Julius Caesar's Age

[M. Porcius Cato]

Plutarch, in addition to labelling Caesar as having died in his 56th year quotes Caesar thusly...

"Do you think I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable."

 

Again, if Caesar were born in 102, the anecdote would still make sense. Caesar would be 34 and thus have no chance to catch up to Alexander. If Caesar were 32, he'd still have a little time (though even with Caesar's alacritas it would be a stretch).

[Q Valerius Scerio]

I'm no expert on Caesar, but I think Colleen McCullough (who does sound research) argues that he was given a dispensation to stand for office two years earlier because of the military award he won at Mytilene. Is that her imaginative alternative explanation to the mystery, or is it based on fact?

 

Phil

I love Colleen. In fact, I'm reading First Man in Rome now. mehercule, I could severely edit her writing, but she does make it interesting.

 

Back in 1917, T. Rice Holmes wrote against Mommsen for Caesar's birth in 100 BCE and not 102. Anyone who has access to the JSTOR can look up the article. Since the article is created before 1923, I'm working on getting a text version available on my website.

[Primus Pilus]

I love Colleen. In fact, I'm reading First Man in Rome now.

 

I loved her work as well. (at least the first two books)

 

Back in 1917, T. Rice Holmes wrote against Mommsen for Caesar's birth in 100 BCE and not 102. Anyone who has access to the JSTOR can look up the article. Since the article is created before 1923, I'm working on getting a text version available on my website.

 

Please do... and be sure to update us with a link if you should have success.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks QVS; the Holmes article, "Was Caesar born in 102 or in 100 BC?", was a real treasure.

 

Holmes' conclusion is that "it is in the highest degree probable that Caesar was born in 102." All of the arguments we considered are rehashed in the article (yay us!), but Holmes additionally considers numismatic evidence that we neglected, copying errors regarding dates in Plutarch's life of Pompey, and the existence of an ancient source (Eutropius) that definitively puts Caesar's birth in 102.

 

If we accept Holmes' conclusion, Caesar did not hold every single office of his life illegally, thus we needn't impute a vast populare conspiracy to explain how he came to hold the consulship when he did. At the same time, though, we also needn't assume that patricians and plebs had different age requirements for office.

[Primus Pilus]

Thanks QVS; the Holmes article, "Was Caesar born in 102 or in 100 BC?", was a real treasure.

 

Holmes' conclusion is that "it is in the highest degree probable that Caesar was born in 102." All of the arguments we considered are rehashed in the article (yay us!), but Holmes additionally considers numismatic evidence that we neglected, copying errors regarding dates in Plutarch's life of Pompey, and the existence of an ancient source (Eutropius) that definitively puts Caesar's birth in 102.

 

If we accept Holmes' conclusion, Caesar did not hold every single office of his life illegally, thus we needn't impute a vast populare conspiracy to explain how he came to hold the consulship when he did. At the same time, though, we also needn't assume that patricians and plebs had different age requirements for office.

 

It would certainly help to reconcile the issues at hand... in addition to eliminating the speculation on why nothing was ever said by contemporaries about this particular oddity in Caesar's career.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Still working on getting it up for everyone. It appears I may have a legal block, but I'm trying!