Download CWRA-Caesar-2.16.16

Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies (2.16.16) Ancient Studies CWRA Exercise 2015-­‐2016 – Students must: Use evidence from selected course readings to argue for or against a war resolution Construct an organized and logically cohesive argument; elaborate on facts or ideas Demonstrate command of writing mechanics, including grammar, syntax, and diction Honorable Men? Or Ambitious?: Caesar, Brutus, and the Defence of Liberty The year is 710 Ab Urbe Condita (or 43 BC), and you are a member of the Senate in Rome. Julius Caesar has been dead for a year, slain in the Senate, the victim of a senatorial conspiracy under the direction of Brutus and Cassius. Mark Antony has recently joined forces with Caesar’s heir, Octavian, in order to avenge the murder. As Brutus and Cassius have fled to the East, Antony and Octavian have demanded that the Senate honor Caesar as the “Defender of the Roman People” and declare war on Brutus and Cassius as “enemies of Rome.” The Senate is divided. Supporters view the new war as the proper means to celebrate the life and achievements of Caesar and to punish the dishonorable assassins. Opponents, in turn, argue that now is the time instead to honor the noble liberators and to reject the tyranny that the ambitious Caesar imposed and that Antony and Octavian seek to renew. Important evidence already is in circulation throughout Roman society. Simonus Panifex has published an account of events in his book, Modern Rome (this will go through many later editions and be republished in 2008 as Simon Baker’s Ancient Rome). A clever playwright, Villiamus Shakspurius, has written and staged a popular production bringing the thoughts and deeds of leading Romans to life (William Shakespeare will borrow heavily from this drama centuries later). The reading public also has access to an account from Plutarch. As a senator, you know these works well, and they have influenced your thinking; you can draw from them and from the accompanying documents as you prepare your speech. Your task is to write a speech for delivery in the Senate arguing either for or against the renewal of Civil War. Should Antony and Octavian receive support in their effort to avenge the death of Caesar? Or should Brutus receive praise for his liberation of Rome from a tyrant? Specifically, you should: • Assess the life and achievements of Julius Caesar. Did he help Rome with his reforms, or did he destroy the very essence of the free Republic? Did he promote or did he undermine true Roman liberty? In what ways? And how should Romans now view him? • Assess the motivations and actions of Marcus Brutus. Did he think and act honorably with respect to Caesar and to Rome? Did he promote or did he undermine true Roman liberty? In what ways? And how should Romans now view him? Your goal throughout should be to persuade your fellow senators to take the proper action in response to: 1) the recent painful history of Rome, and 2) the Triumvirs’ request to renew civil war Papers should be written in the form of a speech to the Senate and should be about 1,000 words in length. Use the following abbreviations for evidence: (AR xx), (JC x.x.x-­‐x), (Plutarch x). 1 Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies 2015-­‐2016 Document Library: SIMON BAKER – Ancient Rome: But where Tiberius’s character was by turns idealistic and gentle, stubborn and ambitious, it would take an altogether more meticulous, cold and ruthless mind to harness the power of the people and drive it to its logical conclusion. Such a mind would use the people not simply to take on the conservatives in the Senate, but to rise to power outside the legal apparatus of the republic; it would use them not for the sake of land reform, but to achieve sole mastery of the Roman world. (100) [T]he idea of liberty became the subject of a fierce debate. In that debate two freedoms clashed time and again: the freedom of the aristocratic elite and the freedom of the Roman people… What turned this ideological debate about freedom into a bloody, violent and messy revolution was a highly personal quality, one that went to the very core of Roman aristocratic values: dignity. A Roman noble’s sense of prestige, honor and political standing was paramount – prized by aristocrats above all else. Ironically, it would be the very same quality that would drive Julius Caesar to fight a civil war and to destroy the corrupt aristocratic milieu that so cherished it. (101-­‐102) The constitutionalists were fighting for their traditional freedom to exercise their dignity equally and without interference from others in the pursuit of a glorious career; the [constitutionalists feared] tyrants, would-­‐be kings and powerful individuals who put their interests above those of the republic. The populists, on the other hand, were struggling for the people to have freedom from the domination of the elite, and the freedom to pass their own laws. (103) Learning from the ruthless example set by Sulla, Pompey and Caesar would, over the next two decades, accumulate more personal power and influence in Rome than any politician before them. Unlike Sulla, however, they sought to boost not the power of the Senate, but the power of the populists. (107-­‐108) The alliance of [Caesar and Pompey] was potentially so powerful and threatening that, at the election for the consulship in the summer of 60 BC, the conservatives led by Cato would stop at nothing to prevent Caesar and Pompey from getting their way. (113) The year of Caesar’s consulship [59 BC] represents the logical conclusion of the long struggle between the populists and the constitutionalists. Above all, it shows how the populists had now gained the upper hand. For the striking innovation of 59 BC was that the leading populist of the day, the man who was prepared to buck tradition and defy the wishes of the Senate, was no longer a tribune of the people. He was a man in possession of one of the greatest sources of power in the republic—the consulship. [113] When, on other days of voting on Caesar and Pompey’s program, his fellow consul Bibulus repeatedly tried to obstruct the public business by declaring that the omens were not good, Caesar simply ignored him and pressed ahead anyway. Was Caesar breaking the law? Cato certainly thought so. [114] 2 Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies (2.16.16) In the feverish tension of 59 BC, Caesar and Pompey compounded their ‘illegalities’. They introduced once again an ominous element used by both sides in the war of popular politics: brute force…. In order to make sure that the land bill went their way, gangs of Pompey’s thugs simply entered the Forum on the day of the voting and cleared it of all opponents to the bill. (114) The dour, tenacious senator [Cato] remained utterly determined to stop Caesar’s accumulation of power, and now he believed he had the weapon with which to do it. Cato assured his allies that he had grounds for prosecuting Caesar in a court of law over the illegalities perpetrated during his consulship. Yes, it was true that while Caesar was still in office, Cato could not touch him. But as soon as the term of his commands in Gaul came to an end and he returned to Rome, Caesar would be taken to court like a common criminal. (116) When Caesar arrived in Gaul he had no instructions or legal authority to wage war. Indeed, just the year before a law had been passed curbing the arbitrary actions of Roman provincial governors. Caesar would have known all about this. It was none other than he, as consul, who had devised and proposed the bill. And yet even regarding his own populist laws, Caesar was meticulous in calculating the moment to break them. (117) Caesar, [Cato] said, was simply doing as he pleased: illegally instigating wars with independent tribes not subject to Rome; illegally levying troops and filling up his legions with non-­‐Roman citizens; and illegally granting them citizenship. He was, cried Cato, his own self-­‐appointed judge and jury, heaping crime upon crime against the republic! (118) One ancient author said of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul that one million Gauls were killed and another million enslaved… [In this estimate] is the suggestions of the awesome, terrifying coldness of Caesar’s decision at Alesia, the extremes to which he was prepared to go in the name of his dignity and that of the Roman people. (129) Completely outnumbered, Caesar had relied on daring, tactical genius, the efficiency of his unprecented siege operations, and the bravery of his men to pull off one of the greatest victories in all Roman history… Gaul was now Roman—another province of a vast empire. In due course, it would provide Rome with annual tribute of 40 million sesterces. (130-­‐131) The conquest of Gaul also brought its proconsul astounding personal riches, as well as unparalleled glory in the eyes of the Roman people and a quasi-­‐private fighting force of ten Roman legions prepared to whatever he asked of them. Cato knew it, his allies in the Senate knew it, and even Pompey knew it. (131) Caesar knew that as soon as he became a private citizen, Cato would pounce and prosecute him for his alleged crimes as consul in Rome and proconsul in Gaul. Yet the idea that he, Caesar, the man who had sweated blood to win Gaul for the glory and benefit of the republic, might be treated as a petty criminal was absolutely out of the question. Who was the whinging Cato to tell Caesar what to do? Such a prospect was completely beneath Caesar’s dignity. (132) Caesar’s unprecedented demands [to stand for consul while still keeping command of his army] made it easy for Cato to present him as the would-­‐be tyrant, as the man bent on destroying the republic, the man whose grotesque greed and ambition were driving him to seize power. (133) 3 Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies 2015-­‐2016 On no account was Caesar to dictate conditions to the Senate, [the constitutionalists] cried. With this, the political process came to a dead end and war was inevitable. The consuls passed an “ultimate decree” of the Senate. (137) Such an unseemly exit [of Antony, Caelio, and Curio] was a fitting conclusion for the stand-­‐off, for it gave Caesar one final proof of the Senate’s injustice, one last piece of propaganda. The contemptuous, corrupt and arrogant senators had yet again insulted the liberty of the Roman people by threatening the tribunes and violating the sanctity of their persons. (138) The general [Caesar] himself described his spin offensive in a letter of the time: ‘I have of my own accord decided to show all possible clemency and to reconcile myself to Pompey…; Let this be a new style of conquest, to make mercy and generosity our shield.’ (140) The city’s poor were left behind, many in tears, morose and resigned to being taken captive. It left the impression that perhaps Caesar was indeed right: the rich did not care for the Roman people, but just for themselves. (142) To fight the war against the armies of Pompey and Cato, Caesar told the Senate [in 49 BC], he needed money from the state treasury. A tribune of the people called Metellus vetoed the request, protesting that it was against the law. Caesar snapped, stormed out of the meeting and declared that in the war against the enemies of the republic he was going to take the money anyway…. The people’s politician, the man whose whole career had depended on his alliance with the tribunes and the defence of their sacred rights, now forced Metellus aside with the words, ‘It’s easier for me to kill you than argue with you.’ The gold reserves of the republic were Caesar’s. But before he left the city, there was time for one last act of illegality. As if a king, he appointed a praetor to take care of Rome on his behalf. (145) To the enemy Romans who survived [the battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC], Caesar showed clemency once again in a first step to heal the sick republic. He also pardoned the noblemen who fought against him. (151) On his return to Rome in 46 BC, Caesar celebrated four lavish triumphs; his veterans were given a lifetime’s salary, and there was a gift of money for every Roman citizen. Between 49 and 44 BC Julius Caesar was voted four consulships and four dictatorships. With the power that these offices granted him, he honored his pledges to reform the republic and restore the liberty of the people. Legislation, ranging from the suspension of rent for a year to the settlement of veterans and the urban poor in Italy and in colonies abroad, was enacted, but it was by no means the revolutionary, radical overhaul that the conservatives feared. (152) In January 44 BC [Caesar] ostentatiously rejected the title and crown of a king, yet a religious cult and statues suggest that he accepted deification. When, in February, he agreed to the office of dictator in perpetuity, it was hard to escape the reality that Caesar now ruled as an autocrat, as Rome’s first emperor. (152-­‐153) 4 Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies (2.16.16) PLUTARCH: “Life of Brutus” When the Roman state split into two factions with Pompey and Caesar taking up arms against one another, and the whole empire was thrown into confusion, it was generally expected that Brutus would choose Caesar’s side, especially as his father had been put to death at Pompey’s orders some years before. But Brutus believed he ought to put the public good before his private loyalties, as he was convinced that Pompey had the better reasons for going to war. (4) [After Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus, Brutus] wrote to Caesar, who was delighted to hear he was still alive, and invited Brutus to join him. Later, Caesar not only pardoned him, but treated him as one of the most honored members of his circle… Meanwhile, Brutus even succeeded in allaying Caesar’s anger against Cassius. (6) At this time there were a number of praetorships vacant, and it was expected that the one which carried the greatest dignity… would be conferred upon Brutus or Cassius. According to some accounts this circumstance created still more disharmony between the two men… Brutus had little more than his honorable reputation and his record for upright dealings to set against Cassius’s many brilliant exploits to during Crassus’s campaign against the Parthians. However, when Caesar had listened to each man’s claims and was discussing the affair with his friends, he summed it by saying: ‘Cassius has the stronger case, but we must give Brutus the first praetorship.’ Cassisus was appointed to another praetorship, but he was more resentful about the post he had lost than the grateful for the one he received. (7) At any rate, there seems little doubt that Brutus could easily have become the first man in Rome, if he had had the patience to serve for a time as Caesar’s deputy and wait for his power to pass its zenith and the glory of his achievements to fade. But it was Cassius with his violent temper and his hatred of Caesar—which had its roots in personal animosity rather than any disinterested aversion to tyranny—who influenced Brutus’s feelings and urged him on. Brutus, it is said, was opposed to the dictatorship, but Cassius hated the dictator. (8) SHAKESPEARE: Julius Caesar BRUTUS: What means this shouting? I do fear the people Choose Caesar for their king. CASSIUS: Ay, do you fear it? Then I must think you would not have it so. BRUTUS: I would not, Cassius, yet I love him well. (1.2.85-­‐89) CASSIUS: Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men Walk under his huge legs and peep about To find ourselves dishonorable graves. 5 Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies 2015-­‐2016 Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings. (1.2.142-­‐148) CASCA: I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown (yet ‘twas not a crown, neither; ‘twas one of those coronets), and as I told you, he put it by once; but for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again; but to my thinking he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it a third time. He put it the third time by, and still as he refused it the rabblement hooted and clapped their chopped hands and threw up their sweaty nightcaps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar, for he swooned and fell down at it. (1.2.246-­‐259) CASSIUS: I will this night In several hands in at his windows throw, As if they came from several citizens, Writings, all tending to the great opinion That Rome holds of his name, wherein obscurely Caesar’s ambition shall be glanced at. (1.2.326-­‐332) BRUTUS: And for my part I know no personal cause to spurn at him, But for the general… And to speak truth of Caesar, I have not known when his affections swayed More than his reason. But ‘tis a common proof That lowliness is young ambition’s ladder Whereto the climber-­‐forward turns his face; But when he once attains the upmost round, He then unto the ladder turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees, By which he did ascend. So Caesar may. Then lest he may, prevent. (2.1.10-­‐29) BRUTUS: Let’s be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius. We’ll all stand up against the spirit of Caesar, And in the spirit of men there is no blood. O, that then we could come by Caesar’s spirit And not dismember Caesar! But, alas, Caesar must bleed for it. And, gentle friends, 6 Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies (2.16.16) Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully. Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods, Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds. (2.1.179-­‐187) CINNA: Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead! Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets. CASSIUS: Some to the common pulpits and cry out “Liberty, freedom, and enfranchisement.” BRUTUS: People and Senators, be not afrighted. Fly not; stand still. Ambition’s debt is paid. (3.1.86-­‐91) ANTONY: O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, That I am meek and gentle with these butchers. Thou art the ruins of the noblest man That ever lived in the tide of times. Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood! (3.1.280-­‐284) BRUTUS: If there be in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say that Brutus’ love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar living, and die all slaves, than Caesar were dead, to live all freemen? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him. As he was fortunate, I rejoice at it. As he was valiant, I honor him. But, as he was ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love, joy for his fortune, honor for his valor, and death for his ambition. Who is here so base that would be a bondman? (3.2.19-­‐31) ANTONY: The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answered for it. … He was my friend, faithful and just to me, But Brutus says he was ambitious, 7 Critical Thinking & Persuasive Writing Exercise – Ancient Studies 2015-­‐2016 And Brutus is an honorable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome, Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept; Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, And Brutus is an honorable man. You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambitious? (3.2.86-­‐106) ANTONY: Have patience, gentle friends. I must not read it. It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you. You are not wood, you are not stones, but men. And, being men, hearing the will of Caesar, It will inflame you; it will make you mad. ‘Tis good you know not that you are his heirs, for if you should, O, what would come if it? (3.2.152-­‐158) ANTONY: Through this the well-­‐beloved Brutus stabbed, And, as he plucked his cursed steel away, Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it, As rushing out of doors to be resolved If Brutus was so unkindly knocked or no; For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar’s angel. Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him! This was the most unkindest cut of all. For when the noble Caesar saw him stab, Ingratitude, more strong than traitors’ arms, Quite vanquished him. Then burst his mighty heart… (3.2.188-­‐198) 8