When thinking about the Roman world (Hibbert, 1987), the first images that come to mind are from movies like Gladiator, Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, or references in popular culture such as Astérix and Obelix. Upon delving deeper, however, we realize that the apparent veneer of uniformity in Roman culture (Jenkyns, 1992) has been interwoven with myths, lies, and falsehoods that have formed and strengthened over the centuries.
Many times, these Romans who exist in our minds are not the same as those who lived two thousand years ago. Their memory is distorted both by Roman writers themselves, who transmitted their truths and opinions for posterity, and by those who followed them later on.
Due to this, we often find narratives that refer to the same character but upon delving into the narrative, it seems they are talking about entirely different people. This is mainly due to who narrates the events, whether they align with the ideals of the person in question, if there has been any type of political, romantic, social or economic rivalry, etc. Therefore, few characters lend themselves as easily to an analysis of their various facets and versions as that of Gaius Julius Caesar, considered one of the most illustrious men in Roman history.
The Rome in which Caesar was born around 100 BC was on the verge of collapse under the weight of a system that, after more than four centuries of prosperity and success, began to devour itself (Lintott, 2003). Although it could be argued that Caesar played a role in the fatal outcome of Rome, facilitating thus the rise of his political heir, Augustus, the reality is that numerous signs during the first century BC suggested that the Roman Republic was destined to disappear, one way or another (Cornell, 2008, pp. 29-69).
Caesar was born into an aristocratic family (Badian, 2009, p. 14), the Julii, and even from his birth we can see the first manipulations of his history. According to popular belief, the term 'caesarean' comes from this character's own birth. While it is true that Romans knew about this procedure, they only performed it in cases where the mother died without delivering the baby. This was due to the near-zero chances of survival for both the mother and child given the lack of medical means at the time. However, we know that Aurelia – Caesar's mother – lived many more years after giving birth, so we can almost certainly say that Gaius Julius Caesar was born naturally. The only classical author who relates this practice to Caesar is Pliny the Elder:
«The best omens are those where the mother dies in childbirth, as it happened with Scipio Africanus and the first of the Caesars, after their mothers' wombs were cut open; hence they were called cesones. Likewise was born Manilius, who entered Cartage with his army» (Pliny the Elder, 2003, p. 27).
According to his argument the family name —Caesar— came from an ancient ancestor who was born after being cut out –caedo– of the womb of a dead mother, which would have led to the term Caesar. Thus we can see how legends and myths about his own birth already exist in the early stages of his life.
It has always been said that Caesar was a man who was tireless both physically and mentally (Goldsworthy, 2007, pp. 29-51). His ambition drove him to constantly compete with his political adversaries (Montanelli, 2003, p. 243), especially against Pompey, and he lamented not having achieved the same glory as his ideal model, Alexander the Great. In 61 BC, he left for Hispania as propraetor to govern the province of Ulterior. From his journey, stay, and way of life, Plutarch recounts an anecdote that clearly illustrates his aspirations:
«(…) It is also said that in Hispania one day when he was at leisure, Caesar read a book about Alexander; he remained lost in thought for a long time and then burst into tears. His friends, surprised by this, asked him why he was crying, and he replied: «Do you not think it sad to reflect that while I am still young, Alexander already reigned over so great an empire, whereas I have not yet achieved any brilliant success?» (Plutarch, 2010, p. 113).
Less than ten years later, after conquering Gaul, Caesar would cross the Rubicon to change forever the fate of Rome and his own. By this time, Caesar already knew that the Senate was conspiring against him to destroy his political figure and that crossing a river could mean declaring war in full force. While it is true that the conquest of Gaul had brought numerous economic benefits and infrastructure improvements for connecting territories under Roman rule, Caesar's ambition, as a result of these conquests, had grown.
With all the pieces in play, Caesar set out to cross the Rubicon. Despite Suetonius putting these words iacta alea est –being this the order in which it appears in the classical source (Suetonius, 2014, p. 75) and not the reverse (alea iacta est) with which it has passed into history until our days, Plutarch is likely to have delivered the actual words spoken by Caesar. According to the Querontine, Caesar must have spoken in Greek, which was the lingua franca and scholarly language of the ancient world, and would have said: «ἀνερρίφθω κύβος», "let the die be cast" (Plutarch, 2010, p. 130). If we pause briefly to analyze Plutarch's phrase, this suggests that the die still needs to be thrown, meaning nothing is decided and fate has not been sealed, as it is commonly attributed to this moment. The decisions made from then on would ultimately tip the scales in the struggle for Rome's future.
The Caesar who had just declared war on the Roman Senate was already fifty years old and still maintained that heroic, tireless, almost legendary spirit that would accompany him until his death. Easily recognizable elements in the following fragment of Seneca:
«What pushed Caesar to tie his personal fate with that of the State? The desire for glory, ambition and intemperance to rise above everyone else. He could not tolerate even one person above him while the Republic tolerated two above it» (Seneca, 1989, p. 185).
As a conclusion of this first article, we can observe how several classical authors focused their narrative on exalting the figure of Julius Caesar, approaching the divinity he would achieve after his death. Nonetheless, every figure has its lights and shadows, which also reflected in literature and will be seen in the second part of this article.
Bibliography
Badian, E. (2009). From the Iulii to Caesar. In M. Griffin (Ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar (p. 14). Blackwell Publishing.
Cornell, T. (2008). The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars. Oxford University Press.
Goldsworthy, A. (2007). Caesar. The definitive biography (T. Martín Lorenzo, Trans.). La Esfera de los Libros.
Hibbert, C. (1987). Rome: the biography of a city. Penguin.
Jenkyns, R. (1992). The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal. Oxford University Press.
Lintott, A. (2008). The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford University Press.
Montanelli, I. (2003). Historia de Roma. Debolsillo.
Pliny the Elder (2003). Natural History. Books VII-XI (E. del Barrio Sanz, I. García Arribas, A. M.ª Moure Casas, L. A. Hernández Miguel and Mª. L. Arribas Hernáez, Trans.). Editorial Gredos.
Plutarch (2010). Parallel Lives. Alexander and Julius Caesar (C. García Gual, Ed.). EDAF.
Seneca (1989). Moral Letters to Lucilius (I. Roca Meliá, Ed. and Trans.). Editorial Gredos II.
Comments