Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/474

 466 SHORT NOTICES July honestly in his preface, is greatly to his credit. He tells us that in reading the sources with the idea of collecting evidence there is a tendency to become unduly suspicious of corruption where, possibly, none existed. Cicero, he truly says, abounds in general statements, and one often has to mistrust his plurals. Yet there are sufficient data in particular cases to establish the substantial truth of these general statements. This is quite true and well put ; but we must always remember that our habit of sus- picion may harden as the result of inability to cross-examine the witnesses. The footing is indeed imcertain ; but Dr. Jolliffe is quite right in saying that certain particular cases practically establish the truth of general statements, and he might have added a list of such cases for the in- dependent investigation of each student. Dr. Jolliffe has laid out his field of operations well ; in four chapters, each divided into several sections, he treats of corruption in the army, navy, and among the client princes, finishing with corruption in the personnel of embassies, both those sent from Rome, and those introduced by the consuls to the senate in the month of February in each year. Perhaps the chapter on the navy, in which the evidence comes almost entirely from the Verrines, will be the least familiar part of the subject to English university students. Those who have been educated to find evidence of corruption chiefly in Cicero's letters may possibly find here new himting- grounds. Perhaps the most interesting chapter is that about the client princes ; here the evidence is mainly from letters of Cicero written during his Cilician government. The famous case of the indebtedness to Pompey of Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia seems to be well handled. Dr. Jolliffe thinks that the king's debt to Pompey, if not to Brutus, was for moneys promised him for his support in the senate. He also thinks that Pompey put forward the guileless, upright Cicero as the king's sponsor in the senate, and adds a conjecture that is certainly worth consideration, viz. that ' the magni- tude of the sum involved was what dictated Cicero's appointment as governor of Cilicia and as " tutor " to the royal debtor '. Dr. Jolliffe is to be congratulated on the clearness of his English and his method of paragraphing. W. W. F. In a dissertation on The History of the Title Im'perator under the Roman Empire (Chicago : University Press, s.a.) Mr. D. Mc Fad yen imdertakes a radical criticism of the tradition of Suetonius and Dio with regard to the origin of the pracnomen Imperatoris in the lifetime of Julius Caesar and its hereditary character, and is successful in showing that the per- functory acceptance of these statements by many modern historians, and even the subtler interpretations of them which we owe to Mommsen and Rosenberg, are without justification. As he remarks, the designation of Caesar in the Fasti Consulates and Ada Triumphalia is fatal to the theory of the hereditary 'praenomen. He seeks, however, to prove too much in denying that Caesar used the title ' Imperator ' except in accor- dance with strict republican usage.^ That usage, it is almost certain, was ' Mr. McFadyen thinks that Caesar was saluted Imperator in Gaul ' before his invasion of Italy in January, 49 B.C.' Has he considered the superscription of Cic. Fam. 7. 5 (54 B.c.) ?