CÆSAR.
(Evil consequences of an omission of etiquette.)

A piece of incivility was one of the chief causes of the ruin of Julius Cæsar, according both to Suetonius and Dion Cassius. “ The greatest offence which he gave,” says the former, “ was in receiving the whole senate, who came to present him with several decrees very much to his honour, sitting before the temple of his mother Venus. Some think he was kept from rising up by Cornelius Balbus; others, that he made no attempt to rise, and even frowned on Caius Trebatius, who put him in mind of getting up.” Dion Cassius relates the matter with all its circumstances. “ One day,” says he, Dio. lib. 42, pag. 255. ⁶⁷ “ as they were deliberating in the senate about great honours which they designed for Julius Cæsar, all the senators’ voices, except that of Cassius and of some others, concurred to the decree; after which, the company rose up, to carry the news of it to the emperor, who was sitting in the porch of the temple of Venus. He stayed there, that no one should say his presence had deprived the senators of he liberty of giving their votes. He did not arise tupon seeing the senators come to him, but heard what they had to say to him, sitting. This made not only the senators, but the other Romans, so angry, that it was one of the chief pretences of those who formed the conspiracy against his person. The historian does not know whether this incivility was a fatal stroke of Providence, or the effect of Cæsar’s great joy; but he observes, that no credit was given to those

who endeavoured to justify it by saying that Cæsar was then disordered in body, which made him fear to disturb the retentive faculty by rising up. This excuse was not admitted; for it was known that a little while after, he walked home on foot; so that the posture which he had kept was attributed to his pride.”

The reason assigned for the disbelief in the alleged cause of Cæsar’s apparent want of respect, does not appear to me to be conclusive. Bayle’s serious examination of this curious piece of personal history, is truly characteristic.—Ed. ⁶⁸ He might have been much disordered at the moment the senate came to him, and yet be able to walk home afterwards. If, after all, this excuse was well grounded, we should have great reason to admire the occasional strangeness of human events, and to exclaim, how the most important and most fatal often depend upon trifles, and are put in motion by the meanest springs. Cæsar, on this supposition, hastened his ruin because he could not put himself in a civil posture, by reason of a little disorder in his bowels; which on another occasion would have been of no consequence, but at that time was of great importance. The accident he feared, if he had risen, would have been attended with bad consequences: he would have been a laughing-stock to all the people of Rome, and the ill-affected would have put a strange construction upon it. What a contempt of religion and of the senate ! What ! in the very temple of Venus, and in the presence of the most august body in the world! The thing might have been rendered so odious in several respects, that it might have caused even a man who had well considered all the consequences of his sitting still, to resolve not to stir out of his place. Did not Constantine Copronymus draw a most odious and despicable epithet upon himself, which stains his memory to this very day? Did he not become the object of a

hundred invectives and injurious reflections, for having fouled the baptismal font without knowing what he did. “Impio patri scelestissima successit, proles Constantinus cognomento Copronymi, quod infans bap-tismi lavacro admotus mediis sacris alimoniæ excre-mento aquam polluerat.” It would have been much worse if the accident had happened to him in a church, whilst he made war against the protectors of images. Such a thing has been at all times looked upon as a great piece of contempt, or a subject of raillery; and however it be, Caesar’s apologists might have been better confuted than by the reason mentioned by Dion Cassius. They might have been told, that if bodily infirmity had been the reason why Caesar did not rise, he should have alleged that excuse to the senators; his not having done so, is a sign that he cared but little whether he was deemed wanting in civility to that august body, or not. We may imagine that the senators would have been satisfied with the reason; Laban, though he was very angry, was satisfied with almost a like excuse, when his daughter received him without rising. The reason given by Rachel, will be found in Genesis, xxxi. 35. ⁶⁹ Behold also another mode of excuse. “ One time, cardinal Du Perron found himself much perplexed, speaking for the clergy to the late queen-mother; for, being in a chair, where the gout forced him to remain before a princess so full of majesty, he had a mind to pass a compliment on her about it, which he had not prepared. ‘ Madam, ' said he to her, ‘I am upon my knees in my heart, though you see me sit’ --- At that word, perceiving that it was not respectful to name the part on which he sate, he for a good while sought for some more honourable expression, and finding none, added—‘ on my legs.'

I have just now read a passage that may make us doubt of Dion’s discernment. Plutarch observes, that Cæsar was very much concerned for the

incivility he had shewed the senate, and which displeased the people so much. “ Nevertheless it is said,” adds Plutarch, “ that to excuse that fault, he alleged his distemper, because the senses of those who are subject to the falling sickness, when they speak standing before a company, do not always remain sound, but are easily troubled and suddenly taken with a dazzling; but this was false.” We must believe, for Dion’s honour, that he had read Plutarch; how comes it to pass then that he says nothing of this excuse, and alleges another much more unlikely, and somewhat ridiculous?—Art. Julius Cæsar.