nation, so far as was consistent with the enjoyment of imperial rule.
This friend of the people would give them spectacles and shows,
largesses of corn,--money, even,--and extension of the suffrage, but not
political power. He was popular with them, because he was generous and
merciful, because his exploits won their admiration, and his vast public
works gave employment to them and adorned their city.

It is unnecessary to dwell on the final contest of Caesar with the
nobles, with Pompey at their head, since nothing is more familiar in
history. Plainly he was not here rendering public services, as he did in
Spain and Gaul, but taking care of his own interests. I cannot see how a
civil war was a service, unless it were a service to destroy the
aristocratic constitution and substitute imperialism, which some think
was needed with the vast extension of the Empire, and for the good
administration of the provinces,--robbed and oppressed by the governors
whom the Senate had sent out to enrich the aristocracy. It may have been
needed for the better administration of justice, for the preservation of
law and order, and a more efficient central power. Absolutism may have
proved a benefit to the Empire, as it proved a benefit to France under
Cardinal Richelieu, when he humiliated the nobles. If so, it was only a
choice of evils, for absolutism is tyranny, and tyranny is not a
blessing, except in a most demoralized state of society, which it is
claimed was the state of Rome at the time of the usurpation of Caesar.
It is certain that the whole united strength of the aristocracy could
not prevail over Caesar, although it had Pompey for its defender, with
his immense prestige and experience as a general.

After Caesar had crossed the Rubicon, and it was certain he would march
to Rome and seize the reins of government, the aristocracy fled
precipitately to Pompey's wing at Capua, fearing to find in Caesar