Eric Gallager

9/29/09 (rewrite)
Caesar and Roman Aristocratic Values

One of Julius Caesar’s qualities that made him famous was his skill as a

military commander. However, military actions tend to need to be justified,

especially in the case of civil wars. When Caesar wrote his account of the Civil war,

his Bellum Civile, he was trying to convince his readership that his actions were

moral and his enemies’ actions (chiefly Pompey’s) were immoral. By doing this,

people would accept his actions as justified and object less to them. These people to

whom Caesar was trying to justify himself were Roman aristocrats, so when he was

portraying himself as moral, this specifically means that he was showing himself as

acting according to the Roman aristocratic value system. This of course brings up

the question, which morals did the Roman aristocrats value, anyway?

The Roman aristocratic values were various yet similar. Most of them revolve

around what is good for res publica, which are the matters of the state, and from

which the word “Republic” comes. Dignitas (from which the word “dignity” comes)

is worth, merit, honor, or respect (Ruebel, 3, 15), and it is valued because he who

has it is a benefit to the Republic. Dignitas grants auctoritas (from which the word

“authority” comes), which is power or prestige. Both are related to virtus (from

which the word “virtue” comes), which is manliness, courage, or excellence. Virtus is

used to get gloria (Ruebel, 15-16) (from which the “glory” comes) for the res publica,

which is like dignitas, except less permanent. Besides getting gloria for the res

publica, it was also necessary to have pietas for the res publica. Pietas (from which

the word “piety” comes) is dutifulness, patriotism, and devotion, especially to the res

publica (Ruebel, 13). It is kind of similar to fides (from which the word “fidelity”
 Eric Gallager
9/29/09 (rewrite)
comes), except fides is more about having confidence, loyalty, and trust for what the

Romans considered “friends” (Ruebel, 12). Another bond between Roman “friends”

is amicitia (from which the word “amity” comes), which focuses more on people

becoming friends for mutual advantage (Ruebel, 12). These are the main values to

which Caesar appeals in the beginning of his Bellum Civile.

So now that the Roman aristocratic values are established, how exactly did

Caesar appeal to these values? Caesar does not talk about himself much, as he is not

in actuality present during the events he describes at the beginning of his Bellum

Civile. Since his enemies are the ones talking in this passage, they do not discuss

Caesar’s moral actions and only focus on his immoral ones, as will be shown later.

While none of his moral acts are portrayed in the text, Caesar tries to be moral in the

act of writing the text himself. He writes it in the form of a commentarius, which is

supposed to imitate “the dispatches or reports from a general in the field to the

Senate” (Ruebel, 19). By writing about himself in the third person in this manner, he

gives the appearance of being unbiased, even though he clearly is not. However, that

is not the moral part of his writing. The moral part of his writing is when he respects

the bonds of amicitia he has with some of his fellow senators by refusing to portray

them as willingly voting against them, when he says, “Sic vocibus consulis, terrore

praesentis exercitus, minis amicorum Pompei plerique compulsi inviti et coacti

Scipionis sequuntur…” (BC 1. 2). By making them look browbeaten by Lentulus and

Pompey’s army into voting for a decree against him, he was acknowledging that it

was not their fault and he does not have a grudge against them. While Caesar may
 Eric Gallager
9/29/09 (rewrite)
have performed more moral actions over his lifespan, this was the main one visible

in the first portion of the text.

Caesar was writing about discussion among his opponents, specifically

Lentulus, Scipio, and Pompey, and his opponents were trying to make Caesar look

immoral. By showing this, Caesar makes himself look picked upon. The Senate

decreed (under duress) that if Caesar did not dismiss his army by a certain date, he

would be considered to be acting against the state (in Latin: “uti ante certam diem

Caesar exercitum dimmitat; si non faciat, eum adversus rem publicam facturum

videri.”) (BC 1. 2). Acting against the res publica was considered immoral, as the

affairs of the state were valued highly, and to act against them was to lack pietas.

However, much of the conversation was not actually about the morality of Caesar’s

actions, so this was the largest judgment of immorality passed upon Caesar in this

passage.

If most of the passage was not about Caesar, then who was it about? Caesar’s

main opponent in the Civil War was Pompey, and thus his actions were considered,

too. Caesar himself did not portray Pompey as moral, but some of the speakers in his

writing did. Scipio said that Pompey was trying to do his duty to the Republic (in

Latin: “Pompeio esse in animo rei publicae non deessse…”) (BC 1. 1), and thus had

pietas, but Caesar wrote that Pompey seemed to be speaking through Scipio (in

Latin: “Haec Scipionis oratio, quod senatus in urbe habebatur Pompeiusque aderat,

ex ipsius ore Pompei mitti videbatur.”) (BC 1. 2). By undermining Scipio’s credibility,

Caesar discounts Pompey’s supposed moral character. Caesar also wrote that

Pompey praised and encouraged the eager while reproaching and urging on the
 Eric Gallager
9/29/09 (rewrite)
more hesitant (in Latin: “Laudat promptos atque in posterum confirmat, segniores

castigat atque incitat.”) (BC 1. 3), appealing to their virtus so that they might bring

gloria to the Republic. Pompey considered this to be moral, because he considered

himself to be acting in the interests of the Republic, but as Caesar and Pompey were

enemies, we can assume Caesar thought Pompey was not acting in the interests of

the Republic, and therefore considered these actions of Pompey to be immoral.

Caesar in general tried to minimize Pompey’s moral actions and maximize his

immoral actions.

To maximize Pompey’s immoral actions, Caesar simply showed a lot of them.

First of all, the mere fact that they were enemies was a violation of their bonds of

fides and amicitia. As far as actual actions go, Pompey threatened the Senate into

voting for Scipio’s motion against Caesar (BC 1. 2), violating their libertas, or right to

independent political actions (Ruebel, 14). Marcus Calidius and Marcus Rufus

argued that Pompey was threatening Caesar by holding his two legions he had taken

from him and holding them near Rome (in Latin: “timere Caesarem ereptis ab eo

duabus legionibus, ne ad eius periculum reservare et retinere eas ad urbem

Pompeius videretur…”) (BC 1.2). Even if the legions were not threatening Caesar,

they helped Pompey threaten the Senate into agreeing with him, and the fact still

remains that they had once belonged to Caesar. Caesar also tries to make Pompey

look immoral by association by making Lentulus look immoral. Lentulus’s speech

(BC 1. 1) showed Lentulus as having only conditional devotion to the Republic

(which is not true pietas), as willing to disobey the auctoritas of the Senate if they

tried to please Caesar, and as snakelike for having once been friends with Caesar
 Eric Gallager
9/29/09 (rewrite)
and now violating their amicitia. Scipio spoke similarly, and Caesar portrayed

Pompey as speaking through Scipio, thereby painting Pompey as guilty of the same

sins he had ascribed to Lentulus previously. Caesar used all of this to make Pompey

look bad.

Overall, Caesar minimized his immoral actions and Pompey’s moral actions

while maximizing Pompey’s immoral actions, as shown. He did this within the

framework of the Roman aristocratic values. He made this appeal to morals because

he was not using many other rhetorical devices that might persuade his audience.

While it is still spin and a method of rhetorical persuasion, the way he does it makes

it seem like he is making his case with content rather than style. He managed to put

spin on events without actually lying, because if he had lied, that would have

undermined his moral argument. Caesar’s technique makes it almost possible to

forget that he was the one writing.

So, with all this technique, did it work? Were Caesar’s military actions well

justified to the Roman aristocracy? Unfortunately for Caesar, his writing was not as

effective as he might have hoped. At first, he managed to make himself look moral

enough with his writings to convince people to help him win the Civil War and rule

afterwards. However, afterwards he was not viewed favorably. His portrayal of his

own dignitas and auctoritas backfired, as it was seen as a threat to the dignitas of the

other Roman politicians (Ruebel, 19). In the long run, his attempts at amicitia were

not rewarded with the fides and pietas he had hoped for. While he may have seemed

to have convinced the Roman aristocracy morally at first, in actuality, he had not.
 Eric Gallager
9/29/09 (rewrite)
Works Cited

James S. Ruebel, Caesar and the Crisis of the Roman Aristocracy: A Civil War Reader
(Norman OK, 1994).
D.P. Simpson, Cassell’s Latin and English Dictionary (Wiley NJ, 2002).