in the technical sense, was intended for general circulation as a literary work; and the words qui sunt editi imply that it was published, as books were ordinarily published at that time.

Let us assume for a moment that Caesar thought of putting forth the Gallic War anonymously; must he not have perceived that the frequent and convincing presentation of the motives of Caesar in connection with the operations of Caesar would stamp the work as his own in the face of any possible denial? Besides, he was too wise to resort to indirect methods when the employment of a direct method would better accomplish results; and while on the one hand the Gallic War was too serious a piece of composition to have been designed merely for the information or gratification of friends, in view of the trend of affairs at Rome it was on the other hand obviously to Caesar's interest to secure for the work immediately the largest possible circulation, and to lend to it the prestige of his name. The argument ex silentio is rarely of weight; yet one is tempted to remark that if the authorship of a work by so prominent a man appearing in a period of controversy had for any reason been a matter of doubt, it is singular that there is no evidence of a break in the literary tradition regarding the authorship till the beginning of the fifth century. It is not improbable that more than one copy of the Gallic War was sent from camp into Italy; but whether the friends receiving presentation copies were few or many, we may be sure that the work was at

once made accessible to the general public under the name of the author, its distribution being in every way encouraged and facilitated by Caesar's supporters. For while it was in reality, as in appearance, a dispassionate and authoritative narrative of events, it answered the purpose of a political pamphlet, being put forth at a time when the significance of the events treated was beginning to be fully appreciated in their bearing upon momentous issues affecting the existence of the Republic, when on the part of all, partisan and opponent alike, there was the keenest desire for information in regard to Caesar as well as affairs in Gaul. If then the Gallic War from the beginning must have had a title, we may next inquire what that title was.

The language of Cicero in regard to Caesar's 'commentaries' in the passage of the Brutus already quoted (p. 220) is so complimentary as to persuade Nipperdey that at the time of writing it he could not have seen the Civil War (edition, p. 5): Quod iudicium Ciceronem facturum fuisse, si iam tum libri de bello civili editi fuissent, incredibile est. In hoc enim bello tradendo certum est alia omnia requisisse Ciceronem, quam ut Caesaris narratio calamistris inureretur.' Nipperdey apparently overlooked the fact that in 46 B.C., the year of the publication of the Brutus, there was a temporary reconciliation between Caesar and Cicero, who in the address of thanks for the pardon of Marcus Marcellus in the autumn of that year expressed in glowing terms his admiration of Caesar's clemency and other good qualities, manifesting a disposition to judge him in all things without prejudice, as witness the following words (pro Mar. 31): Ingratus est iniustusque civis, qui armorum periculo liberatus animum tamen retinet armatum, ut etiam ille melior sit, qui in acie cecidit, qui in causa animam profudit. The sincerity of Cicero's feeling toward Caesar at this time, as Tyrrell and Purser have shown (Correspondence of Cicero, V, pp. xiv-xix) is revealed in his letters. However, on other grounds it is probable that the Civil War was not published until after Caesar's death, and by commentarios we may believe that Cicero meant the seven books of the Gallic War.

In this passage of the Brutus Cicero is either using the word commentarios as a descriptive term to characterize a work, known under some other name, in such a way that the reference will be plainly understood by his readers, or else he is quoting it as a title or part of a title. With regard to the significance of commentarius in Cicero's writings there is generally no uncertainty.

In the same Brutus we find commentarii used of records of the pontifices, perhaps a compilation of decrees or resolutions (55 ex pontificum commentariis); of other records, possibly family records (60 in veteribus commentariis, 72 in antiquis commentariis); and a neuter form commentarium (sc. volumen), of a summary of the points or heads of a speech amplified in delivery (164 Ipsa illa censoria contra Cn. Domitium conlegam non est oratio, sed quasi capita rerum et orationis commentarium paulo plenius). In a letter of Caelius to Cicero written in the year 50 B.C., commentarius is applied to a collection of memoranda relating to important events in the city which was sent to Cicero in Cilicia for his information (ad. Fam. viii, 11, 4 Quam quisque sententiam dixerit, in commentario est rerum urbanarum; ex quo tu, quae digna sunt, selige; multa transi...); while in the Philippics the plural is used of Caesar's papers, documents and memoranda found after his death, both those that were really Caesar's (i, 2 nihil tum, nisi quod erat notum omnibus, in C. Caesaris commentariis reperiebatur) and those that Antony was accused of having forged (v, II Decreta falsa vendebat, regna, civitates, immunitates in aes accepta pecunia iubebat incidi. Haec se ex commentariis Caesaris, quorum ipse auctor erat, agere dicebat), and in a letter of Antony the singular occurs referring to a purpose or promise of Caesar expressed in a memorandum (ad Att. xiv, 13, A. 2 Quamquam videor debere tueri commentarium Caesaris). In a letter to Lucceius (56 B.c. ad Fam. v, 12) Cicero urges a full treatment of the events of his consulship in the historical work upon which Lucceius was then engaged, offering, if he will undertake to do this, to furnish for the purpose commentarios rerum omnium, which can be nothing else than a col

lection of notes and memoranda, the plural implying that these would be classified and arranged in series for convenience of reference.

These instances, and others that might be cited, illustrate the freedom with which the word commentarius was used in Caesar's time to designate sources or collections of material which a writer or speaker might utilize; the transition is easy to the use of the term in relation to literary works.

In 60 B.C. Cicero and Atticus, working independently, each finished about the same time an account of the events of Cicero's consulship, written in Greek. To both works the term commentarius was applied (ad Att. i, 19, 10 Commentarium consulatus mei Graece compositum misi ad te; ii, I, I Is mihi litteras abs te et commentarium consulatus mei Graece scriptum [i.e. by Atticus] reddidit), and Cicero gives also the Greek name of his book as vπóμvnμa. The precise character of these works cannot now be determined. In the letter last cited Cicero notes their similarity in respect to matter, humorously remarking that had he seen Atticus's book first he might have been accused of stealing. Nevertheless he criticises the style of Atticus, in a way that reminds us of the characterization of the style of Caesar's 'commentaries' in the Brutus: Quamquam tua illa — legi enim libenter-horridula mihi atque incompta visa sunt, sed tamen erant ornata hoc ipso, quod ornamenta neglexerant, et, ut mulieres, ideo bene olere, quia nihil olebant, videbantur; by contrast he jestingly speaks of his own book (liber) as perfumed and painted, but he adds that he sent a copy to Posidonius, ut ornatius de iisdem rebus scriberet. It cannot be doubted that Cicero thought of commentarius as a part of the Latin form of the title of his book as well as Atticus's, even though in another letter he condenses the title into two words (ad Att. i, 20. 6 De meis scriptis, misi ad te Graece perfectum consulatum meum). He had a high ideal of the literary quality of history as distinguished from annals, as shown by the rambling but instructive passage in the de Oratore (ii, 51-58); and we shall probably not go astray if we suppose that he adopted iπóμvnμa, commentarius as a part

of his title because he designed the tract to be primarily a source book for Posidonius and other Greek writers; how anxious he was that his deeds should be commemorated in the writings of others is evident from the letter to Lucceius. The Greek Commentary was put into circulation so promptly that Atticus saw a copy at Corfu before he received from Cicero the carefully corrected presentation copy intended for him; and this was followed by the naïve request that if he liked it he should see that the work be well circulated in the Greek cities (ad Att. ii, 1. 2): Tu, si tibi placuerit liber, curabis ut et Athenis sit et in ceteris oppidis Graeciae.

Cicero makes reference also to commentarii (= vπoμvýpaтa) of several Greek philosophers, as Aristotle, Cratippus, and Zeno; but he himself gives a clue to his conception of the significance of the term in such cases in the de Finibus (v, 12) De summo autem bono quia duo genera librorum sunt, unum populariter scriptum, quod etwτepikóv appellabant, alterum limatius, quod in commentariis reliquerunt, non semper idem dicere videntur. From this we may understand that the commentarii were more technical books, containing perhaps outlines of lectures and similar material intended primarily for the use of the writer and his pupils and friends (cf. Madvig's de Fin.3, Excursus vii).

It seems evident that commentarius used by Cicero as a characterizing term would be referred to an assemblage of material lacking in literary quality. Since precisely this quality is predicated of the commentarii of Caesar, and since the term had already come into use in titles (p. 225), we may, I think, conclude that commentarii was a part of the title of the Gallic War as the work was known to Cicero, who was writing the Brutus within six years at most after it was published. Hirtius, as already noted, is consistent in the use of commentarii when referring to the same work.

Suetonius uses commentarii of both the Gallic and the Civil Wars (Div. Iul. 56): Reliquit et rerum suarum commentarios Gallici civilisque belli Pompeiani. Nam Alexandrini Africique et Hispaniensis incertus auctor est; alii Oppium putant, alii Hirtium, qui etiam Gallici belli novissi