The way in which the impression made by Caesar in life was transmitted and received in all its vividness, by later generations, is well illustrated by a passage of the Elder Pliny, writing under the Emperor Vespasian, a century after Caesar’s death. In his great encyclopedia, the Natural History, Pliny writes:
The most outstanding example of innate mental vigour, in my view, was Caesar the Dictator. I am not now thinking of moral excellence or steadfastness nor of a breadth of knowledge encompassing everything under the sun, but of innate mental agility and quickness, moving like fire. We are told that he used to read or write while at the same time dictating or listening, and that he would dictate to his secretaries four letters on important matters at the same time. (HN 7.91)
These vignettes, like the story in Suetonius (lul. 56) that he composed the two volumes of his grammatical work On Analogy while crossing the Alps from Italy to Gaul, emanate from eyewitnesses. Indeed, Plutarch actually ascribes to Caesar’s close associate Oppius his picture of the commander dictating letters on horseback, keeping at least two scribes busy at once (Caes. 17). There also survives, in addition to contemporary flattery, his loyal officer Hirtius’ posthumous testimony to the speed with which he wrote his commentarii (BG 8. pref.). Suetonius claims that Caesar himself, in his Pontic triumph, displayed the words ‘‘Veni, vidi, vici,’’ rather than the usual names of the places he had conquered, to emphasize the speed of his victory (Iul. 37, cf. Plut. Caes. 50).
The reservations of the Elder Pliny about Caesar’s scholarship reflect not only the encyclopedist’s admiration of Caesar’s contemporary, the great scholar Terentius Varro, but also the downside of Caesar’s speed and spread of interests, remarked already by contemporaries. Thus Caesar himself admitted that his style would not bear comparison with that of Cicero, who had the time to cultivate his natural talent, while Plutarch comments that Caesar was a talented political orator but came second, not first (Caes. 3.2-4; Pelling, chapter 18, p. 255). His contemporary, Asinius Pollio, is said to have seen signs of carelessness and inaccuracy in the commentarii, born both of the failure to check reports that came in and of disingenuousness, or possibly forgetfulness, in describing his own actions, and to have believed that Caesar intended to rewrite and correct them (Suet. lul. 56.4). The copious and unqualified praise in Cicero’s Brutus (261-2) of Caesar’s style of oratory and of writing, so different from Cicero’s own, was perhaps inspired by the Dictator’s generous tribute to Cicero as the ‘‘winner of a greater laurel wreath than that of any triumph, it being a greater thing to have advanced so far the frontiers of the Roman genius than those of the Roman Empire’’ (Plin. HN7.117; cf. Cic. Brutus 254).
It is important to note that this willingness to praise was a vital ingredient of Caesar’s great charm and also of his ability to make people feel liked and appreciated. If his soldiers adored him for his personal attention to their deeds and their hardships, even his social equals were disarmed by his courtesy and generosity (Paterson, chapter 10, pp. 138, 139). Thus Asinius Pollio wrote, just a year after Caesar’s death, ‘‘I loved him in all duty and loyalty, because in his greatness he treated me, a recent acquaintance, as though I had been one of his oldest intimates’’ (Cic. Fam. 10.31); while Cicero, who had been pardoned by Caesar in the civil war yet was allowed to resist his request for active support as Dictator, admitted after his death that, if the Republic turned out to be doomed, he would have at least enjoyed favor with Caesar, ‘‘who was not a master to run away from’’ (Att. 15.4.3). Cassius too, a year before he joined the conspirators, said ‘‘I would rather have the old easy-going master than try a new cruel one’’ (Cic. Fam. 15.19: he meant Pompey’s elder son Gnaeus). Yet Cassius stabbed Caesar, and Cicero rejoiced in the result.
The poet Catullus, who was forgiven for his insulting poems when he apologized (Suet. lul. 73; Steel, chapter 9, p. 118), declared in another poem his total indifference whether Caesar was ‘‘a white man or a black’’ (93.2). Others were more distressed by Caesar’s alarming and unfathomable nature. Pliny, as we saw, was to distinguish Caesar’s remarkable qualities from his moral excellence, and Pliny’s description goes on to mention - not to Caesar’s credit - the number of human beings he killed in battle. Yet he balances that against Caesar’s eventually selfdestructive clemency, and he sets against Caesar’s luxurious spending on public works and games the true generosity he showed in destroying the letters from his enemies which were captured in the civil war (HN 7.93-4). Like his tracing of Caesar’s death to his clemency (Att. 14.22.1), Pliny’s juxtaposition of Caesar’s undoubted moral qualities with his less admirable character traits goes back to assessments by Caesar’s contemporaries. Cicero, comparing his political opponents, Caesar and Mark Antony, to the advantage of the former, gives this description of the dead Caesar:
In him there was innate ability, skill in reasoning, a good memory, literary talent, industry, intelligence, and a capacity for hard work. His deeds in war, although disastrous for the commonwealth, were nonetheless great achievements. Having for many years aimed at kingship, he achieved his goal by making great efforts and taking great risks. By his shows, buildings, largesse, and banquets, he conciliated the gullible masses; his own followers he bound to himself by rewards; his enemies, by a show of clemency. (Phil. 2.116)
Then again, the historian Sallust, whom Caesar had appointed governor of Africa in 46 BC, singled out as the two men of outstanding character within his own memory Caesar and his enemy Cato. The qualities he picks out in Caesar are similar to those stressed by Cicero: his generosity, accessibility, willingness to forgive, and concern for others, combined with a taste for hard work and an ambition for sweeping commands in which he could win military glory (Cat. 53-4). Sallust’s comparison, however, casts a shadow on Caesar, for the antithetical virtues of the austere and self-controlled Cato, with his unshowy integrity, suggest at the very least that certain admirable traits were missing from Caesar’s character (Toher, chapter 16, pp. 225-7).
World History
