History, Classics
History
I examined the text of the Bellum Catilinae by the late Republican, early Imperial Roman historian Gaius Sallustius Crispus, looking particularly at the portrayal of his personal friend and benefactor Gaius Julius Caesar. In addition to the textual analysis, I considered the writing of other scholars like Ronald Syme, agreeing and disagreeing with them at several junctions. My presentation for the Undergraduate Research Forum focuses on investigating whether Sallust's portayal of Caesar was transformative as Syme implies, or additive in nature.
I began my research with some guiding questions.
What qualities are attributed to Caesar by Sallust throughout the Bellum Catilinae?
How do these qualities compare or contrast with traditional depictions of Caesar?
Did Sallust have a relationship with Caesar that could constitute a conflict of interest?
Are there any potential manifestations of a conflict of interest in Sallust's portrayal of Caesar?
What are the takeaways that I can glean from the Bellum Catilinae about Sallust's use of rhetoric and literary devices?
Sallust's monograph, published between the years of 44 and 40 BCE, certainly after the death of Caesar when Sallust decided to "pass what was left of my life aloof from public affairs", tells the history of the Catilinarian Conspiracy in 63 BCE. In 64, Lucius Sergius Catilinae, a patrician, veteran of the Social War, and former governor of Africa, ran against Marcus Tullius Cicero, a senator, orator, and foreigner to Rome having grown up in Arpinium, who by all accounts had much less of a chance to win given the two men's resumés. Cicero however, wins the consulship to the shock and horror of Catiline. The win is likely the result of ghastly aspersions cast on Catiline's character by Cicero including almost certainly fabricated accusations of an attempted murder of the consuls in 66 BCE, charges of extortion, torture, murder of a relative, and the seduction of and sex with a Vestal Virgin.
Cicero and Sallust allege that Catiline, desperate to excuse his own massive debt, organizes a number of conspirators to murder the current consul, Cicero, and place Catiline at the head of the Republic. The conspiracy was brought to light by Cicero, driving Catiline to flee Rome and join an army of insurrectionists outside the walls. The conspirators left in Rome are executed by Cicero without trial after a debate between Caesar and Cato on the use of the death penalty. It is this debate that occupies the center and climax of Sallust's monograph.
Ronald Syme, the leading scholar on Sallust, identifies that "Caesar and Cato were divergent in conduct, principles, and allegiance" (Syme, 120). William Batstone, working off of this initial observation by Syme, gives an analysis of Caesar and Cato's fragmentation of Roman virtu where there is "an opposition between the traditional Roman virtues of action and the traditional intellectual categories by which those virtues are known, named, and understood" (Batstone, 2). Cato is identified with the virtue of action in his advocation for a quick, decisive, and revenge-fueled execution of the conspirators, while Caesar is identified with the intellectual rigor which underpins action by considering the precedent it will set to enact the death penalty without trial.
Caesar says that "All precedents have originated in cases which were good; but when the control of the government falls into the hands of men who are incompetent or bad, your new precedent is transferred from those who well deserve and merit such punishment to the undeserving and blameless” (Sallust, 51.27). This, along with other quotes about how "when you apply your intellect, it prevails; if passion possesses you, it holds sway, and the mind is impotent" demonstrate Caesar's image according to Sallust as a man of intellect, opposed to Cato, the man of pure action (Sallust, 51.3).
Syme, understanding this, proposes that Sallust may be suggesting that "Their qualities could be regarded as complementary no less than antithetic. In alliance the two had what was needed to save the Republic." (Syme, 120). This is a completely understandable position to hold given the facts so far presented. It must be remembered however, that this is the Julius Caesar who crossed the Rubicon river, starting the Civil War, the Julius Caesar who declared himself first princeps or "first citizen" then dictator for life, the Julius Caesar who Cicero accused of acting as a king, and the Julius Caesar who was murdered for that hubris. It is undeniably the case that Caesar is traditionally seen as the man of action and would be expected to be identified with that virtue rather than as an intellectual first and foremost. Jaime Volker points out that the image that Caesar, in writing his Bellum Civile, "wanted to project, particularly during the civil war, was one of moderation and self-control” (Volker, 37). This concerted effort by Caesar, which Volker also notes is echoed by Sallust in the Bellum Catilinae, speaks to an attempt to change the narrative. Syme's theory gives the impression, in light of the evidence that Sallust portrays Caesar in a novel way, that Sallust is discarding the image of Caesar as a man of action and transforming him into a man of intellect. If this were not the case, there would be no logical way to conclude that Cato's virtue of action was needed in conjunction with the "conduct, principles, and allegiance" of Caesar to "save the Republic" (Syme, 120). Syme's conclusion necessitates this assumption.
The noticeable divergence from traditional representations of Caesar is the first observation needed to establish my claim against Syme. The second step is the fact that Sallust and Caesar have a remarkable connection which incentivizes him, consciously or unconsciously, to cast Caesar in a favorable light. Luciano Canfora reminds us that "Sallust was close to Caesar, at least at certain points of the civil war" (Canfora, 56). Sallust served under Caesar in Africa during the Civil War against Pompey's sons, and afterwards Caesar "reduced them [the Numidians] to the status of subjects, and delivered them to Sallust, nominally to rule, but really to harry and plunder" and was "exonerated by Caesar" for his exploitation of the Numidians while he was governor (Cassius Dio, 7.2-3). It is also attested that the famous Gardens of Sallust were created by absorbing parts of the property of Caesar as evidenced by inscriptions in the horti Sallustiani indicating that the gardens eventually became imperial property after Sallust's death (Hartswick, 9).
Given this situation, it seems far more likely to me that instead of ignoring and transforming the portrayal of Caesar, Sallust adds his own interpretation to the already existing narrative. This results in Caesar, in the vacuum of the Bellum Catilinae, seeming to have a fractured virtue as Syme and Batstone argue, but when the outside context is considered it is revealed that Caesar alone exemplifies both aspects of action and intellect. Sallust has successfully grafted a new addition to Caesar's character where alone, he is what is needed to save the Republic.
Batstone, William W. “The Antithesis of Virtue: Sallust’s ‘Synkrisis’ and the Crisis of the Late Republic.” Classical Antiquity 7, no. 1 (1988): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/25010876.
Canfora, Luciano. Julius Caesar: the life and times of the people’s dictator. Translated by Marian Hill and Kevin Windle. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007.
Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume IV: Books 41-45. Translated by Earnest Cary, Herbert B. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.
Hartswick, Kim, J. “The Original Owner: C. Sallustius Crispus.” In The Gardens of Sallust: A Changing Landscape, 8-10. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2004.
Sallustius, Crispus, C. Bellum Catilinae. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921.
Syme, Ronald. “Caesar and Cato.” In Sallust, 103-120. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1964.
Volker, Jaime. “Caesarian Conflict: Portrayals of Julius Caesar in narratives of civil war.” PhD diss. University of Washington, 2012.
Through my research and writing process, it was crucial for me to efficiently communicate my theories and general thoughts during my weekly check-ins with my faculty mentor. Being able to concisely convey my progress allowed me to get the proper feedback on my work so far. In addition, the writing process required clear communication on my part in order to be understood by my readers. An intuitive structure keeps my readers from being distracted, and allows them to stay focused on the points I'm making.
I had to employ my critical thinking skills in order to evaluate the arguments being made by both ancient and modern historians throughout my research. None of my conclusions would have been arrived at had I not closely examined the subtext of the prose and structure of the Bellum Catilinae. It was also necessary for me to put the historians that I read into conversations with each other in order to synthesize a larger conclusion which gave me more insight into the topic than I would have gotten if I only examined them individually.
Professionalism in this project was manifested in my weekly meetings with my advisor, Dr. Steven Tuck. Every week on Wednesday I would report my weekly progress on research and writing. In the few situations where I was unprepared for our meeting, I took accountability and worked to get back on track. A large part of professionalism is dedication to the project and I can confidently say that I have never been more intellectually engaged and eager to continue learning than I was while working on this research paper.