Textkit Logo

Is Caesar worth reading? Is Horace?

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

Is Caesar worth reading? Is Horace?

Postby Ulpianus » Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:24 pm

This started in another thread, but it seems to have acquired a life of its own and I thought I would spin it off. Original thread is here: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=1397.

MickeyV wrote:
Say, Ulpianus, do you propose that Caesar's writing is, for the modern Latinist, merely functional?
I'm a fan of him myself. Brilliant, impeccable Latin, and, really, not hardly as boring as some, who've perhaps read the first few lines only, make it out to be. Take, for instance, this passage, wherein Caesar sheds some light on the Gauls' character as he sees it. Certainly, even if lacking complete veracity, it bespeaks a great sensitivity, almost a sense of humour, and, as always, great writership.

His de rebus Caesar certior factus et infirmitatem Gallorum veritus, quod sunt in consiliis capiendis mobiles et novis plerumque rebus student, nihil his committendum existimavit. Est enim hoc Gallicae consuetudinis, uti et viatores etiam invitos consistere cogant et quid quisque eorum de quaque re audierit aut cognoverit quaerant et mercatores in oppidis vulgus circumsistat quibus ex regionibus veniant quas ibi res cognoverint pronuntiare cogat. His rebus atque auditionibus permoti de summis saepe rebus consilia ineunt, quorum eos in vestigio paenitere necesse est, cum incertis rumoribus serviant et pleri ad voluntatem eorum ficta respondeant.

(and I myself don't too much fancy Horace or Vergil. Tacitus though, indeed, was an excellent writer, although, ei Sallustium antepono. )


My point --- which I would stand by --- is that Caesar, whatever his merits, does not stand on the highest peak of Latin literature. I agree that he is not purely functional, and in fact I am quite keen on him. But I wouldn't put him in the same bracket as Tacitus or Virgil. As it happens I can't be doing with Horace, but I expect I'm too young. The point I was trying to make, perhaps badly, was that one of the things that makes Latin a relatively hard language is that the slope is not only steep, but high: and unlike a modern language where one has many stopping-off points along the way, there is relatively little that is both worthwhile and easy.

Caesar's merits seem to me to be those of simplicity, directness, a sense of "being there" (which, of course, he often was), and as you point out occasional wit. But the wit lacks elegance, the psychological insight is minimal, and the simple directness easily and often becomes monotonous. In the long run, the Gilderoy Lockhart self-importance --- which things having been don, Magical Me, went off and scored a fantastic victory by once again grinding my foes to a pulp by force of Genius --- gets trying, though the ubiquitous suspicion of dishonesty (and the need to guess when and how dishonest it all is) is strangely compelling. In a strange way Caesar's virtues are also his vices; he is the authentic voice of the late Republic in all its glorious self-deception and inspired bad faith. But I can't help feeling that he is, in the end, a parochial writer where Catullus, or Tacitus, or Virgil (or, I readily concede, Sallust) aspire to and sometimes achieve the universal.
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Episcopus » Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:16 pm

Let's settle with Horace is nice.
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Postby MickeyV » Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:39 pm

That's an interesting vision, surely, Ulpianus. And, I do agree with you that the scope of matters Caesar discusses is fairly limited. The main themes may be summed up quite nicely by "war, the excellence and virtues of the Roman people and Caesar in particular, the inferiority and perfidity of the non-Romans". And, I agree as well that it is not unlikely that it, after some pages, becomes trying for many. So, as far as the subject matter concerns, I think I pretty much concur with you.

But the main point of attraction, to me, in Caesar's writing is not so much enshrined by the subject matter (although, I myself somewhat fancy the "pathetic" approach, and, as you said, the ubiquitous suspicion, which entails an ever-present suspense) as it is formed by his syntactical purity. You say Caesar's writing is characterised by simplicity. To the extent that you contend that Caesar's Latin is quite "readable" I agree entirely, but to the extent that "simplicity" is meant as a somewhat disparaging qualification, I couldn't disagree more. The readability of his writing is a merit of Caesar's writing style and an indicator of his extreme mastery of the language and its purity, which Tacitus didn't attain. I'm especially exasperated by the superfluous use of the subjunctive by Tacitus, seen in the first few lines of Tacitus' Annales: " donec gliscente adulatione deterrerentur"

A question: how do you judge Cicero, or Livius?
Last edited by MickeyV on Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
MickeyV
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby MickeyV » Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:49 pm

Add.: as to the subjunctive, Caesar shows how it should be done:

His interfectis navibus eorum occupatis, prius quam ea pars Menapiorum quae citra Rhenum erat certior fieret, flumen transierunt atque omnibus eorum aedificiis occupatis reliquam partem hiemis se eorum copiis aluerunt.

And, of course, anyone who is fond of the the ablative absolute, will not be disappointed by Caesar. :D


Add II.: you make a sensible point, I admit, in stating that the slope, in learning Latin, is higher than with most vernacular languages, on account of the fact that Latin, as we receive it, is extant only (at least: mostly) in artful literary style, the difficulty in reading of which is the result of that literary style per se rather than of the character of the language.
MickeyV
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Ulpianus » Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36 pm

You say Caesar's writing is characterised by simplicity . . . to the extent that "simplicity" is meant as a somewhat disparaging qualification, I couldn't disagree more.


The simplicity, as such, I think altogether admirable. Perhaps "simple purity" (in a purely grammatical sense) would be better. But I do think it carries with it -- not that it need have done, but in Caesar it does -- a vice, namely monotony. That ablative absolute. You could train a parrot to squawk "ablative absolute" when asked "What is the construction with which Caesar begins this chapter" and it would, depressingly often, be right.

A question: how do you judge Cicero, or Livius?


Cicero--admirable but not engrossing (except the letters): too refined, too carefully constructed. The problem for me is that our modern conception of what is persuasive is so different from the Roman that I cannot think myself into finding such carefully constructed stuff convincing. Which means that, by the final test of rhetoric, it fails. Our modern style of oratory is all about plainness, bluntness, the very reverse of artifice. Yet everywhere in Cicero artifice is on display.

Livy--horribile dictu--a dreadful old provincial windbag. One understands why he was so admired in the nineteenth century, which shared many of his faults. (But I haven't read much or for years: I was thinking recently that I really ought to try again. My comment should be regarded as an entirely prejudiced invitation to controversy! I understand that his reputation is, in scholarly circles, increasing, though one suspects from a pretty low ebb.)
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Episcopus » Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:23 pm

Hmm...I need a good Gallic War book with all those notes etc.
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Re: Is Caesar worth reading? Is Horace?

Postby Skylax » Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:13 pm

Ulpianus wrote:But the wit lacks elegance, the psychological insight is minimal, and the simple directness easily and often becomes monotonous.


May I once more try to defend the significance of reading Caesar, although I can not applaude his political action.

With the Bellum Gallicum, Caesar did not intend to compose a literary work supposed to attract the reader by means of intrinsic artistic appeal. He would not « sell a book » and enjoy literary success.

Bellum Gallicum is an occasional work, serving the author’s political aims. It was written (dictated) in a few months during winter 52-51 BC in central Gaul. At the time, Caesar had been nearly driven out of Gaul because the Gauls were succeeding in preventing his army from being resupplied. Unfortunately, the Gauls made a full-scale attack on the retreating Romans and were defeated. Nevertheless, the situation remained so serious, even after Alesia, that Caesar decided not to go back to Italy, although he had used to do so each year before.

The book, the monotonous and boring book, had thus a critical role to play : it hat to reassure the Romans about Caesar’s ability to complete successfully his military operations. If Caesar had looked inferior to his task, his political adversaries could have had him relieved of his command. Then Caesar’s political carreer would have been brought to an end.

Could Caesar save his carreer (maybe even his life) by composing a boring, monotonous book ?

I would not say it is monotonous. I would say it is dry, cold, and it seems to be precise and accurate. (Thus boring for the one who is looking for entertainment.) Bellum Gallicum is written as a staff release. Military style. Don't annoy me with flowers of rhetoric.

But, knowing that, it is AMAZING to see how carefully, and, say, artistically, Caesar has succeeded, using so simple words, in distorting things and facts in order to present his action in a favourable light. Moreover, there could not be too big lies in, because there were so many Roman witnesses, which were not all necessarily Caesar’s followers.

Now, yes, it is a crooked work, but a crooked masterpiece.


In the long run, the Gilderoy Lockhart self-importance (...) gets trying, though the ubiquitous suspicion of dishonesty (and the need to guess when and how dishonest it all is) is strangely compelling.


When it goes right "Caesar" did it. When it goes wrong (remember Atuatuca) nostri are doing something Caesar hasn't ordered. With the word nostri, Caesar involves his Roman reader in the story. Psychological manipulation.
User avatar
Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Postby sesquipedalianus » Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:47 am

I've been thoroughly enjoying this discussion. However (attamen...), whilst Caesar is "studiable" easily rather than "readable" in terms of absorption in his subject matter, Cicero is too lightly dismissed, as is Livy. Cicero in particular needs to be judged precisely in terms of his own times, when rhetoric (as indeed right up to the modern age) was the sine qua non of the excellent orator. Cicero knew how to manipulate language to influence his listeners and, given the number of trials in which he was successful, his language had the desired effect. He can be a bit of a wind-bag, but then so is every speaker who is convinced of his own rightness. His speech in defence of Cluentius is wonderful oratory - and in his account of the wickedness of Oppianicus it is riveting stuff!
But what about poor old Livy? Why is he dismissed as dry and stuffy today? Just consider the sheer volume of what he wrote in his histories! At the very beginning of his history of Rome he sets out what his intention is: that of any decent historian - to help people understand their own times and learn from the lessons of the past.
And incidentally - where Caesar's economic style includes ablative absolutes almost ad infinitum, Livy is the accusative and infinitive user par excellence!
sesquipedalianus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: UK

Postby Ulpianus » Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:10 pm

I am sorry that it should be thought that I "dismissed" Cicero, lightly or at all. I did not intend to. And one may well assume that his rhetoric convinced his listeners. As an intellectual exercise (for him, for us) it is great. The style has long been admired as the acme of latinity, and with reason. But I do not find it convinces me, and I doubt that it would convince many today. So he is dry: an academic read; intellectually satisfying, indeed, but limited; we are constantly aware that we are outsiders in his world, and he in ours. At best we can try to imagine the effect he had on his listeners: I doubt that we can, to any substantial extent, share it. At least, I do not find that I do share it. "Wonderful oratory" is exactly the problem (ours, I grant you, not his): our reaction to wonderful oratory is suspicion. For us, if oratory is wonderful, or even identifiably "oratory", it has failed. If you ask me "Who is the better writer, Juvenal or Cicero?" I shall say, Cicero. But if you ask me, "Who would you rather read, purely for the pleasure of it?" I shall say Juvenal.

As for poor dear old Livy ... well, if one judged quality by volume of production, he would indeed stand high in the pantheon, even with so much lost. It is, however, regrettably possible to be dry, stuffy and prolific. No doubt there is something to be said for his style. But do you really enjoy him? As I say, perhaps I should try again, but as I sit here today I cannot say that I do.
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby chad » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:09 am

hi, i'll just add a few comments to this discussion, since i'm concentrating on greek now, not latin. and i've only read a chunk of the gallic wars in latin (the whole thing only in english) so my opinions probably won't carry much weight anyway.

the chunk i did read of caesar i thought marked him out as the best latin writer, the closest thing to homer. the constant ebb and flow of battles and momentary victories, told in a (superficially) objective way: caesar did this, these people did that, &c, like in the iliad. caesar's side isn't necessarily marked out as the "good guys", or the other tribes as the "bad guys", just like in the iliad, the trojans aren't really painted as the "bad buys". there's an eternal feel to the little struggles in these 2 books. it's not boring at all.

i'm not trying to draw a comparison. that's just the immediate impression i got while reading caesar. virgil's aeneid is not at all like caesar or homer. his "team" definitely seemed to be the "good guys", leading up to the later rule of augustus. i hated the aeneid.

my other comment is on cicero's powers of persuasion. it's worth knowing that in roman times, rhetorical skills might not have been as important as in athens. cicero, like all political heavyweights at the end of the roman republic, had an entire gang of bullies to make sure the audiences in the comitia voted the way he wanted. i read that of the 200 or so comitia recorded in roman literature, the person who set up the hearing lost in only 3 or so cases, even where the hearings were a day or so apart and came to completely opposite verdicts (because political adversaries set up separate comitia hearings rather than attempting to speak at the other guy's hearing, because they knew they'd lose anyway because the other guy's hearing was staged).

there was apparently a multi-tiered system of thugs employed by each "orator". the hearings were apparently as staged as moern political addresses to party members.

i read this stuff in a 1999 study of roman rhetoric, it's not my own opinion. just another opinion to take into account in thinking about cicero's rhetoric. cheers, chad. :)
chad
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am

Postby sesquipedalianus » Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:01 am

Well, I've certainly not heard before that it was normal for Cicero to have gangs of thugs at his hearings (unless of course his relationship with Milo ensured that he had), but I do remember that at Milo's trial Cicero lost his rhetoric because of the presence of armed thugs. As Clodius was clearly dead then, I wonder whose thugs they were?
sesquipedalianus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: UK

Postby MickeyV » Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:11 pm

Well said, Skylax.

A side note: may I ask a general, somewhat off-topic, question? Can anyone recommend a good literature reference work? I tried ordering H. L. Rose's Latin Literature, yet it was unavailable. Any alternatives at all available? Gratias. :)
MickeyV
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby bingley » Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:31 am

I do remember that at Milo's trial Cicero lost his rhetoric because of the presence of armed thugs. As Clodius was clearly dead then, I wonder whose thugs they were?


The fact that Pompey's troops were standing about safeguarding the trial unnerved Cicero to start with, and Milo's witnesses and other counsel had been shouted down by supporters of Clodius. They weren't all paid thugs who you would expect to disappear once funds dried up.

Can anyone recommend a good literature reference work? I tried ordering H. L. Rose's Latin Literature, yet it was unavailable. Any alternatives at all available? Gratias.


Is this any good to you?

A History of Roman Literature: From the Earliest Period to the Death of Marcus Aurelius

By Charles Thomas Cruttwell, M.A. (1877)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... _intro.htm
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Postby MickeyV » Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:14 pm

That seems quite suitable. Many thanks, bingley. :)
MickeyV
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby MickeyV » Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:58 pm

I reiterate: it's very good, bingley. Unfortunately, the price at amazon is an odd 80 pounds, so I'll read it online. :)

Cruttwell too, I say to Ulpianus, appears to have been quite fond of Caesar. Give it a read. :D
MickeyV
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

On Caesar

Postby Artemidoros » Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:10 am

I am pleased to see that some people are discussing about Caesar! I must say that I have always been very fond of him. Since I began to study Latin, I found that his Latin was accesible for beginners. Then, one must admire his command of propaganda (has anyone checked how many times the word "Caesar" is repeated? And, at that time, people read out loud!).

I think it is not fair to set him against Sallust or Tacitus. They were just writing different genres. Caesar is writing war commentaries, or campaign commentaries; Sallust and Tacitus try to imitate Thucydides and write "high history". You can really compare them; it is just like comparing Tacitus or Ovid; Sallust and Plautus.

About his language, I once read that it was deliberately simple, just as Cicero's was deliberately complexe. They were two examples of two Late Republican tendencies: atticism and asianism. Even if Cicero was quite "simple" comparing with others orators of his time (such as Hortensius), he remains a bit pompous. I can understand that his oratory was clever and brilliant at his time; but... it is just that I do not like this guy.

However, if you want to read propaganda and self-justification in a high level, try the Bellum Civile, by Caesar. He justifies his coup on Rome and, at the same time, he criticises and delivers invectives agains all his rivals. Impressive. Just read it in an edition with commentaries, so you can understand what he is hiding and how he manipulates events.
User avatar
Artemidoros
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:56 am
Location: Helvetia

Horace

Postby Dean » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:51 am

Just my two cents worth.
I had Horace in college in the spring quarter which ran from about Easter to June. Anyway it was an early morning class and the spring is a beautiful time of the year for Horace. He has all kinds of references to things growing (green) again and rebirth. I just kind of associated him with spring. By the way we were translating the Odes and we did quite a few of them.

Regards,

Dean
User avatar
Dean
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:35 am
Location: Weirton, WV


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests