Suetonius rejected all other explanations, including the one ‘frequently repeated’ by Pompey, which was, however, rather unlikely. According to Pompey – and one would like to know Suetonius' source for this interesting information – Caesar could not complete what he had undertaken; that is, finish the monuments and public works he had begun and satisfy the expectations he had aroused in the people; therefore he took the path to revolution. If Pompey really did say this – Butler and Cary facetiously observe – it is clear that he understood nothing about his adversary's character. In reality, Pompey's remark was far less an attempt at analysis than a contemptuous judgement which reduced the figure of his opponent to the level of a party leader without prospects who was tormented by a pressing need for money, or rather, who was crushed by enterprises that were too great for him. This could describe ‘Catilinarian’ characters, and probably Clodius as well, but not an able career-builder like Caesar, who had derived an uncommon economic strength from the Gallic campaign. We do not know when Pompey made his polemical judgement (‘omnia permiscere voluisse’): certainly it does not fit Caesar's behaviour in 51–50 bc, which seems, on the contrary, obstinately bent on compromise.