Why the confusion on Caesar's DOB?

[G-Manicus]

Why is there a discrepancy over Julius Caesar's DOB? I'm always struck at the records that the Romans kept, particularly dates of birth and the like. Why when it comes to arguably the most famous Roman of them all, there is a discrepancy?

[Primus Pilus]

Why is there a discrepancy over Julius Caesar's DOB? I'm always struck at the records that the Romans kept, particularly dates of birth and the like. Why when it comes to arguably the most famous Roman of them all, there is a discrepancy?

 

The discrepancy is largely because of the date of his magistracies. None of Caesar's political opponents ever suggested that Caesar was legally not eligible for the offices that he held, but if he had been born in 100 BC, he would have been 2 years two young for each of the major offices.

 

He was Quaestor in 68. Had he been born in 100 he would've been 32. This one is not a problem because the minimum age was 30 according to the Sullan constitution.

 

Praetor 62. Here is where the issue begins. Again, according to the Sullan Lex Vibia, a person had to be a minimum of 39 to be eligible for the office (therefore turning 40 during his term). If Caesar were born in 100, he would've been 38 in 62. Were he born in 102, he was the exact right age.

 

Consul 59. A candidate for Consul had to be 42 (therefore turning 43 during his term). If Caesar were born in 100, he would've been 41 in 59. Again, were he born in 102, he was the exact right age.

 

Considering the political rivalries of the era, it's highly unlikely that his opponents wouldn't have mentioned these discrepancies. A record of such a disagreement does not exist in the historical record and despite ideological differences, none of his opponents protested his legal right to campaign due to age. Both Plutarch and Suetonius say that Caesar died during his 56th year, and we know that he died in 44. Clearly this would indicate that he was born in 100, but this obviously does not match his legal path along the cursus honorum. I recall seeing suggestions that special dispensation was awarded to Caesar because he had won the corona civica at Mytilene in 80 BC, but that seems rather dubious.

[G-Manicus]

Thanks, PP.

 

I believe I saw a post by MPC once where he indicated he was quite certain which year was the correct one. If you're reading this, Mr. Potter, I'd welcome your thoughts ....

Edited December 14, 2007 by G-Manicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

We discussed this issue at some length HERE.

 

The deciding vote was cast by T. Rice Holmes, who took up the issue in his artice, "Was Caesar Born in 100 or 102?". Holmes' conclusion was that "it is in the highest degree probable that Caesar was born in 102."

 

All of the arguments we considered in the thread were also considered in the article, 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.

[G-Manicus]

Very enlightening. Thank you.

[alibegoa]

But still one alteration (or concession) that Sulla seems to have made to the provisions of the lex Villia stipulating the minimum ages for the holding of curule offices, was to allow patricians to advance rather faster in their careers.

This again puts the year 100 very probable given Caesars extraordinary ambition IMO.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But still one alteration (or concession) that Sulla seems to have made to the provisions of the lex Villia stipulating the minimum ages for the holding of curule offices, was to allow patricians to advance rather faster in their careers.This again puts the year 100 very probable given Caesars extraordinary ambition IMO.

 

But isn't this reasoning circular? The only reason to believe that Sulla reformed the lex Villa is the assumption that Caesar was born in 100. Once this untenable assumption is dropped, there is no need to infer that Sulla reformed the lex Villa.

 

Furthermore, Caesar's extradordinary ambition was nowhere in evidence in his early career. A late bloomer, he didn't even start the cursus honorum until he was 30 years old.

[alibegoa]

But still one alteration (or concession) that Sulla seems to have made to the provisions of the lex Villia stipulating the minimum ages for the holding of curule offices, was to allow patricians to advance rather faster in their careers.This again puts the year 100 very probable given Caesars extraordinary ambition IMO.

 

But isn't this reasoning circular? The only reason to believe that Sulla reformed the lex Villa is the assumption that Caesar was born in 100. Once this untenable assumption is dropped, there is no need to infer that Sulla reformed the lex Villa.

 

Furthermore, Caesar's extradordinary ambition was nowhere in evidence in his early career. A late bloomer, he didn't even start the cursus honorum until he was 30 years old.

 

Then again, is anything precisely known about when Caesar entered the Senate? Was it also not much earlier than normal? Why so then? It seems there are many alterations Sulla made now lost to us.

In any case I was stating there the opinion of Arthur Keavenely in his Sulla The last republican, and while mentioning that particular alteration, there is no reference to Caesar whatsoever.

Among Sulla's notable modifications amongst others was forcing men to proceed from office to office in fixed and determined order eg no preator before questor. Even if this tradition was from before it was Sulla putting it into law. Sulla also extended the principle of a minimum age for a curule office to the non curule magistracy of questorship. Again Sulla was giving legislative sanction to the custom developing spontaneously in the previous generation. From then on anyone reaching the age of 30 was eligible to this office, irrespective of performing any military service. Also even though it was Sulla making the tenure of questorship a prerequisite for curule office, in a further change he did not require a biennium to elapse between it and preatorship.

 

So it is not like Sulla had not made any changes, and it appears reasonable for a man so proud of his class, to have given it some head-start in advancement.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Then again, is anything precisely known about when Caesar entered the Senate? Was it also not much earlier than normal? Why so then?

Caesar did not enter the senate until his quaestorship in 69, which according to Dio (37, 52), occurred the same year as his famous lament--at age 33--quasi pertoesus ignaviam suam (as though utterly disgusted with his own lack of energy). So, no--he did not enter the senate at a much earlier than normal age. He entered the senate at a much later than normal age. Why so? Maybe because he spent so much time in Bithynia...

 

In any case I was stating there the opinion of Arthur Keavenely in his Sulla The last republican, and while mentioning that particular alteration

Yes, I see that Keaveney uses nearly the same language that you do, but Keaveny also cites no source for this supposed "alteration (or, if you like, concession)" of his own lex Cornelia annalis. I'm guessing that the reason that no source is cited is that Keaveney has inferred this "concession" from the incorrect assumption that Caesar was born in 100.

 

So it is not like Sulla had not made any changes, and it appears reasonable for a man so proud of his class, to have given it some head-start in advancement.

If Sulla allowed patricians to advance along the cursus honorum at an earlier age, there should be evidence of this advancement for patricians other than Caesar, and the evidence should not be found stemming from the careers that predated Sulla. I'm sure a quick look at Broughton's Magistracies will clear this up.

[Andrew Dalby]

It would have been interesting to know what Suetonius said about Caesar's date of birth, and whether there was already controversy about it among historians in his time. But (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think his full views on this issue are known, because the first few sections of his life of Caesar don't survive. The text begins abruptly.