Eric Gallager

10/27/09 (rewrite)
Ruebel vs. Carter

If a student is going to learn about Julius Caesar’s famous book, the Bellum

Civile, it is necessary to have a good textbook about it. There are two major choices

of textbooks for students to choose between: James Ruebel’s Caesar and the Crisis of

the Roman Aristocracy: A Civil War Reader, and John Carter’s Julius Caesar The Civil

War: Books I & II. When comparing the two, it is important for Latin students to

consider how useful the book will be in helping them learn Latin, and in teaching

them about Roman literature and politics. It is also important to look at the more

specific features of each book, such as the Latin text itself, the notes, the

introduction, and any other features that affect the general presentation of the book.

As Carter’s book was published first, so it is first to be examined. Carter puts

a big emphasis on the Latin text, devoting a whole section of his introduction to his

textual criticism of the Latin. He does this because “All surviving manuscripts of the

Bellum Civile share a good deal of textual corruption” (Carter, 28). He lists all of the

manuscripts he examined before creating his own text, and apparently has his own

apparatus criticus. He also lists all the emendations he has made to previous editions

of the text, although most students of Latin will not have these previous texts

available to compare, making this information somewhat useless. The only textual

information students should need is if the textual information is included to explain

a particular reason that a passage seems strange. Besides the textual information,

the text itself is good in that it is free from any apparent errors. With regards to his

approach to the text, Carter says, “I freely admit to eclecticism: if it is to be

1
 Eric Gallager
10/27/09 (rewrite)
intelligible, a text of the Bellum Civile can hardly fail to be eclectic” (Carter, 29). This

is a justifiable approach.

As reading Latin can be difficult sometimes, Carter includes notes. He uses

two different types: he puts textual notes in footnotes, and then all other types of

notes in a notes section at the back of the book. There are not many, if any,

grammatical notes, requiring students to have a greater knowledge of Latin. Instead,

Carter uses the notes to explain the context and history behind what Caesar is

saying. Having the notes in the back of the book is understandable, as the length of

them would prohibit including them as footnotes. However, that does not excuse

their location’s inconvenience, as it is annoying to constantly be required to flip to

the back of the book if it is necessary for an explanation of something. While the

location of the notes may not be useful, the content of the notes is useful, as they

provide much background information.

Before reading the main part of a book (in this case the actual Latin), it is

often useful to read the introduction. Carter’s introduction has seven sections. The

first three have to do with history behind the text, while the next four have to do

with the text itself. The historical parts look at the historical facts, which give

students a story of what happened. The parts looking at the text look at the style,

narrative, and other elements of literary criticism. It is a well-structured

introduction, with each section being clearly distinct. It helps fulfill the goal of

helping students place this text in the context of Roman literature and politics.

Besides these features that most texts should have, Carter’s text has a few

other features, the most important being an exegetical English translation running

2
 Eric Gallager
10/27/09 (rewrite)
right next to the Latin text. Some students may find this unhelpful, as they could find

themselves using it as a crutch, or have it throw off their translation, but as long as

they use it correctly, the translation should actually be helpful. Having it right next

to the text means it is not necessary to keep another translation open beside it. It

also makes it easier to find out what certain words are: if students are stuck on a

certain word, they can just look in the translation to see if there are any similar

words in it, rather than having to pull out a dictionary. The problems only occur

when students try to use the translation for the grammar, too, as the exegetical

translation has much different grammar than a literal translation would. Even if all

the words are known, it is still useful to look over the translation to get a general

idea of what is going on in the text to make sure one’s own translation is at least

somewhat on the right track. Having a facing translation is one of the more useful

features of the Carter text.

Three years after the Carter text was written, the Ruebel text was published.

Ruebel’s text has a few minor differences in the Latin from Carter. In the third line of

Book I Chapter 5, Ruebel changes “latorum audacia” (which, as Ruebel noted in the

footnote, was “stoutly defended by Carter” (Ruebel, 49)) to “latorumque audacia”

(Ruebel, 49). Ruebel adds this “-que” because he feels that “some sort of additional

connective seems called for” (Ruebel, 50). Then, in the first line of Book I Chapter 7,

he misspells “invidia” as “inividia” (most likely a typo), and inserts “adiutoremque”

for “adiutorque” (Ruebel 54). This second change makes the sentence unintelligible,

as the sentence only makes sense when “adiutorque” is in the nominative. These are

the major textual differences in the first part of the text. Despite these changes,

3
 Eric Gallager
10/27/09 (rewrite)
Ruebel says, “I have made no attempt to construct a new text (though I have

suggested one small addition at 1.5.3, and found other small alterations

unavoidable)” (Ruebel, xviii). He does not put as much emphasis on textual

differences as Carter does, because, “in the absence of a reliable apparatus criticus it

would not be productive to dwell on textual difficulties” (Ruebel, xix). This is the

correct approach, as students of Latin are not necessarily students of textual

criticism. Knowing which words appeared in which manuscripts does not always

help students improve their understanding of Latin, or their understanding of

Roman politics and literature. The few bits of textual criticism Ruebel left in were

just the right amount to be helpful. While Ruebel’s text might not have been as good

as Carter’s, he at least included more sensible amounts of textual criticism.

Like Carter, Ruebel includes notes. Unlike Carter, however, Ruebel only uses

footnotes and no endnotes. Not having a facing translation gives him more room to

do this. About his footnotes, he says, “This book therefore omits some of the usual

kind of annotation that is usually found in texts… I have tried to gloss words or

idioms that will be difficult to find… [but] the grammatical explanations have also

been kept short.” (Ruebel, xvii) While the grammatical explanations are short, he at

least has some, whereas Carter has none. This is more helpful to more introductory-

level students, as are the explanations of idioms. While he has more of these types of

explanations than Carter, he still does not have as many as other Latin texts do.

Besides these notes that help with the translation, he also gives the type of notes

that Carter gave, i.e. ones giving history or context about certain events or people. If

Ruebel has something particularly extensive to say, instead of using a footnote, he

4
 Eric Gallager
10/27/09 (rewrite)
will insert a paragraph of English directly into the text, making readers read it,

whereas Carter would just leave it in the back of the text for readers to find on their

own. Ruebel’s approach works better, as sometimes the notes are essential to

understanding the text, and sometimes less-motivated readers will not be bothered

to go look in the back of the book for more information.

Ruebel also handles his introduction slightly differently from Carter. He puts

a preface before his introduction. This preface includes some of the things that

Carter included in his introduction, such as textual information. Ruebel’s

introduction is only three sections, while Carter’s is seven. Ruebel’s introduction

focuses more on Roman values, what people of the time would have thought about

Caesar, and the moral implications of Caesar’s actions. While it does include some of

the historical and literary details that Carter’s introduction includes, these are not

emphasized as much. Ruebel emphasizes the morals because “the intent of this

course is to provide a view of Caesar that can be attacked or defended by the reader”

(Ruebel, xvi). The attackability or defendability of Caesar is the major difference that

sets Ruebel apart from Carter here, as Carter seemed to just want to provide a view

of Caesar without giving any extra help to the reader in forming opinions about

Caesar. It is hard to form opinions about moral behavior without knowledge of

moral standards, and this is why Ruebel includes them. Another difference in

introductions is that Ruebel’s introduction transitions more smoothly into the text.

He ends his introduction talking about the history leading up to the war, then

includes a different text that was written before the war (the last chapter of De Bello

Gallico, which was written by Caesar’s general Aulus Hirtius), then gets to the text

5
 Eric Gallager
10/27/09 (rewrite)
itself. This makes the sections more connected and makes the reading flow better,

but makes the sections less distinct.

The way Ruebel transitions from the introduction to the text brings up

another unique feature of his book: He inserts other things into the text besides the

text itself. For example, after Caesar gives an account in Book I Chapter 5 of a letter

he sent to the Senate, Ruebel then includes a letter from Cicero describing the letter

in opposite terms. This type of context presents different ways of looking at Caesar

that can help a reader form a more informed opinion of Caesar. It is also an

interesting way to break up the text from time to time. Along with these works from

other authors, Ruebel also occasionally inserts into the paper the footnotes-turned-

paragraphs mentioned earlier. While he includes all of these other extra features, he

does not include the facing translation that Carter does. This gives the reader a

better understanding of the historical context, but is not as helpful with translating

the Latin.

For each of the modes of comparison, each of the authors is better in one

way, yet worse in another. Carter may have a better-constructed text and more

textual criticism, but Ruebel does not clutter his text up with useless textual

criticism. Carter’s notation may be more organized and provide more historical

information, but Ruebel’s notes are easier to access and help more with the

translation. Carter’s introduction may help the reader better place the Bellum Civile

in the context of Roman literature and history, but Ruebel’s introduction helps the

reader form a more accurate opinion of Caesar with his discussion of morals and

values. Carter’s facing translation may help the reader translate better, but Ruebel’s

6
 Eric Gallager
10/27/09 (rewrite)
insertions help the reader understand more of the historical context. Ruebel’s

advantages would make his text more attractive to an introductory-level college

student, while Carter’s advantages would make his text more attractive to an upper-

level college student. Of course, a student could also always use both texts in

conjunction, as that can also be helpful.

7
 Eric Gallager
10/27/09 (rewrite)
Works Cited

Ruebel, James S. Caesar and the Crisis of Roman Aristocracy: A Civil War
Reader. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.
Print.
Carter, John. Julius Caesar The Civil War: Books I & II . New York: Aris &
Phillips Classical Texts, 1991. Print.