Debates of the cause of the Roman Civil War are numerous. Historian and author Erich S. Gruen, in his book The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, implicates the desire “to maintain dignitas” on the part of both Caesar’s opponents and Caesar himself as one of the primary catalysts to the strife. However, Aulus Hirtius, Caesar’s biographer and comrade, tells a different story. In chapter 8 of Caesar’s biography De Bello Gallico, Hirtius uses biased language to suggest that the events leading up to the Roman Civil War were primarily due to the puerile pride and emotions of Caesar's opponents, and to suggest that Caesar’s side was the more justified one, but neglects to recognize the similar pride of Caesar. The bias of Hirtius’ writing is …show more content…
found in the way he emphasizes the desire for political prestige as the primary motivation for Lentulus and Marcellus, but does not emphasize that this was also a primary motivation for Caesar. In one passage, Hirtius addresses Caesar’s motivations to return to Italy (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.50.1-4). To do him justice, Hirtius certainly does include as motivation a desire to protect “omnem honorem et dignitatem Caesaris”, which “Lentulum et Gaium Marcellum…spoliarent” (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.50.4). However, Hirtius adds this almost as an afterthought: the primary motivations for Caesar, according to Hirtius, were “ut…gratias ageret” to the townsfolk in Italy “quod frequentiam atque officium suum Antonio praestitissent” (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.50.3). Another reason was that “se et honorem suum sequentis anni commendaret petitione” (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.50.4). By including any reference to “dignitatem” at the very end of the passage after mentioning all the other reasons (and even then, only in reference to its being under direct attack by Lentulus and Marcellus), Hirtius suggests that Caesar’s actions stem from a variety of substantial, concrete reasons, not solely from a desire to protect “dignitatem” (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.50.4). Hirtius attaches concrete actions to Caesar, actions not contingent on protecting political prestige, but genuine gratitude (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.50.3). Therefore, he elevates Caesar’s role in the civil war to a nobler, more mature level than that of his opponents. This contrasts directly to that fact that Hirtius attaches any actions on the part of Marcellus and the other opponents of Caesar solely to their desire to ruin his political prestige, thereby placing them on a lower level than Caesar.
Hirtius’ biased language and analysis of the situation is seen in his assessment of Marcellus' actions. He writes "Nam Marcellus, proximo anno, cum impugnaret Caesaris dignitatem contra legem Pompei et Crassi retullerat ante tempus ad senatum de Caesaris provinciis...discessionem" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2) Hirtius attests that Marcellus wants the "Caesaris dignitatem" and acts – Hirtius implies – only on this one desire when he "rettulerat...ad senatum" a proposal that was "contra legem Pompei et Crassi" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). Hirtius includes something capricious and insubstantial –a desire for “dignitatem” – and something concrete –a “legem” – in the same sentence in order to establish a contrast; Caesar's side is the one with the enacted "legem" to support their actions, but his opponent Marcellus is the one with only desire for “dignitatem” to justify his actions (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). Hirtius goes on to say that Marcellus "quaerebat" the "Caesaris dignitatem" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). Hirtius implies that it is this desire that drove Marcellus' actions, but concrete actions – like "legem Pompei et Crassi" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2) – that characterized the people on Caesar's side. …show more content…
In this way, Hirtius elevates Caesar and his comrades to a more justifiable position: should they ever be accused of precipitating the war, they may claim that Caesar’s side is the one with “legem” and other attempts and regulations to avoid war, whereas Marcellus’ side was the one with rash desires and illegal actions. One sees Hirtius’ implicit bias again in the last part of the same passage, in which Hirtius again implicates the emotions of his opponents as their primary catalysts.
Hirtius writes, in reference to Marcellus being denied, that "Quibus non frangebantur animi inimicorum Caesaris sed admonebantur quo maiores pararent necessitates" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). One sees that it is the "animi inimicorum Caesaris" that drove Marcellus and others to reconsider their position and what they need to do: institute “necessitates” (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). It is their intangible, transitory “animi” that act as the catalyzing factor behind their actions, and by this point the reader should recognize that the “animi” of people – and their affiliations with others – are definitely subject to change: Curio – a proponent of Caesar himself – provides a nice example of this caprice (Boatwright, The Romans: Village to Empire). This subtext, whether Hirtius recognizes it or not, implicates Marcellus and his comrades as the guilty ones in this political arena: their actions are built on sand, based on pride rather than
proactivity. The reason why this is such a biased view is because Caesar is no more exempt from trivial and puerile arrogance than his opponents are. Erich S. Gruen writes "Julius Caesar was not the first man to risk civil war in order to avenge wounded pride". The fact that Hirtius does not include this information in his account, instead choosing to elaborate more fully on the childlike and unjustifiable behavior of Caesar's enemies, suggests that he is trying to distract the reader from these truths, and reinforce the honorable actions and motivations of Caesar and his associates.
In the beginning of the Book Cassius uses anecdotes of Caesar’s weakness and faults, argumentum ad antiquatum, and ethos on Brutus to persuade him to join the conspiracy to kill Caesar, this works on Brutus and shows that anyone, even people as stoic as Brutus, can be persuaded by appealing to their motivations. Cassius, a very suspicious character thru ought the play tells Brutus to “be not jealous on me” (827), in the quote he tells Brutus to not be suspicious of him because he is just a friend who genuinely cares. Cassius does this to put himself on Brutus’ side and not seem like a distant person, this allows him to criticize Caesar and suggest that he is a bad influence on Rome which appeals to Brutus’ desire to keeping Rome safe. After setting himself up as a friend to Brutus, Cassius uses harsh anecdotes on the weakness of Caesar to show that he isn’t fit to rule Rome. Cassius recollects on a time when he and Caesar went swimming in the river Tiber and Caesar screamed “Help me, Cassius or I sink” (828) to de...
“Whatever distinction a Roman Equestrian can possess—and it can undoubtedly be very great—has always been judged as belonging to Marcus Caelius in the fullest measure, and is still so judged today” (Pro Caelio 3, pg 130). This quote is taken from the early parts of the defense speech and is used by Cicero to build a foundation surrounding the character of Cicero. Cicero states himself that “he must sway the hearts of the audience” that is exactly what he is doing with this statement about the character of Caelius. He is first refuting the assertion made by the prosecution that Caelius is a vagabond of types who does not obtain the traits of a Proper Roman because of his Equestrian ancestry. Cicero utterly deny’s that and instead demonstrates that Caelius is a man above reproach who comes from an esteemed line of Roman Equestrians and that the Equestrian class is not a class to be looked down on. “Being the son of a Roman Equestrian is something that the prosecution should never have used as a slur before these jurors, or before myself as an advocate.” (Pro Caelio 4, pg 130). There is quite a bit of irony in this statement, Cicero is to an affect reprimanding the prosecution for utilizing slander in order to tear down Caelius. This is something that Cicero himself will do later in his speech when he attacks the
In Shakespeare’s play, the conspirators are not justified because of their selfish motives. During the beginning of the play, Cassius is depicted as covetous when he tries to convince Casca to join the conspirators by speaking poorly of Caesar. “What trash is Rome, what rubbish and what offal, when it serves for the base matter to illuminate so vile a thing as Caesar” (I.II.108-110). Using a disgusted pattern of diction, Shakespeare helps to convey a bitter tone when Cassius states, “trash”, “rubbish” and “offal” to express his belief that Rome will become a terrible place when Caesar rules. Also, the fact that Cassius says, “a thing”, to describe Caesar shows how disrespectful he is, portraying his revolting attitude as a bad motive. This language characterizes Cassius as jealous and greedy of Caesar’s power,
The idea of ignorance, and the belief of a false faith, turns this noble man into a vulgar grave, with virtuous notions. Brutus’ ignorance creates an expectation that develops a path that leads him awry. When Brutus mentions, “I would not love Cassius; yet I love him well” (1.2.81-88 ), he portrays his internal conflict. Brutus depicts the struggle between Cassius’ acquisitions and Caesar’s actions.
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
Greed, ambition, and the possibility of self-gain are always constant in their efforts to influence people’s actions. In Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, a venerable politician, becomes a victim of the perpetual conflict between power-hungry politicians and ignorant commoners. He is a man of honor and good intentions who sacrifices his own happiness for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, his honor is strung into a fine balance between oblivion and belief and it is ultimately the cause of his downfall. His apparent obliviousness leads him to his grave as his merciful sparing of Mark Antony’s life, much like Julius Caesar’s ghost, comes back to haunt him. Overall, Brutus is an honest, sincere man who holds the lives of others in high regard while he himself acts as a servant to Rome.
"On my way out, I was even going to shake his [the policeman's] hand, but just in time, I remembered that I had killed a man." Part 2, Chapter 1, pg. 64
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
Decius uses flattery and persuasion when speaking to Brutus. Decius is an active member of the Conspirators so he is very motivated into getting Caesar to go to the Senate House. The first thing that Decius says when he walks into Caesar's house is "Caesar, all hail! Good morrow, worthy Caesar" (II, ii, 30). Decius also goes on and calls Caesar "most mighty". Decius is already on Caesar's good side. After catching up on Calpurnia's dream, he uses his quick wit to distort Calpurnia's foreshadowing dream by saying it is "misinterpreted". He explains that the dream "Signifies that from (Caesar) Rome shall suck/Reviving blood, and that great men shall press/for tinctures, stains, relics, and cognizance" (II, ii, 31). Caesar seems to be amazed by this version of the interpretation; in fact, he likes this version a lot better mainly because Decius uses so much flattery.
Brutus is trying to justify to himself that killing Julius Caesar is the right thing to do for the good of Rome, because Caesar could become very dangerous if allowed to gain power by becoming king. His argument incorporates ethos, pathos, and logos to justify the necessity of Caesar’s death for the Roman people. Brutus establishes his credibility through ethos by stating: “I know no personal cause to spurn at him/ But for the general” (2.1.11-12). His claim demonstrates his moral righteousness and trustworthiness by explaining that he has no personal reasons for hating Caesar, and his sentiments are for the best interest of the Roman people. Brutus further argues the logical progression of ambition
In addition to this characteristic of Cassius, he also has a devious nature. This attribute allows him to invent informed manipulative plans to eliminate his opponents. For instance, after saying his farewells to Brutus, he gives a soliloquy that reveals his idea of throwing writings of different handwritings in Brutus’ windows “as if they came from several citizens” all of which “tending to the great opinion that Rome holds of his name, wherein obscurely Caesar’s ambition shall be glancéd at” (Shakespeare I. ii. 306-309). Since Brutus and Cassius have been friends for a long period of time, Cassius holds an abundance of knowledge pertaining to his values--in this case being his honor and desire to please Rome’s citizens. This undermining plot Cassius has devised is based on an informed opinion of the most effective way to subvert Caesar’s authority, and because of the valid observations made of Brutus by Cassius, the likelihood that this clever scheme will be carried out successfully should make Caesar concerned about the intentions of his judicial
Playwright, William Shakespeare, in the play Julius Caesar, utilizes many instances of rhetorical devices through the actions and speech of Caesar's right-hand man, Mark Antony. In the given excerpt, Antony demonstrates several of those rhetorical devices such as verbal irony, sarcasm, logos, ethos, and pathos which allows him to sway the plebeians. The central purpose of Mark Antony’s funeral speech is to persuade his audience into believing that Caesar had no ill intentions while manipulating the plebeians into starting a rebellion against their new enemies, Brutus and the conspirators.
After the murderous confrontation, it was not too late to prevent the anger of Caesar’s allies and the citizens or, even, to avoid future civil war. But it was here that Brutus made his second and third mistakes. Marcus Brutus rose before the Roman populace and attempted to offer a justification of Caesar’s murder. His flawed judgment came when he deemed Antony trustworthy and allowed him to speak at Caesar’s funeral. Brutus naively let Antony draw the mob in his favor. No one could dare refute Antony’s impassioned pleas in behalf of Caesar.
Both were respected men amongst the commoners of Rome, especially Brutus, and both held much power, as they were both senators. As that power came into question, however, the revelation of the complex components of friendship began to occur. As Cassius began to fear the loss of his own power, Brutus became a pawn in Cassius’ scheme to uphold his authority. This is directly shown during Brutus and Cassius’ private conversation when Cassius states, “Brutus, and Caesar: what should be in that Caesar? Why should that name be sounded more than yours? Write them together, yours is as fair a name” (JC 1.2.148-150). Although not explicitly stated, Cassius in attempting to persuade Brutus into rising to power. By complimenting and praising his name, Cassius is directly trying to influence Brutus He figures that if Brutus is in power, then he will keep his power because they are both friends, unlike if Caesar was in power. Although, Cassius is the main contributor to the situation, this situation directly shows one of the many aspects of friendship prevalent in the daily interactions of Brutus, which is the idea that in a friendship, one can be used in order for the other to achieve what it is they want. In this situation, Brutus is being used by Cassius in order to gain what he wants, which is power. Within human connection, this idea is very common, as friends are taken advantage of quite often. This is no different from Brutus’ relationship with Cassius, which shows a relevant and frequent element of companionship. Another aspect of friendship prevalent within the the relationship between Brutus and Cassius is the aspect of argument and resolution. While the two are hidden from public view far away from the city, Brutus becomes trapped in an argument with Cassius over his questionable actions, and it quickly escalates into potentially violent situation involving
Why would a title be a name of a fairly minor character? Yes Julius Caesar was a character of major power, but he was killed off in Act 3! The title should include Marcus Brutus, seeing as he is the actual main character. He was the one who was in the play a vast majority and made a very big impact on the plot!