The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar,

Research output: Contribution to book/anthology/report/conference proceedingArticle in proceedingResearchpeer-review

Abstract

There is no denying the predominance of war as a subject in classical literature across multiple genres (cf. Pitcher 2009, esp. 72; Munn 2016), and nowhere more so than in historiography. Roman historiography had traditionally focused on the deeds of the Romans domi militiaeque. During the second and first centuries BCE this changed; or rather, perhaps, another aspect was added: civil war studies, civil war itself being (naturally) a subcategory of the broader phenomenon of war. The language of foreign war naturally came to be used to describe civil war (hostis declarations are but one example): partly because this was the already well-established language of war, and partly because there was a need to invent a new (Latin) language of civil war. This article explores the long process of that development. What some scholars might consider a question of ‘downplaying’ civil war was in fact the Romans trying to explain internal and civil war through the already well-established vocabulary of foreign war. Two basic narratives were often at stake in Roman politics of the civil war period. First, there was the traditional (older) discourse of competition, expressed in the triumph-hunting of the Roman elite; the victories of the Late Republic were to an extent civil war victories, but they often included a foreign element as well (only exclusively ‘civil’ wars were in the end considered a problem; Lange 2016). A second (newer) narrative emphasised the ending of civil war, focusing on the positive outcome of victory. It was always possible to claim that others had ignited that flame, only for the merciful victors to extinguish it; such a claim implicitly equated pax with the ending of civil war.

Consequently, however we approach the civil war(s) of the outgoing Republic, we should not ignore the continued importance of legitimacy. How to write about and otherwise explain civil war and account for one’s activities within it? From Sulla to Caesar and on to Augustus, dynasts had one all-embracing concern in common: the need to legitimise their role in stasis and in full-blown civil war. This legitimation was furthermore vital in reuniting society in the aftermath (a concern which was not always an obvious and central policy). It would hardly have been feasible to ignore the recent civil war and its huge impact. In focusing on these issues, this paper will explore how Caesar used the past and how Augustus used Caesar, focusing on the development of civil war in autobiographical writing. The basic claim is this: for us to understand the civil war writings of Caesar they need to be explained in their context. In doing so, it should – unsurprisingly – become clear that Caesar learned from Sulla, and Augustus learned from Caesar (and, indeed, Sulla also).
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationin Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkjær, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar
Publication date2020
Publication statusIn preparation - 2020

Fingerprint

Civil War
Invention
Victory
Historiography
Language
Deeds
Legitimacy
Vocabulary
Hunting
Latin Language
Classical Literature
Elites
Subcategories
Roman Politics
Discourse
Legitimation
Declaration
Stasis
Autobiographical Writing

Cite this

Lange, C. H. (2020). The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar,. Manuscript in preparation In in Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkjær, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar
Lange, Carsten Hjort. / The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar,. in Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkjær, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar. 2020.
@inproceedings{f6259fdbdcb74359b034323de0a57113,
title = "The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar,",
abstract = "There is no denying the predominance of war as a subject in classical literature across multiple genres (cf. Pitcher 2009, esp. 72; Munn 2016), and nowhere more so than in historiography. Roman historiography had traditionally focused on the deeds of the Romans domi militiaeque. During the second and first centuries BCE this changed; or rather, perhaps, another aspect was added: civil war studies, civil war itself being (naturally) a subcategory of the broader phenomenon of war. The language of foreign war naturally came to be used to describe civil war (hostis declarations are but one example): partly because this was the already well-established language of war, and partly because there was a need to invent a new (Latin) language of civil war. This article explores the long process of that development. What some scholars might consider a question of ‘downplaying’ civil war was in fact the Romans trying to explain internal and civil war through the already well-established vocabulary of foreign war. Two basic narratives were often at stake in Roman politics of the civil war period. First, there was the traditional (older) discourse of competition, expressed in the triumph-hunting of the Roman elite; the victories of the Late Republic were to an extent civil war victories, but they often included a foreign element as well (only exclusively ‘civil’ wars were in the end considered a problem; Lange 2016). A second (newer) narrative emphasised the ending of civil war, focusing on the positive outcome of victory. It was always possible to claim that others had ignited that flame, only for the merciful victors to extinguish it; such a claim implicitly equated pax with the ending of civil war. Consequently, however we approach the civil war(s) of the outgoing Republic, we should not ignore the continued importance of legitimacy. How to write about and otherwise explain civil war and account for one’s activities within it? From Sulla to Caesar and on to Augustus, dynasts had one all-embracing concern in common: the need to legitimise their role in stasis and in full-blown civil war. This legitimation was furthermore vital in reuniting society in the aftermath (a concern which was not always an obvious and central policy). It would hardly have been feasible to ignore the recent civil war and its huge impact. In focusing on these issues, this paper will explore how Caesar used the past and how Augustus used Caesar, focusing on the development of civil war in autobiographical writing. The basic claim is this: for us to understand the civil war writings of Caesar they need to be explained in their context. In doing so, it should – unsurprisingly – become clear that Caesar learned from Sulla, and Augustus learned from Caesar (and, indeed, Sulla also).",
author = "Lange, {Carsten Hjort}",
year = "2020",
language = "English",
booktitle = "in Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkj{\ae}r, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar",

}

Lange, CH 2020, The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar, in in Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkjær, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar.

The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar, / Lange, Carsten Hjort.

in Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkjær, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar. 2020.

Research output: Contribution to book/anthology/report/conference proceedingArticle in proceedingResearchpeer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar,

AU - Lange, Carsten Hjort

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - There is no denying the predominance of war as a subject in classical literature across multiple genres (cf. Pitcher 2009, esp. 72; Munn 2016), and nowhere more so than in historiography. Roman historiography had traditionally focused on the deeds of the Romans domi militiaeque. During the second and first centuries BCE this changed; or rather, perhaps, another aspect was added: civil war studies, civil war itself being (naturally) a subcategory of the broader phenomenon of war. The language of foreign war naturally came to be used to describe civil war (hostis declarations are but one example): partly because this was the already well-established language of war, and partly because there was a need to invent a new (Latin) language of civil war. This article explores the long process of that development. What some scholars might consider a question of ‘downplaying’ civil war was in fact the Romans trying to explain internal and civil war through the already well-established vocabulary of foreign war. Two basic narratives were often at stake in Roman politics of the civil war period. First, there was the traditional (older) discourse of competition, expressed in the triumph-hunting of the Roman elite; the victories of the Late Republic were to an extent civil war victories, but they often included a foreign element as well (only exclusively ‘civil’ wars were in the end considered a problem; Lange 2016). A second (newer) narrative emphasised the ending of civil war, focusing on the positive outcome of victory. It was always possible to claim that others had ignited that flame, only for the merciful victors to extinguish it; such a claim implicitly equated pax with the ending of civil war. Consequently, however we approach the civil war(s) of the outgoing Republic, we should not ignore the continued importance of legitimacy. How to write about and otherwise explain civil war and account for one’s activities within it? From Sulla to Caesar and on to Augustus, dynasts had one all-embracing concern in common: the need to legitimise their role in stasis and in full-blown civil war. This legitimation was furthermore vital in reuniting society in the aftermath (a concern which was not always an obvious and central policy). It would hardly have been feasible to ignore the recent civil war and its huge impact. In focusing on these issues, this paper will explore how Caesar used the past and how Augustus used Caesar, focusing on the development of civil war in autobiographical writing. The basic claim is this: for us to understand the civil war writings of Caesar they need to be explained in their context. In doing so, it should – unsurprisingly – become clear that Caesar learned from Sulla, and Augustus learned from Caesar (and, indeed, Sulla also).

AB - There is no denying the predominance of war as a subject in classical literature across multiple genres (cf. Pitcher 2009, esp. 72; Munn 2016), and nowhere more so than in historiography. Roman historiography had traditionally focused on the deeds of the Romans domi militiaeque. During the second and first centuries BCE this changed; or rather, perhaps, another aspect was added: civil war studies, civil war itself being (naturally) a subcategory of the broader phenomenon of war. The language of foreign war naturally came to be used to describe civil war (hostis declarations are but one example): partly because this was the already well-established language of war, and partly because there was a need to invent a new (Latin) language of civil war. This article explores the long process of that development. What some scholars might consider a question of ‘downplaying’ civil war was in fact the Romans trying to explain internal and civil war through the already well-established vocabulary of foreign war. Two basic narratives were often at stake in Roman politics of the civil war period. First, there was the traditional (older) discourse of competition, expressed in the triumph-hunting of the Roman elite; the victories of the Late Republic were to an extent civil war victories, but they often included a foreign element as well (only exclusively ‘civil’ wars were in the end considered a problem; Lange 2016). A second (newer) narrative emphasised the ending of civil war, focusing on the positive outcome of victory. It was always possible to claim that others had ignited that flame, only for the merciful victors to extinguish it; such a claim implicitly equated pax with the ending of civil war. Consequently, however we approach the civil war(s) of the outgoing Republic, we should not ignore the continued importance of legitimacy. How to write about and otherwise explain civil war and account for one’s activities within it? From Sulla to Caesar and on to Augustus, dynasts had one all-embracing concern in common: the need to legitimise their role in stasis and in full-blown civil war. This legitimation was furthermore vital in reuniting society in the aftermath (a concern which was not always an obvious and central policy). It would hardly have been feasible to ignore the recent civil war and its huge impact. In focusing on these issues, this paper will explore how Caesar used the past and how Augustus used Caesar, focusing on the development of civil war in autobiographical writing. The basic claim is this: for us to understand the civil war writings of Caesar they need to be explained in their context. In doing so, it should – unsurprisingly – become clear that Caesar learned from Sulla, and Augustus learned from Caesar (and, indeed, Sulla also).

M3 - Article in proceeding

BT - in Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkjær, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar

ER -

Lange CH. The Invention of Civil War Writing: the Case of Caesar, In in Trine Arlund Hass, Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Rubina Raja and Sine Grove Saxkjær, Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar. 2020