From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (62 page)

19 THE VETTIUS AFFAIR. See esp. Cicero,
Ad Att.
ii, 24. Much remains obscure. Vettius tried to implicate various members of the aristocracy, e.g. Lucullus, Bibulus and Brutus, but it is improbable that there was any serious plan to murder Pompey; Vettius himself was imprisoned and died there. It is unlikely that Caesar employed him; possibly Vatinius did, as Cicero later alleged; more probably he was a free-lance. That Brutus was involved is unlikely, but the inclusion of his name is interesting and would have made the alleged plot more plausible since he was known, perhaps as early as
this, to have Republican sympathies: about this date he was mint-master and issued coins with the head of Libertas and the inscription LIBERTAS, which at any rate will have been a criticism of the triumvirs (see E. A. Sydenham,
CRR
, n. 906; Crawford,
RRC
, n. 433). Cf. P. A. Brunt,
Cl. Qu.
, 1953, 62 ff.; L. R. Taylor,
Cl. Qu.
, 1954, 181 ff.; C. Meier,
Historia
, 1961, 88 ff.; R. Seager,
Latomus
, 1965, 525 ff. [p. 98]

20 CLODIUS. A general assessment of his career is given by A. W. Lintott,
Gr. and R.
, 1967, 157 ff., while E. S. Gruen,
Phoenix
, 1966, 120 ff., also argues for Clodius’ considerable independence of the triumvirs. On the support which Clodius received from his
clientela
in the East see E. Rawson,
Historia
, 1973, 219 ff. On Clodius and Cicero see W. K. Lacey,
Antichthon
, 1974, 85 ff., and W. M. F. Rundell,
Historia
, 1979, 301 ff. On the
collegia
see J. M. Flambard,
Mélanges d’arch.
, 1977, 115 ff. [p. 99]

21 CYPRUS AND CATO. See S. I. Oost,
Cl. Ph.
, 1955, 98 ff.; E. Badian,
JRS
, 1965, 110 ff. Needing money for his corn dole, Clodius proposed that Cyprus should be annexed. Since Cyprus was to be added to Cilicia, the task was to be given to Gabinius, but the latter was transferred to Syria and so Cato went to Cyprus with a specific financial commission. When joined to Cilicia it received its
lex provinciae
from P. Lentulus Spinther, the first governor of the united province. Badian,
Rom. Imperialism in late Rep.
, 77, denounces the annexation of Cyprus as ‘this most disgraceful act of Roman imperialism apart from the Gallic War’. [p. 100]

22 CICERO’S DE DOMO SUA. See the edition by R. G. Nisbet (1936). Clodius attacked Cicero again in 56 about the rebuilding of his house, to which Cicero replied in
De haruspicum responsis
: n. 19, 40, where the
haruspices
warn that dissensions among the nobles may lead to one man rule (a reference to Pompey and Messius). [p. 100]

23 CICERO PRO SESTIO. Cf. n. 18 above. In this speech Cicero attacked Caesar’s agents, Vatinius and Clodius and tried to rally all loyal citizens to defend the constitution. On Cicero and the
lex Campana
see M. Cary,
Cl. Qu.
, 1923, 103 ff. On the politics of 57–55 see J. F. Lazenby,
Latomus
, 1959, 67 ff. On an attempt by a tribune, probably Antistius Vetus, to prosecute Caesar, probably early in 56, see E. Badian,
Polis and Imperium
(ed. J. A. S. Evans, 1974), 145 ff. [p. 101]

23a LUCA. On the conference and its political background see E. S. Gruen,
Historia
, 1969, 71 ff., C. Luibheid,
Cl. Ph.
, 1970, 88 ff. and J. Jackson,
Liverpool Class. Monthly
, 1978. 173 ff. For a presentation of the view that Luca was less a planned summit meeting of the big three than a hastily arranged get-together, Crassus probably being absent and his interests represented by Caesar, see R. Seager,
Pompey
(1979), 122 ff. [p. 101]

24 CICERO IN 56–4. For his palinode see
ad Atticum
, 4, 5. For the
De provinciis consulari-bus
see the edition by H. E. Butler and M. Cary (1924). Earlier in 56 Cicero had successfully defended a brilliant young man M. Caelius Rufus, who had supplanted the poet Catullus as the lover of the notorious Clodia, Clodius’ sister, and now discarded in turn was being accused by her of attempted poisoning: for Cicero’s
Pro Caelio
see the edition by R. G. Austin (1960). In his
Pro Balbo
, delivered in defence of Balbus’ claim to citizenship later in 56, Cicero praised Pompey. In 55 Cicero in the Senate bitterly attacked Caesar’s father-in-law L. Calpurnius Piso (
cos.
58) charging him with peculation and mis-government in Macedonia. Cicero’s
In Pisonem
has been edited by R. G. M. Nisbet (1961). The (probably pseudo-) Sallustian
Oration in Ciceronem
is a reply. With less pleasure, and under pressure from Caesar, in 54 Cicero was forced to defend Vatinius, who was being prosecuted under a law carried by Crassus against bribery and the misuse of political clubs (
sodalicia
) for political purposes. Pompey insisted that Cicero should defend Gabinius, who had restored Ptolemy to Egypt, had been acquitted on a charge of
maiestas
, and was now accused
de repetundis
; he was condemned. On Gabinius see E. M. Sanford,
TAPA
, 1939, 64 ff.; E. Badian,
Philologus
,
1959, 87 ff. On the role of
amicitia
in the career of Gabinius see R. S. Williams,
Phoenix
, 1978, 195 ff., and on his trials in 54 B.C. see E. Fantham,
Historia
, 1975, 475 ff. Cicero also defended, with greater success, C. Rabirius Postumus, who had acted as Ptolemy’s finance minister. Cicero also started writing in 54 his great study of political theory,
De Re Publica
. On Caelius Rufus see M. Volponi,
M. Celio rufo
(
Mem. dell’Ist. Lombardo
, 1971). On Cicero’s relations with Milo see A. W. Lintott,
JRS
, 1974, 62 ff. [p. 102]

25 THE TERMINAL DATE OF CAESAR’S COMMAND. See especially Cicero,
ad. fam.
iii, 8, 4–9; 11, 3;
ad. Att.
vii, 7, 6; 9, 3. The precise date of the end of the command (the
legis dies
) is obviously of little importance in itself, but it becomes of vital importance because of the principle behind it, namely that Caesar wanted to step straight from his proconsular command to office in Rome, while his opponents hoped that for a short time he would become a private citizen and thus be exposed to prosecution. A vast literature has grown up on this question, from Mommsen’s paper on
Die Rechtsfrage
onwards. For a summary discussion see How and Clark,
Cicero, Select Letters
(1926), appendix v; cf. Rice Holmes,
RR
, ii, 199 ff. More recent discussions include F. B. Marsh (
The Founding of the Roman Empire
, 1927, pp. 275 ff.) who puts it at 1 March 50; F. E. Adcock (
Cl. Qu.
, 1932, 14 ff.) and C. A. Gianelli (
Ann. Sc. Norm. Pisa
, 1966, 107 ff.) 13 Nov. 50; C. E. Stevens (
AJP
, 1938, 169 ff.) between July and Oct. 50; J. P. V. D. Balsdon (
JRS
, 1939, 57 ff and 167 ff.) argues that no such day was laid down by law; G. Elton (
JRS
, 1946, 18 ff.) discusses these views and returns to Mommsen’s belief in 28 Feb. 49. See also R. Sealey,
Cl. Med.
, 1957, 75 ff., P. J. Cuff,
Historia
, 1958, 445 ff.; H. Gesche,
Chiron
, 1973, 179 ff.; D. Stockton,
Historia
, 1975, 232 ff. (1 March 50); K. Bringmann,
Chiron
, 1978, 345 ff.; R. Seager,
Pompey
, (1979), 193 ff., a summary, in line with Balsdon. [p. 103]

25a CICERO IN CILICIA. See M. Wistrand,
Cicero Imperator. Studies in Cicero’s Correspondence 51–47 BC
(1979). [p. 103]

26 CURIO. See W. K. Lacey (
Historia
, 1961, 318 ff.) who believes that Curio was not bribed to support Caesar and that he proposed a special commission for roads (Cic.
ad. fam.
8. 6. 1) to enable Caesar to withdraw from Gaul in peace without a consulship. On the tribunes that supported Caesar see K. Rauflaub,
Chiron
, 1974, 293 ff. [p. 104]

27 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CIVIL WAR. On Caesar’s
dignitas
see Caesar,
Bellum Civile
, 1, 9, 2 (cf. 1, 7, 7. Cic.
ad Att
. 7, 11, 1). Cf. K. Rauflaub,
Dignitatis Contentio. Studien zur Motivation und politischen Taktik im Burgerkrieg zwischen Caesar und Pompeius
(1974). On Pompey see Tacitus,
Hist.
2, 38, 1. Cicero admits that both Pompey and Caesar strove for their own aggrandizement:
ad Att.
7, 3, 4; 8, 11, 2. For further discussion cf. C. Wirszubski,
Libertas
, 77 ff.; R. Syme,
Roman Revolution
, 47 ff. On the motives that drove Pompey to war see L. G. Pocock,
Gr. and R.
, 1959, 68 ff. For lists of
nobiles
and members of other senatorial families that supported Caesar, Pompey or remained neutral see D. R. Shackleton Bailey,
Cl. Qu.
, 1960, 253 ff.; H. Bruhns,
Caesar und die römische Obersicht in Jahren 49–44 v. Chr. Untersuchungen zur Herrschaftsestablierung im Burgerkrieg
(1978). [p. 104]

28 PARTHIA AND CRASSUS. On Parthia see W. W. Tarn,
CAH
, IX, ch. xiv; N. C. Debevoise,
A Political History of Parthia
(1938); M. A. R. Colledge,
The Parthians
(1967); on the cavalry, W. W. Tarn,
Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments
(1930), 73 ff. A Chinese historian of the first century A.D. describes some historical paintings which show troops attacking a city in Turkestan; some of the defenders are drawn up in a formation with interlocked shields resembling the Roman
testudo
. H. H. Dubs (
A Roman City in Ancient China
, 1957; cf.
Gr. and R.
, 1957, 137 ff.) believes that these men may represent some of the survivors of Carrhae who escaped from the Parthians and took service first with the Hun Jzh-Jzh, whose capital on the Talass River, east of the Jaxartes, was
captured, despite the help of the Romans, by the Chinese leader Ch’en T’ang (36 B.C.). They then passed to the service of Ch’en who settled them in a frontier city to which the Chinese gave their name for Rome, Li-jien. D. Timpe (
Museum Helveticum
, 1962, 194 ff.) has discussed the influence of Carrhae on later Roman policy towards Parthia and upon Roman internal politics. [p. 106]

1 SOURCES FOR 49–44 B.C. The writers are in general those mentioned in note 1 to ch. VI: Appian (
BC
, ii, 32–117), Dio Cassius (41–44), Cicero (
Pro Marcello, Pro Ligario
, of 46 B.C. and
Pro Rege Deiotaro
of 45; Letters, nos. 301–698 in Tyrell and Purser), the Corpus Caesarianum (cf. n. 8), Livy’s
Periochae
(109–16), Velleius Paterculus (2. 49–57). Plutarch, Suetonius. To these are added
Epistulae ad Caesarem
(see n. 20 below) and Lucan’s
Pharsalia
(see p. 300). See also notes 5 and 8 below. Coins (cf. n. 16 and 28) and inscriptions (cf. n. 11, 21, 23) are important. [p. 107]

2 BUREBISTAS. See V. Parvan,
Dacia
, ch. v. [p. 107]

3 PRE-ROMAN GAUL. See Caesar,
Bell. Gall.
, esp. 6, 13–20; Diodorus, 5, 21–2; 25–32; Strabo, 4. The fundamental modern work is still C. Jullian,
Histoire de le Gaule
, II (4th ed., 1921). See also A. Grenier,
Les Gaulois
(1945) and T. G. E. Powell,
The Celts
(1958). For accounts of recent work on Gaul of all periods see R. Lantier,
JRS
, 1946, 76 ff.; P-M. Duval,
Historia
, v, 1956, 238 ff. Cf. M. Pobé,
The Art of Roman Gaul
(1961). [p. 108]

4 DRUIDS. See T. D. Kendrick,
The Druids
(1927); Stuart Piggott,
The Druids
(1968). [p. 108]

5 CAESAR’S GALLIC CAMPAIGNS. The chief source is Caesar’s own Commentaries
De Bello Gallico
in seven books, each dealing with one year, to which his staff-officer Hirtius added an eighth book covering the years 51–50 and thus linking with Caesar’s own
De Bello Civili
. Other sources add little.
Commentaries
were not strictly
historia
but rather formed the material for future historians, though Caesar brought great literary skill to their composition. They were based on the despatches that he sent back every year to the Senate in Rome. The date of their composition and publication offer many problems. Some believe that they were published annually, or in small groups of Commentaries in order to influence public opinion in Rome, while others suppose them to have been published as a single work about 51 with a view in part to future elections. On these questions see the recent discussion by Sir Frank E. Adcock,
Caesar as a Man of Letters
(1956), esp. 77 ff. An even more important question is that of their accuracy. This has been impeached in modern times on grounds of political misrepresentation or the glossing over of military errors. It is too much to suppose that any man can ever achieve complete and absolute objectivity, and it would be naïve to suppose that Caesar has written the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Nevertheless his work has stood up well to critical attacks and its essential trustworthiness is beyond question. An extreme, and as some would think in itself a tendentious, criticism of Caesar’s veracity is found in a recent work by M. Rambaud,
L’Art de la déformation historique dans les commentaires de César
(1953): for a criticism of this see J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
JRS
, 1955, 161 ff. and cf.
Gr. and R.
, 1957, 19 ff. A further attack on Caesar’s reliability, especially in Book 1 and in his account of the Germans (4 and 6) is made by G. Walser,
Caesar und die Germanen
(1956), but on this see A. N. Sherwin-White,
JRS
, 1958, 188 ff. Modern works on Caesar’s campaigns include C. Jullian,
Hist. de la. Gaule
, III (2nd ed. 1920); T. Rice Holmes,
Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul
²
(1911); L. A. Constans,
Guide illustré des campagnes de César en Gaule
(1929); C. Jullian (ed. P. M. Duval),
Vercingetorix
(1963). D. Timpe,
Historia
, 1965, 189 ff., views Caesar’s policy in the context of Roman tradition, but E. Badian,
Roman Imperialism in the late Rep.
, 89 ff., emphasizes the vast financial profits made by Caesar, for which ‘in some cases, the opportunity had been deliberatley sought and created’ (p. 77): Caesar is ‘the greatest brigand of them all’ (
per contra
, for the non-imperialist view of Caesar see A. N. Sherwin-White,
Gr. and R.
, 1957, 36 ff.). [p. 109]

6 CAESAR IN BRITAIN, See
Bell, Gall.
4, 20–36; 5, 1–23. Cf. T. Rice Holmes,
Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Caesar
(1935); R. G. Collingwood,
Roman Britain and the English Settlements
(1937); S. S. Frere,
Britannia
²
(1978); C. F. C. Hawkes,
Proc. Brit. Acad.
, 1977, 125 ff.; P. Salway,
Roman Britain
(1981). On Cassivellaunus’
oppidum
at Wheathampstead see R. E. M. Wheeler,
Antiquity
, 1933, 21 ff. [p. 111]

7 ALESIA AND CAESAR’S CAMPS. On the site of the preceding engagement, which is often placed near Dijon, see É. Thevenot,
Les Éduens n’ont pas trahi
(1960), 133 ff., who argues for Laignes near Vix. Caesar’s great siege-works round Alesia were first excavated by the emperor Napoleon III. Other of his camps have been found near Berry-au-Bac (his campaign in 57 against the Bellovaci); at Orcet below Gergovia; and at Nointel near Clermont de l’Oise (dating from his campaign of 51 against the Bellovaci; this more recent excavation is particularly interesting: three main camps and outworks have been found, together with the
pontes
(
Bell. Gall
. 8, 14), log and brushwood causeways, which Caesar built over the marsh to enable his men to get to grips with the enemy). See O. Brogan,
Roman Gaul
(1953), 17 ff. For a fine air-photograph of the Gallic
oppidum
at Gergovia see J. Bradford,
Ancient Landscapes
(1957), pl. 69. See also for a detailed study, J. Harmand,
Une Campaigne césarienne: Alesia
(1967). [p. 112]

8 THE CIVIL WAR, 49–45. The chief sources are the
Corpus Caesarianum
and Cicero’s Letters. The former comprises three books
De Bello Civili
; the
Bellum Alexandrinum
, which continues the narrative down to Zela, and was written perhaps by Hirtius (
cos
. 43) one of Caesar’s officers; the
Bellum Africum
covering the winter of 47–46, and written perhaps by a tribune or centurion; and the
Bellum Hispaniense
on the Munda campaign, written by someone who took part, but who is less literate. Appian,
BC
, ii, and Dio Cassius, xli-xliii, provide narratives, while Lucan’s poem, the
Bellum Civile
(or
Pharsalia
) ends with the Alexandrine war. Modern works: full discussions by Rice Holmes,
RR
, iii; see also F. E. Adcock,
CAH
, IX, ch. xvi. [p. 114]

9 DOMITIUS AHENOBARBUS. For the interesting correspondence that passed between him and Pompey see the letters preserved in Cicero
ad Attic
viii, 11. Cf. D. R. Shackleton Bailey,
JRS
, 1956, 57 ff. On the Corfinium campaign see A. Barns,
Historia
, 1966, 74 ff. [p. 114]

10 NEGOTIATIONS OF CAESAR AND POMPEY. Cf. F. B. Marsh,
Hist. Rom. World 146–30 BC
, 400 ff., and K. von Fritz,
TAPA
, 1941, 125 ff., who questions Caesar’s sincerity. Difficulties arise because Caesar’s version of Pompey’s reply (
Bell. Civ
. i, 10, 3–4) does not quite coincide with that given by Cicero (
ad fam.
xvi, 12, 3). Further, in the negotiations after Corfinium, Caesar has not revealed the terms of Pompey’s offer (
Bell. Civ.
i, 24, 5; 26, 2; cf.
ad Att
. ix, 13 A.). On the credentials of the envoys, L. Caesar and L. Roscius, see D. R. Shackleton Bailey (
JRS
, 1960, 80 ff.) who supports the view that they were sent to Caesar by Pompey and not by the Senate. The negotiations are studied in full by K. Rauflaub,
Chiron
, 1975, 247 ff. [p. 115]

11 LEX ROSCIA AND LEX RUBRIA. Two fragments of inscriptions from Ateste and Veleia in Cisalpine Gaul bear on its enfranchisement (Riccobono,
FIRA
I, nos. 20 and 19). The former, which refers to the
lex Roscia
, may be part of a supplementary measure dependent on it; the enfranchising law will then have been the
lex Roscia
(cf. E. G.
Hardy,
Problems of Rom. Hist.
, 207 ff.). Other scholars believe that the enfranchising act was a
lex Rubria
which is mentioned in the fragment from Veleia; this fragment is part of the
lex Rubria
or of a law dependent on it. For this law see Hardy,
Six Roman Laws
, 110 ff. See further U. Ewins,
Papers Brit. Sch. Rome
, 1955, 93 ff., who also suggests that Caesar was planning to settle some veterans in Cisalpine Gaul. The
lex Rubria
dealt with the judicial competence of the municipal magistrates of Cisalpine Gaul; chapters xxi and xxii, dealing with debt etc., are discussed by M. W. Frederiksen,
JRS
, 1964, 129 ff. Cf. also F. J. Bruna,
Lex Rubria. Caesars Regelung für die Richterlichen Kompetenzen der Munizipalmagistrate in Gallia Cisalpina
(1972): on which see A. N. Sherwin-White,
JRS
, 1974, 236 ff. [p. 115]

12 DEBT. On this problem in the Ciceronian age and on Caesar’s legislation in particular see M. W. Frederiksen,
JRS
, 1966, 128 ff., who concludes that Caesar, faced with a debt crisis of unprecedented size, took the following steps: temporary measures in 49 and 48 that created valuations of property (
aestimationes
) at pre-war prices on the basis of which property should be legally transferred to creditors; reviving a law, and enacting in 46–45, that limited the hoarding of coin and required investment in land in Italy; and by a
lex Iulia
in 46–45 creating
cessio bonorum
which permanently helped to mitigate harsher aspects of the law of debt. (For the view that this last law was Augustan rather than Julian see L. Guénoun,
La cessio bonorum
(1920), 19 ff., and J. Crook,
Law and Life of Rome
(1967), 176 f.) [p. 116]

13 PHARSALUS. For general discussions on the battle see M. Rambaud,
Historia
, iii (1955), 346 ff., W. E. Gwatkin,
TAPA
, 1956, 109 ff., and Y. Bequignon,
Bull. Corresp. Hellen.
, 1960. 176 ff., also C. B. R. Pelling,
Historia
, 1973, 249 ff. F. Paschould,
Historia
, 1981, 178 ff., supports the view of Bequignon rather than of Pelling. [p. 117]

14 POMPEY. On Pompey see the works by Gelzer, van Ooteghem, Leach, Seager and Greenhalgh quoted above in ch. v, n. 10. On his portraiture see J. M. C. Toynbee,
Roman Historical Portraits
(1978), 24 ff. [p. 118]

15 CAESAR IN EGYPT. For the general political situation, see a Tubingen Dissertation by H. Heinen,
Rom. und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 V. Chr.
(1966), on which cf. E. Badian,
JRS
, 1968, 258 f. For the view that he did not dally in Egypt but left at the beginning of May, 47, see L. E. Lord,
JRS
, 1938, 18 ff. The story of his Nile trip is not confirmed by contemporary evidence. On the career of Cn. Domitius Calvinus see J. M. Sweeney,
Anc. W.
, I, 1978, 179 ff. [p. 119]

16 CAESAR’S DICTATORSHIP. It used to be thought that Caesar was appointed dictator II in his absence for an indefinite period (which lasted in the event until 46): one reason was that on some coins of 46 he was described as ’cos. tert., dict. iter’, but this may only mean that when consul III (i.e. in 46) his last dictatorship was his second, not that he was still holding that office (there are analogies for this usage); also a coin describes him simply as ‘cos. ter.’, i.e. early 46 after he had given up his second but had not started his third dictatorship. He will therefore have been merely consul designate for the last months of 47. For this view see U. Wilken,
Abh. Preuss. Akad
. 1940; V. Ehrenberg,
AJP
, 1953, 129 ff.; A. E. Raubitschek,
JRS
, 1954, 70 f. [p. 119]

17 LABIENUS. He came from Picenum; he may therefore have been an old partisan of Pompey and after serving Caesar in Gaul he may have revived an older loyalty in deserting to Pompey: see R. Syme,
JRS
, 1938, 113 ff. (=
Roman Papers
(1979), i, 62 ff.). W. B. Tyrell (
Historia
, 1972, 424 ff.) interprets Labienus’ departure from Caesar in 49 as a move to join the legitimate government against a revolutionary proconsul. [p. 120]

18 CATO. On Cato see L. R. Taylor,
Party Politics in the Age of Caesar
(1949), ch. viii; A. Afzelius,
Cl. et Med.
, 1941, 100 ff. On his portrait found at Volubilis in Africa see J. M. C. Toynbee,
Roman Historical Portraits
(1978), 37 ff. [p. 120]

19 LIGARIUS. See K. Kumaniecki,
Hermes
, 1967, 434 ff. [p. 121]

20 EPISTULAE AD CAESAREM SENEM DE REPUBLICA. These two works are attributed to Sallust, but some scholars believe that they are really
suasoriae
written under the Empire. Their Sallustian authorship has been maintained by many, e.g. Ed. Meyer, L. R. Taylor (
Party Politics in the Age of Caesar
, 154 ff., 185 ff., 232 ff.); others are rightly more sceptical, e.g. H. Last,
Cl. Qu.
, 1923, 87 ff., 151 ff.; F. E. Adcock,
JRS
, 1950, 139; E. Fraenkel,
JRS
, 1951, 192 ff.; R. Syme,
Museum Helveticum
, 1958, 46 ff., 1962, 177 ff.
Epistula
II is the earlier (50–49, or even 51); the first letter belongs to 46. [p. 121]

20a THE CORN DOLE. See G. Rickman,
The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome
(1980), 175 ff. After the existing list of recipients had been pruned, the number was kept down by an annual system of drawing lots (
subsortitio
) to fill the vacancies: the details of how such a system worked are shown by a third century A.D. archive relating to a corn dole at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt; see J. Rea,
Oxyrhynchi Papyri
, xl (1972). [p. 122]