Latin 4B, Ap: Essay #2 Compilation

LATIN 4B, AP: ESSAY #2 COMPILATION

THE QUESTION

Essay #2 Topic: For the purposes on this assignment, take all the time you need to produce an analytical response.

Caesar, DBG 4.34-35

[34] Quibus rebus perturbatis nostris [novitate pugnae] tempore oportunissimo Caesar auxilium tulit: namque eius adventu hostes constiterunt, nostri se ex timore receperunt. Quo facto, ad lacessendum hostem et committendum proelium alienum esse tempus arbitratus suo se loco continuit et brevi tempore intermisso in castra legiones reduxit. Dum haec geruntur, nostris omnibus occupatis qui erant in agris reliqui discesserunt. Secutae sunt continuos complures dies tempestates, quae et nostros in castris continerent et hostem a pugna prohiberent. Interim barbari nuntios in omnes partes dimiserunt paucitatemque nostrorum militum suis praedicaverunt et quanta praedae faciendae atque in perpetuum sui liberandi facultas daretur, si Romanos castris expulissent, demonstraverunt. His rebus celeriter magna multitudine peditatus equitatusque coacta ad castra venerunt. [35] Caesar, etsi idem quod superioribus diebus acciderat fore videbat, ut, si essent hostes pulsi, celeritate periculum effugerent, tamen nactus equites circiter XXX, quos Commius Atrebas, de quo ante dictum est, secum transportaverat, legiones in acie pro castris constituit. Commisso proelio diutius nostrorum militum impetum hostes ferre non potuerunt ac terga verterunt. Quos tanto spatio secuti quantum cursu et viribus efficere potuerunt, complures ex iis occiderunt, deinde omnibus longe lateque aedificiis incensis se in castra receperunt. The beginning and end of this passage describe roughly the same behavior on the part of Caesar and his troops, but with very different outcomes. Discuss the significance of the repetitions of this action and, more importantly, what the passage tells us about Caesar’s use of experience in his leadership. That is, how does past experience in this passage inform Caesar’s decisions in later circumstances? What key quality of generalship does Caesar display here. Support your assertions with references to the Latin text throughout the passage above. All Latin words must be copied, or their line numbers provided, and they must be translated or paraphrased closely enough that you demonstrate you understand the Latin.

HOW TO EVALUATE YOUR CLASSMATES’ ESSAYS:

FIRST: Read the essays and compile a short paragraph response to each one on your home computer. Save the file. What should you include? Read on to find out.

Once prepared, go here: http://www.quia.com/sv/1153075.html and copy/paste your comments then fill out the evaluation for each essay besides your own. DO NOT FILL IN ANYTHING FOR YOUR OWN ESSAY! If there are more review “spots” than essays, ignore them. They are not for you to worry about.

Avoid comments regarding formatting since everyone will have dutifully followed the formatting rules OR the wrath of your inconvenienced instructor will already be spelled out. If I have marked a deduction for an essay submission, it is for MY need for documentation, not for YOUR need to comment upon or include in your evaluation of your peer. Since this is indeed a college course, you should understand that formatting errors always earn deductions at the college level. Formatting always matters. Matters of editing and citation are fair game in reviews.

Observe a hierarchy of ranking. Everyone should not get the highest score. ONLY the BEST essays should receive top ranks. Provide at least ONE specific suggestion for improvement (ex. “Give us more analysis after each Latin quote.”) Provide at least ONE specific positive remark (“I like how clearly you write, especially as you described Vergil’s use of verb tense in this passage). .

COMPLETE THIS EVALUATION SURVEY ONLINE NO LATER THAN 7 PM APRIL 2

Keep track of your own essay # for future reference: you’ll receive your grade by essay number ONLY. Preview: Here is the rating grid that you will use for each essay.

• Uses Latin from throughout the text assigned in the question • Uses the most appropriate Latin, translates it accurately, and cites it well • Uses a microscope on the Latin and explains connections rather than retells the narrative • Stays on task (omits irrelevant information, padding) • Overall impression

Group Asterix: please review essays 1-6 Group Anthrax: please review essays 7-13 Colton Abigail Diya Anna Emily Catherine Madeleine Jonah Margaret Justin Mariah Madeline Sean

Review all essays well to earn 3 bonus points (you must notify me by email AFTER you complete all but BEFORE the deadline – no exceptions to this rule). Finally, failure to complete reviews will result in a 15-point essay grade deduction.

THE ESSAYS

#1 Caesar Defends his Policies Caesar uses the words of an enemy to portray himself favorably and justify some of his decisions. While some things Ambiorix says are believable, many things, compared with other statements in his speech, are not. When Caesar is telling his readers who was sent to Ambiorix, he says that one of them had gone to Ambiorix “before by the sending of Caesar,” ante missu Caesaris (DBG, 5.27.3). Caesar implies that he is willing to talk with the Gallic tribes and come to an agreement with them. He is not going to destroy them completely, but will make peace with those who are willing. Ambiorix tells the messengers that he is thankful to Caesar for freeing his son and nephew from the Aduatuci where they were “in slavery and chains,” in servitute et catenis (5.27.9). Since Caesar freed them from unjust servitude, he is shown to be just. He also validates some of his efforts in Gaul by giving a valid reason for attacking the Aduatuci. The first thing Ambiorix says is that he “owed,” debere, much to Caesar (5.27.6). Caesar has the enemy in his debt, which could be very helpful to the Romans. With this opening statement Caesar also shows that he is able to convince the Gauls to come to the Romans’ side through positive acts, not just destruction. Ambiorix further highlights everything he owes to Caesar with a tricolon crescens using the words quod…quod…quod, “since…which…since” (5.27.6-7). As Ambiorix goes through every reason for his debt to Caesar, the tricolon underscores the help Caesar gave him. Caesar is shown to be helpful to his allies and to work actively towards their freedom and happiness. Ambiorix says that by helping the Romans he was “making a requital to Caesar,” Caesari…gratiam referre, for everything Caesar did for him (5.27.33). Caesar’s policy leaves many in his debt which would have impressed his readers. He is able to conquer the Gauls but also work with them and leave them beholden to him. Ambiorix says that he did not attack the Romans “either by his own judgement or desire,” aut iudicio aut voluntate sua (5.27. 10-11). Caesar implies that his allies would never have attacked if the decision was theirs. He is defending his policy of sparing his former enemies so he is not blamed for what happens. Ambiorix says that he never believed that he could “conquer the Roman people,” populum Romanum superari (5.27.16). This is a believable statement because Caesar has been campaigning in Gaul for 4-5 years and has conquered much of it. This also portrays Caesar in a good light, since, because of his success in battle, his enemies do not have much hope in the success of their uprising and are only attacking isolated legions when Caesar is not there. Ambiorix repeats again and again that he was not the one enforcing this rebellion. He is going along because the Gauls seem to have found a way “for recovering their common liberty,” de recuperanda communi libertate (5.27.20). It is believable that Ambiorix desired freedom and went along with the other Gauls, but it is difficult to believe that he had absolutely nothing to do with encouraging his people against the Romans and was not interested in attacking those who were taking their food.

Ambiorix says that “he had been freed,” liberatus esset, from paying a tribute and his relatives “had been returned,” remissi essent, to him by Caesar (5.27.6; 5.27.8). Caesar uses passives when reporting what Ambiorix said because it implies that Ambiorix could not do this himself and needed Caesar. This, again, places Ambiorix in Caesar’s debt. But it is difficult to believe that Ambiorix was willing to help Caesar’s men because of some freedom Caesar gave him, when in the previous paragraph he was emphasizing that he was only going along with the other Gauls because they were seeking common freedom from the Romans. These two seem to contradict each other: Ambiorix was freed from paying tribute by Caesar, now he is joining a group who is trying to be free from Caesar. When Ambiorix is describing how he rules his people, he says that the people rule him non minus, “not less” than he rules them (5.27.12). Ambiorix uses litotes to underscore his lack of ability to control his people. It seems hard to believe that Ambiorix can not rule his own people, or at least can not influence them to do what he wants. This undermines his argument that he was only going along with everyone else. When Ambiorix tries to convince the messengers that they should he leave, he uses the words monere, “that he warned,” and orare, “that he begged” (5.27.23). It seems suspicious that he would beg his enemies to save themselves. Warn them maybe, but not beg. Caesar portrays himself as a just man who uses that quality to obtain his enemy’s gratitude. It would have impressed his readers that Caesar’s enemy was in his debt and convinced them that his policies were good ones. Though it does seem difficult to believe that Ambiorix would fight against the man who gave him freedom, it makes more sense when his relations with his people are considered. He may have been in Caesar’s debt, but it seems unlikely that he would betray his nation in order to help some random Romans.

#2 Ambiorix’s Twisted Ways In De Bello Gallico 5.27, Caesar reported a speech given by one of his enemies, Ambiorix, to give a favorable impression of himself to the Romans at home and to show that, while at first glance Ambiorix seemed to have honest intent toward Caesar and his army, upon closer inspection he held his state in so high a position that he would sacrifice the Roman soldiers to save it. Caesar wrote ventire consuerat “[Quintus Iunius] was used to go” (De Bello Gallico 5.27.4) to Ambiorix, working with him as an ambassador. Here Caesar added consuerat rather than just using ventire to signify past continuous action, like the imperfect tense. Quintus Iunius was accustomed to dealing with Ambiorix, and even he did not anticipate deception. Caesar reported the words of others in indirect statements in this work [Sese…referre (5.27.6-33)] by which he gave the impression that he offered an honest recapitulation of Ambiorix’s words, not putting any words in Ambiorix’s mouth that Ambiorix did not say himself. Caesar wrote that Ambiorix said stipendio liberatus esset “[his state] was freed from tribute [to the Aduatuci]” (5.27.6) by Caesar. By putting this sentence in the passive voice, Caesar writes that Ambiorix seemed to be minimizing Caesar while elevating his own state. Ambiorix continually put “his state” first, showing that he was willing to do anything for it. In hindsight, Caesar recognizes that such language should have served as a warning of what was to come; what the Romans did not pick up on is that this loyalty would turn against them.

Contrasting with Ambiorix’s underlying selfish intentions, Caesar reported that he himself acted above reproach returning members of Ambiorix’s family: et filius et fratris filius “both his son and the son of his brother” (5.27.8). Caesar utilizes a bit of polysyndeton here as if he were saying “look at all how well I treated him!” Father-son relationships were a very important part of Roman life, so this likely was very impressive to the Romans reading back home. This point is also supported by Caesar’s constant use of quod…quod…quodque… quos… quod… (5.27.6-10) in his report. While these words might not be traditional conjunctions, they are connecting words that support the polysyndeton running throughout this passage. Ambiorix gave numerous reasons for his sudden appearance and desire to do the soldiers a kindness, but the discerning audience may have begun to think that the abundance of reasons covered something more sinister. Caesar also reported that the Aduatuci were cruel people. They captured Ambiorix’s people, putting them in servitute et catenis “in slavery and chains” (5.27.9). Caesar did not need to use both words to indicate servitude, but he did so to emphasize the desperate plight from which he heroically rescued them. This rhetorical device is a type of tautology. Ceasar reported Ambiorix’s reported weakness, claiming that neque…iudicio aut voluntate sua “and he did not [attack the Romans] by his own judgment or will” (5.27.10-11). This is a hyperbaton: the negation neque is placed far away from the clause that it is negating, possibly indicating a bit of hindsight bias from Caesar. He was likely giving a hint to the reader that Ambiorix might not be as sincere as he first appeared to be. Yet Ambiorix had the appearance of humility, which was proper for respecting a great man; as Caesar reports, Ambiorix said that he only followed the commands of the Gauls ex humilitate sua “from his own weakness” (5.27.15). Humilitate also means “humility”, which was a Roman virtue, so the Romans would have seen this in a positive light. Sua implies that this lowness appeared to the onlookers to be “his own” and not manufactured for the occasion. This again made Ambiorix seem more believable. Romans were brought up in pietas, or a sense of duty, so they would tend to trust Ambiorix when he said iureiurando confirmare “that he would confirm [this safe passage] by oath” (5.27.30-31). In this case, the Romans’ corporate morality was working against their common sense. But even his spoken intentions were suspicious. Ambiorix said that he would allow them safe passage so civitati sese consulere “that he himself would save his state” (5.27.32). This in itself seems like a reasonable motivation, although from the use of sese it seems like he was too much focused on being the hero who saved his state. He kept focusing on himself and his state rather than the safety of the Romans. His love of his state was honest, but it drove him both to the previous attack and the attack soon to come. Indeed, the first of Ambiorix’s concerns appeared to be to ensure hibernis levetur “[his state] would be relieved from the winter camps” (5.27.32). Again, by using the passive voice, he revealed his focus on his state instead of the needs of the soldiers who were in the winter camps. Ambiorix’s second motivation appeared to be gratiam referre “that [Ambiorix] would return the kindness” (5.27.33). Caesar again stated how kind he was to this man while also referring to a reasonable motivation Ambiorix would have had to give the soldiers safe passage. This is a clever use of referre, which means “to carry back”. Ambiorix likely would have used this word as a double meaning, attempting to reinforce the idea that he would carry them safely through his territory. Then, at the very end, Caesar wrote that discedit Ambiorix “Ambiorix left” (5.27.34), using an anastrophe in which he put the subject of the sentence, Ambiorix, after the verb. This was not common for his time. Caesar likely used this construction to emphasize that Ambiorix’s action was important and

5 deserved more consideration, although Caesar’s men might not have thought much of it at the time. If Ambiorix was truly for peace, he certainly would have stayed to participate in the counsel or would have at least had a decent reason for leaving. This use of discedit (5.37.34) also points to something that Caesar thought the Roman men should have seen as a warning. Discedit can just mean “leave”, but the term has an undertone of speed as if he were fleeing; his inappropriate urgency was suspicious. In conclusion, Ambiorix seemed to be putting up a very good facade, and Caesar used Ambiorix’s words to demonstrate Caesar’s own virtues and generous leadership. However, there were some subtle hints that matters might not have been as they initially appeared. Like Caesar, Ambiorix made it clear that he would sacrifice all he could for his state, but what the Romans did not consider is that he would sacrifice them as well.

#3 FORMAT DEDUCTION Ambiorix: Pitiful

In De Bello Gallico, Caesar writes of Ambiorix’s speech in a way that portrays him as an organized leader who is very generous while earning the respect of all legions. Throughout Ambiorix’s speech, he identifies Caesar as kind, and that Ambiorix is “most indebted to him” plurimum ei confiteri debere (line 5-6). In lines 22-23, Ambiorix states that he “now has regard to gratitude for the kindness of Caesar” habere…Caesaris. If Ambiorix were to have written what he had actually said in the speech, there is a higher possibility that Caesar would be written in a worse light and possibly be portrayed as forceful. Ambiorix shows Caesar as more merciful than other tribe leaders, freeing him from the stipend unlike the Aduatuci. Caesar freed Ambiorix from an “accustomed” debt Ambiorix had to pay (line 5-8). Consuesset is a word that is very intimate, used to show the familiarity of the debt. Because of this word, it is made clear that this debt was one that was repetitive and thus, would have been a hassle for Ambiorix to pay. This causes Caesar’s action of freeing him from it to be shown in a greater light, and seem to be a very generous action. Ambiorix stated that what he did was done by force and was ordered by the state. Moreover, he declared that his troop couldn’t withstand the sudden combination of the Gauls (lines 10-16). Although this shows very clearly the weakness of Ambiorix’s army, and their disorganization, it also acts as a foil for Caesar’s army. Caesar was very prepared and had men ready to do whatever it took to win the war when surprised (as we saw earlier in De Bello Gallico). Therefore, while Ambiorix is showing how helpless he was, and therefore how kind Caesar was, he is also showing how great an army Caesar had. Caesar uses the fact that there is no official record of the discussions between Arpineius, Junius, and Ambiorix, the entire army of Cotta and Sabinus is wiped out by the Gauls, and thoroughly recreates the negotiations for the reader. Caesar highlights that Arpineius and Junius are imprudently friendly with Ambiorix, writing: Qui iam ante missu Caesaris ad Ambiorigem ventitare consuerat, “who already before had been habituated to venture to Ambiorix by command of Caesar,” (5.27.2-3). Caesar says that C. Arpineius is an “intimate friend to Titurius,” familiaris Quinti Tituri (5.27.1). Titurius later disloyally argues that Caesar has fled with his army to Italy, leaving his commanders in Gaul, and that Sabinus and Cotta should yield to Ambiorix’ advice. By depicting

Arpineius’ intimacy with Titurius, Caesar suggests that the diplomats have ties to both the unfaithful commanders and to Caesar, thus a prudent decision is not likely to be made. Ambiorix further states that Caesar has freed him from paying tribute to the Aduatuci (eius opera stipendio liberatus esset), and returned “both his son and the son of his brother,” et filius et fratris filius, who were taken by the Aduatuci as hostages for Caesar (4-7). This statement reveals that Caesar has majorly helped Ambiorix, and also showed respect for his family by returning hostages which Caesar had rightfully won. Caesar’s rhetoric is effective because Caesar uses the speech of an enemy to inflames his reader’s rage and appeal to the reader’s sense of justice. By depicting how the Romans fall victim to Ambiorix’s treachery and the subsequent debacle, Caesar implies that with his own keen sense, he would not have fallen into the same trap. Caesar’s narrative in De Bello Gallico reveals that through informed analysis, or through a simple and honorable refusal to heed the advice of an enemy, Roman leaders could have avoided the disaster. In a short speech, Caesar’s name is mentioned around six times (5.27). This reveals that Caesar is a tremendous figure in the minds of both his soldiers and his enemies. Despite the number of times Caesar’s name is invoked, Caesar is clearly absent. By showing how his absence leads to disaster, Caesar argues that he is an indispensable leader.

#4 Caesar’s Political Distancing Caesar skillfully designs this passage of the De Bello Gallico to distance himself from the disaster about to take place while blaming it on the leaders through suspicious statements from Ambiorix. Caesar attempts to distance himself from the mistake that will happen as soon as possible: Ambiorix speaks apud quos, “among them” (Caesar line 4). Caesar does not include himself in this retelling of Ambiorix’s speech, and as such shifts the blame away from himself. But Caesar does not place the blame on the common soldiers, even the envoys: Mittitur … Gaius Arpineius, “Gaius Arpineius was sent” (line 1). Caesar uses the passive verb mittitur, “was sent,” to remove the blame from Gaius Arpineius and the other envoys and place it on a leader: Sabinus. The common soldiers would have appreciated this and would have looked up to Caesar more. Instead Caesar puts the blame for the disaster on Sabinus. Ambiorix pleads with Sabinus that he take into consideration suae ac militum saluti, “the safety of himself and his soldiers” (line 24). Caesar puts suae before militum to emphasize Ambiorix’s appeal to the selfishness of Sabinus: he should consider his own safety first. Caesar uses Ambiorix’s speech as an opportunity to put himself in a good light: Ambiorix says that his family ab Caesare remissi essent, “had been returned by Caesar” (line 8). Caesar turns a disastrous event into an opportunity to show his benevolence to an enemy. This benevolence would have impressed the Romans. Caesar uses antithesis to add persuasiveness to the speech of an enemy: non minus … in multitudinem, “he did not have less authority on the multitude than the multitude on him” (lines 12-13). This antithesis makes Ambiorix’s speech more persuasive. Caesar uses this in his retelling so that the soldiers would understand that it was not their fault that Ambiorix convinced them. Another way that Caesar accomplishes this goal is by adding believable statements to Ambiorix’s speech: Ambiorix says Caesare … debere, “that he owed Caesar” (lines 5-6). No Roman would say that this was not the case; and so the soldiers would blame themselves less for being persuaded.

Having reassured his soldiers, Caesar puts suspicious statements into Ambiorix’s speech that shift the blame to the commanders: Caesar says that Ambiorix orare … pro hospito, “begged [them] by friendship” (lines 23-24). The Romans would see this as very suspicious: why would an enemy evoke friendship? The fact that the commanders did not suspect Ambiorix more for this adds to their blame. Caesar puts in more suspicious statements: Ipsorum esse consilium, “the plan was theirs” (line 27). While this is technically true, Caesar portrays Ambiorix as having a clear bias, which makes this statement suspicious. Ambiorix’s reasons for agreeing to the conspiracy are odd: he is Non facile Gallis … negare … potuisse, “not easily able to turn away Gauls” (lines 19-20). Instead of placing a hard boundary on what could not be done, Ambiorix avoids the issue. Caesar’s portrayal of Ambiorix’s speech shifts the blame away from himself and the common soldiers and towards the mid-level commanders.

#5 Ambiorix’s Speech In this passage, Ambiorix is delivering a speech to the Roman envoys that were sent to speak with him. Caesar uses this as an opportunity to show the reader Ambiorix’s character and, through what Ambiorix says of him, his own successes in the war. Ambiorix begins his speech by acknowledging the obligations he has to Caesar, saying that, pro Caesaris in se beneficiis...debere, “he was most indebted to Caesar for his kindnesses to him” (DBG 5.27.5-6). Thus, at the start of his oration, Ambiorix removes all blame for the war from Caesar. This strengthens the Romans belief that Caesar, at least, did everything right. The use of the superlative in that sentence as well, plurimum, “most” or “very much”, indicates that Caesar has done many fair things for him while they had a treaty and he should be incredibly grateful (5.27.5). Ambiorix’s treacherous behavior later on is put in an even worse light by this fact. This image of Caesar as a kind leader, treating Ambiorix properly, is reinforced later on in the speech with a repetition of the words pro beneficiis Caesaris, “for the kindness of Caesar” (5.27.23). Ambiorix’s debt to Caesar is ingrained in the Roman readers’ minds, and this makes it even more underhanded when he ambushes their troops. Caesar goes on, through Ambiorix, to list his own accomplishments; because of Caesar stipendio liberatus esset, “he had been freed from a payment” which he had been giving to a neighboring tribe. Caesar’s ability to do what Ambiorix could not for his own people adds to his competence as well as his fairness to Ambiorix. Another of the benefits Ambioris lists is that filius...essent, “his son and the son of his brother had been sent back to him” from slavery with the same tribe (5.27.6 and 5.27.8). This example of Caesar’s might would also have impressed the Romans who read it, and finishes a neat list of the debts that Ambiorix is ignoring. There are several hints in this speech that Ambiorix is not as honest as he appears. For instance, his claim that the battle they’d just fought was not done on his command, sed coactu civitates, “but by the force of the citizens” (5.27.11). As their leader, he should have been able to stop them from attacking the Roman camps; but this tactic works on the envoys, separating him from the battle and making him seem less like an enemy.

His suggestions for what they should do seem untrustworthy as well. Even if the armies he mentioned were approaching, his promise that tutum iter per fines daturum, “he would give them a safe journey through his borders”, would be suspicious (5.27.31). He could easily trap them, defeat them, and earn the gratitude of all the Gauls and Germans--and as he already admitted, he felt a patriotic duty to assist those groups. The Romans are nervous about these originally, but are eventually swayed by the logical appearance of some of his other arguments. For example, he argues that he would never try to overcome the people of Rome with his own meager forces suis copiis populum Romanum...confidat, (5.27.16-17). He plays on the natural arrogance of the Romans and their ideas of the barbarians to make his case seem stronger, holding up even a small part of the “people of Rome” as impossible for a smaller tribe like the Eburones to defeat. Another piece of evidence that was very easy for the Romans to believe was his statement that repentinae...potuerit, “he was not able to resist the sudden combination of the Gauls” (5.27.14). In addition to playing on their idea of his tribe as being small and cautious, this brings one of their greatest fears immediately before them--that all of Gaul will combine and rebell against them. Fear can be a powerful distractor and motivator, and this terrified the Romans into overlooking the flaws in his argument. He also tells them of a German army approaching as well to combine with the Gauls, that had already crossed the Rhine and would now be there in biduo, “two days” (5.27.26). This alarmingly short time limit increased the near-panic that the Romans were already experiencing and prevented them from sending a message to Caesar or properly considering all of the alternatives. The fear of being attacked and starved inside their winter quarters, far from any other legions, clouded their minds until they were too afraid to wait. In the end, Caesar shows us this speech in order to show the stress it put on his soldiers without his guidance to help them, Ambiorix’s cruel treachery, and his own fairness and lack of responsibility for the catastrophe that followed. Through a mixture of fear tactics, flattery, and deceit, Ambiorix bested the Romans in charge of that winter camp; but it wasn’t due to any mistreatment by Caesar, it was simply because of Ambiorix himself.

#6 Ambiorix’s Believable Emotion and Suspicious Claims In De Bello Gallico 5.27, Caesar records Ambiorix's speech to Roman envoys about peace. Ambiorix's emotion in this speech is believable, but his claims about himself and the Gauls are suspicious. Caesar uses Ambiorix's shortcomings to enhance his own image. Roman envoys spoke to Ambiorix missu Caesaris, “at the command of Caesar” (DBG 5.27.3). The ablative shows the specific point in time at which envoys came to Ambiorix. Caesar uses this specificity to show the authority he has over his men. Ambiorix discusses himself being pro Caesaris … beneficiis, “in consideration of the benefits of Caesar” (5.27.5). Caesar uses hyperbaton, separating the beneficiis, “benefits,” from the preposition (5.27.5). This separation reflects that Ambiorix does not think highly of the benefits, and it also emphasizes Caesar’s name, giving him due credit for these benefits. Ambiorix says that confiteri debere, “he ought to confess,” Caesar's mercy (5.27.6). Rather than confiteri, "he confessed," alone, this construction with a complementary infinitive shows obligation

(5.27.6). This accurately reflects Ambiorix's reluctance and obligation to acknowledge Caesar. Ambiorix gratiam referre, “gave back gratitude” to Caesar for his mercy (5.27.33). Rather than the simpler dare, “gave,” Caesar chooses a word with the re-, “back,” prefix (5.27.33). Through this prefix, Caesar asserts that he has always deserved this gratitude and draws Roman admiration for his mercy. Ambiorix states that his hostaged family remissi essent, “had been returned” (5.27.9). The passive voice shifts the focus away from the agent, who is Caesar, and onto the action. This believably portrays that Ambiorix does not think highly of Caesar. But Caesar includes the agent for this verb, ab Caesare, “by Caesar” (5.27.9). Through this construction, Caesar ensures that he is still given credit for the action. This impresses his Roman audience by crediting the act of returning hostages, an act of mercy prized by Roman standards, to him. Ambiorix notes of his hostaged family that neighboring Gauls catenis tenuissent, “had held him in chains” (5.27.9). The metonymy of substituting catenis, “in chains,” for captivity portrays this captivity vividly (5.27.9). This emphasizes the barbaric nature of the Gauls and frames Caesar as focused on law and order. Ambiorix monere, orare, “warned, begged” Caesar’s men for safety (5.27.23). The asyndeton between the words emphasizes Ambiorix’s emotion. This poses Ambiorix as emotional and prompts Roman readers to admire Caesar’s logic and order. Amborix pleads with Roman envoys ut … saluti consulat, “so that he might take care for safety” (5.27.24). This purpose clause with a subjunctive expresses doubt from Ambiorix that he will be safe. Caesar impresses Roman readers with his men by showing that they terrify Ambiorix. With respect to the Roman troops, Ambiorix denies that superari posse confidat, “he felt confident that they could be conquered” (5.27.16-7). The string of verbs meanders, reflecting hesitation in Ambiorix’s speech. It is believable that Ambiorix inwardly doubts his power against Rome, and Caesar uses this to enhance the might of his military for Roman readers. Caesar writes that Ambiorix spoke to his envoys ad hunc modum, “in this way” (5.27.4). This prepositional phrase, emphasized by hunc, “this,” is unnecessary (5.27.4). Caesar’s choice to use it instead of a single adverb suggests that Ambiorix might speak differently elsewhere, casting suspicion on his speech. Ambiorix claims he was prompted to attack Caesar's camp coactu civitatis, “by the force of the state” (5.27.11). The ablative shows that Ambiorix puts specific blame on his people for the attack. The specificity raises suspicion that the state is likely not the reason for the attack, but Ambiorix blames his people. Ambiorix claims that his people have non minus … iuris, “not less power,” than he does (5.27.12). This negative non minus, “not less,” is litotes, emphasizing the power Ambiorix claims his people have (5.27.12). This emphasis on the people’s power does not seem believable from Ambiorix and raises a suspicion that the people are powerless. Ambiorix discusses Gaul’s conspiracy as Galliae commune consilium, “the shared plan of Gaul” (5.27.17). The singular Galliae, “of Gaul,” rather than Gallorum, “of the Gauls,” underscores the unity of commune, “shared” (5.27.17). This emphasis on the Gauls’ unity seems excessive and raises suspicion that the Gauls are not as unified as Ambiorix claims. Of the Gaul’s conspiracy, Ambiorix says that videretur, “it seemed,” that such a plan existed (5.27.21). The verb is impersonal, shifting the focus away from a concrete subject and making it vague. This vagueness suggests that Ambiorix is uncertain about the conspiracy and its details, giving him

10 suspicion and giving Caesar praise for attention to logic, facts, and details. Of his military, Ambiorix claims that resistere non potuerit, “it had not been able to resist,” the Gallic conspiracy (5.27.14). The use of a complementary infinitive construction shows weakness in Ambiorix’s negotiations. It is suspicious that Ambiorix would actually show this weakness, suggesting that he instead used the Gallic conspiracy as an excuse for his attack. Ambiorix says it is forbidden that Gallos Gallis negare, “Gauls say no to Gauls” (5.27.19). The proximity of Gallos Gallis, “Gauls to Gauls,” suggests friction among the Gauls (5.27.19). This creates irony, contradicting Ambiorix’s assertion and making the reader suspicious of it. Ambiorix claims that pro pietate satisfecerit, “he had done enough for the sake of loyalty,” to the Gauls (5.27.22). The verb’s perfect tense suggests that Ambiorix’s Gallic allegiance is ended, not ongoing, and will not continue. This termination is suspicious for Ambiorix, for the reader expects him to continue helping the Gauls. Ambiorix promises safety to Roman soldiers iure iurando, “by oath” (5.27.30). This phrase shows serious intent because it is a legal term. This intent conflicts with Ambiorix’s past treachery and causes the reader to be suspicious of his seriousness. Ambiorix offers safety to Caesar’s men ex humilitate sua, “out of his own humility” (5.27.15). Humiliate, “humility,” comes from humus, “ground” (5.27.15). This brings to mind the image of Ambiorix bowing on the ground in submission to Caesar, a suspicious drop in status from the authority he has asserted over his state. Caesar’s account of Ambiorix’s speech contains believable emotion but suspicious claims. Caesar contrasts Ambiorix’s faults with his own strengths to reflect himself positively.

#7 The Speech of Ambiorix in De Bello Gallico, Book 5 In this speech, Ambiorix praises Caesar’s benevolence, and tells the Romans that he will help them. Caesar uses this speech to make himself look like a good leader from the perspective of a former enemy, but the truthfulness of parts of the speech is doubtful. In the words of the enemy, Ambiorix, Caesar paints a portrait of himself as a benevolent leader. He states that he is indebted to Caesar, pro Caesaris in se beneficiis, “for Caesar’s great kindness towards him” (DBG 5.27.5). The word beneficiis suggests that Caesar is a leader who shows kindness and benevolence toward his enemies, even the leader of a group of the enemy, such as Ambiorix. Caesar, in the words of Ambiorix, contrasts his own benevolence toward his enemies with the lack of benevolence shown by the Gauls to Ambiorix. He says that his son was sent to Caesar in servitute et catenis, “in slavery and chains” (DBG 5.27.9). The Gauls show no mercy toward their enemies, unlike, Ambiorix claims, Caesar does. Caesar, however, Ambiorix says, saved him from conflict with the other Gauls. He says that he liberatus esset, “had been freed” from a debt he owed to some of his fellow Gauls (DBG 5.27.6). Caesar, through the words of Ambiorix, describes himself as the liberator of those in debt, using the word liberatus. This is to make himself seem like a preferable leader to the other Gauls in power, who keep their enemies in servitude, as stated above. Ambiorix later further emphasizes the benevolence of Caesar, to further contrast it with the Gauls. He said, nunc se rationem…beneficiis Caesaris, “now he had regard to his duty because of the kindness of Caesar” (DBG 5.27.22-23). This is similar to the first example, in which Ambiorix discusses the kindness of Caesar.

By showing his own benevolence through the words of the enemy leader Ambiorix, he can hope to appear as a benevolent leader to those who read his book. This would have also helped Caesar win favour with the readers at home, in Rome and Italy in general. The Romans might have been wary of Caesar’s increasing political power during that time. However, if Caesar became well known as a benevolent leader, the Roman people would be less wary of his immense power. This portrayal of himself as benevolent to his enemies would encourage more who were initially his enemies to become his allies, so that he would benefit them. Thus, it seems that Caesar’s purpose in writing the speech this way is to demonstrate his own benevolence, contrasted with the barbarian customs demonstrated by his enemy. As for the speech of Ambiorix, many of the events he describes seem believable, as he describes them. It is believable that Caesar would help Ambiorix escape his debt which he owed to the other Gauls. There is a possibility that Caesar would do this to get Ambiorix on his side. He also says that the Gauls, specifically the Aduatuci, had taken his brother and the son of his brother as obsidum, “hostages”, and put them in chains (DBG 5.27.9). This is believable because Caesar earlier in the book described how the Gauls harshly treated their hostages, and they put them in chains. This was in contrast to the Romans, who treated their hostages less harshly. There are other things he says, however, which are not as believable. One of the main things he says which is not believable is ut non minus… in multitudinem, “that he did not have less authority over the multitude as the multitude did over him” (DBG 5.27.12-13). This was proven to be false, as the people followed his orders without hesitation in battle. That is the reason why it seemed suspicious that he said this, and it makes his story less believable. Later in his speech he said that he would give the Romans tutum iter per fines daturum, “safe journey through his territory” (DBG 5.27.31). However, he also states that the common plan of Gaul is to defeat the Romans and gain independence from them (DBG 5.27.17). But if the multitude has authority over him, as he said, and they are against Rome, he cannot truly promise the Romans safe passage. Because of this, it seems suspicious that he promises to give them safe passage through his territory. It is also suspicious that he says that magnam manum Germanorum…Rhenum transisse, “A large hired force of Germans had passed the Rhine” (DBG 5.27.25). He later states that those forces would arrive in two days. This is suspicious, because if this was true, Ambiorix would have told Caesar, when he had seen him and been freed from debt by him, about this attack, if he had truly changed to Caesar’s side. However, there was no official orders from Caesar at all, which suggested that Ambiorix was lying to the Romans to try to lure them into his territory so that they could be defeated by the Gauls. He knew that the Romans would be easier to defeat if they did not have Caesar to lead them. If he was truly on Caesar’s side, Ambiorix would have helped him defeat the other Gauls, rather than not giving him any information, and only giving it to the other Roman officers. As a final statement of Ambiorix which seems suspicious, he says Non facile…Gallis negare potuisse, “That Gauls cannot easily deny Gauls” (DBG 5.27.19-20). Ambiorix was a Gaul himself, and thus could not easily deny his own people. Because of this, the fact that he appeared to deny them so readily here is suspicious, and suggests that he might not be on the side of the Romans, and might just be lying to them. In conclusion, the speech is used by Caesar to make himself look like a more appealing leader. However, the true motive of Ambiorix in delivering this speech is probably not the well-being of the Romans, since many of his statements seem suspicious.

#8 Essay 2: Ambiorix’s Speech In 5.27 of De Bello Gallico, Caesar uses Ambiorix’s speech to paint himself as an effective leader, even from a distance. Some statements in Ambiorix’s speech are suspicious, while others are believable. This speech would have impressed a Roman of the masses as justification for supporting Caesar’s endeavors in war and leadership, so that he prolong and advance his political life and so that his power and wealth can grow, both of which the Senate feared. Arpineius mittitur, “is sent” to Ambiorix (Caesar 5.27.1). The passive implies that Arpineius is not the main agent in the sending; it suggests he took an order presumably from Caesar. This implies that Arpineius was loyal to Caesar; Caesar, by choosing his most trustworthy men to handle the situation, paints himself as a responsible leader who knows his officers. Caesar says his men came for colloquendi, “conversing” with Ambiorix (5.27.1). The gerund implies that Caesar’s men speaking with Ambiorix was necessary. If Caesar’s men were competent enough to do this necessary task, Caesar could trust them in his absence. This portrays Caesar as active in dealing with the revolt and Belgic affairs, so powerful from afar, which a Roman would have considered protective. Caesar uses the frequentative ventitare, “frequently visited”, for Junius’s visits to Ambiorix (5.27.4). This form infers that, since Junius regularly spoke with Ambiorix, Junius would be familiar with Ambiorix’s intentions; a better understanding of Ambiorix would help the Romans deal with the revolt. By carefully choosing who to send, Caesar portrays himself as having a plan for dealing with the revolt as a proactive, present master strategist whom the Romans could trust. Ambiorix owed plurimum, “very much” to Caesar (5.27.5). The superlative emphasizes how much Caesar did for Ambiorix; with these many deeds, Caesar portrays himself as a leader with power he will use to help those willing to be conquered by Rome. This emphasizes his sweeping power over the republic, which would have impressed upon a Roman reader that Caesar is a leader who can control the most far-flung parts of the republic. Caesar, opera, “by his service”, saved Ambiorix from a tribute (5.27.6). Opera, closely related to opus, “effort”, emphasizes the great effort Caesar made. This allows Caesar to demonstrate he is present from afar with respect to the Belgic tribes’ revolt, to emphasize his influence over the republic, a strength the Romans would have admired. Ambiorix consuesset, “was accustomed”, to pay tribute to the Aduatuci (5.27.7). Consuesset suggests that this practice Caesar ended was longstanding and burdensome for Ambiorix; Caesar paints himself as actively involved in Belgic affairs. This makes him a leader with far-reaching power, influence and control over the republic, in order to gain support in Rome. Caesar returned Ambiorix’s et filius et fratris filius, “both son and brother’s son” (5.27.8). The polysyndeton creates an illusion that Caesar rescued more people than he actually did; Caesar uses this favour for the enemy to show his benevolence. This statement infers that if Caesar was so kind to the Belgic tribes, he was not responsible for giving them reason to revolt; this reassures the Roman masses that Caesar would be a good leader for them, unlike the Senate. Ambiorix’s relatives were numero, “in a number”, of hostages (5.27.9). Numero, a word for an uncountable quantity, emphasizes the Aduatuci’s ruthlessness, since they took so many hostages. This barbarism suggests the revolt was not resultant of deficiencies in Caesar’s leadership, but of the nature of the Belgians; it also emphasizes Caesar’s benevolence and that if he was willing to go against such formidable people for an enemy, then he could be trusted to protect Rome.

Ambiorix’s relatives were in servitute et catenis, “in servitude and chains” (5.27.9). This hendiadys emphasizes the poor treatment of Ambiorix’s relatives. This makes Ambiorix’s speech more believable because, since Ambiorix was openly hostile to the Aduatuci because of the debt, he would demonize them; Caesar uses this to make Ambiorix’s praises of Caesar more believable, which would fix respect for Caesar in the Romans’ minds. The attack was against Ambiorix’s iudicio, “judgment” (5.27.10). Ambiorix using logic to disagree with the attack emphasizes the respect he had for the Romans, since it is justifiable by reason. This makes the praises of Caesar in this speech more objective, which gives further justification for the Roman reader to support Caesar as a thinking leader. Ambiorix describes the Gallic attack as a coniurationi, “conspiracy” (5.27.14). Coniurationi’s etymology, con-, “with”, and iur, “oath”, implies something exclusive Ambiorix was not part of or did not want to be part of. This is suspicious because, as a leader, he should be involved in his state’s affairs. This helps a Roman appreciate Caesar’s active leadership and casts doubt on Ambiorix’s leadership. Caesar describes Ambiorix as having humilitate, “lowness” (5.27.15). Humilitate is a suspiciously exaggerated understatement; it implies an extreme unworthiness which Ambiorix is trying to give off to trick the Romans. This would have impressed upon a Roman reader that Ambiorix is unfit to rule because he lacks self-confidence, which would have elevated Caesar in comparison; this helps Caesar’s leadership stand out and put in the Romans’ minds as a reason for them to give him their continued support. Caesar describes the Roman camps as Caesaris, “Caesar’s” (5.27.18). This creates an illusion that Caesar is physically present to deal with the revolt. This portrays Caesar as always in control, even if from a distance; this impressive leadership trait would have shown the Romans that Caesar deserves his power because he could control the growing republic. The day for attack on the Roman camps esse dictum, “was appointed” (5.27.18). By using the passive voice, Ambiorix does not mention who appointed the day. This is suspicious because, as a leader, he should know these things, or else he is a negligent leader. By projecting potential blame Caesar could receive for his absence onto Ambiorix, Caesar paints himself as better than Ambiorix, which would turn the Roman reader’s mind away from possible criticisms of Caesar and instead attribute them to Ambiorix. A plan for attacking the Romans viderentur, “was seeming”, to Ambiorix to have begun (5.27.21). Viderentur implies uncertainty about the events, which emphasizes the lie that Ambiorix had little to do with planning the attack. This is suspicious because Ambiorix, as a leader, should know these things; this justifies Caesar’s efforts to subdue the Gauls because the leadership Ambiorix exhibits nurtures disorder, which justifies Caesar’s leadership as a way to control the republic. Ambiorix acted out of pietate, “devotion” (5.27.22). The mention of this Roman virtue makes Ambiorix’s words seem more believable because it does not imply he agrees with the actions of his state. Instead, it implies that Ambiorix performs his state’s requests out of his conscience, which leaves open the possibility that he cares about the Romans, which would make his praises of Caesar seem more believable to the Roman reader, which would help Caesar continue to advance his political ambition. An army of Germans adfore, “would come” (5.27.26). The indicative emphasizes the reality of this statement, which gives it a greater urgency. This urgency would make Ambiorix’s previous statements about the Romans more believable because, since Ambiorix seemingly acts in the interest of the Romans’ safety, their safety being endangered would be urgent to him; this would also make his stated regard for Caesar seem more genuine, which would help a Roman take Caesar’s benevolence more seriously. Ambiorix promised the Romans safe passage iure iurando, “by swearing an oath” (5.27.30). By using this weighty Roman legal phrase, Ambiorix implies that he is serious about helping the Romans. This

14 seriousness makes his previous words about the Romans, including Caesar, seem more believable, which would make the Roman reader appreciate that Ambiorix’s praises of Caesar are rooted in his respect for Caesar. Caesar uses 5.27 of De Bello Gallico to characterize himself as a present leader and not responsible for allowing the revolt of the Belgic tribes to happen through his absence. Ambiorix’s speech contains a mixture of believable and suspicious statements, but the majority are suspicious. Caesar uses this to paint himself as a better leader than Ambiorix and impress on the Romans that his far-reaching influence, power, and control of the republic deserve their continued support.

#9 The Portrait of Caesar Through Ambiorix’s speech, Caesar paints a picture of himself as a powerful and respected leader, attributes which sound even more impressive as they are admitted even by one who opposes Caesar. This would have likely made Caesar’s readers back at home admire him even more. Ambiorix’s statements about Caesar’s power are partly believable because he was obviously having a hard time overcoming Caesar, but they are mostly suspicious because he had just led an attack against the Romans. Even before beginning Ambiorix’s reported speech, Caesar establishes his power in this narrative by showing how people do his bidding. The men who go to hear what Ambiorix has to say are already used to doing that because they were often missu Caesaris, “sent by Caesar” (5.27.3). This helps to show how much command Caesar has over his men, and how effective he is at getting them to get things done. In his speech, Ambiorix shows how much Caesar is above him in power and glory. After attempting to fight the Romans, he has to confiteri, “confess” (5.27.6). One does not usually have to make confessions to a peer, but to the one whose job it is to keep order in the area. Ambiorix says that plurimum ei debere, “he was very much indebted to him” (5.27.5-6). This puts the ball in Ambiorix’s court; he is an inferior to Caesar who both relies on Caesar for assistance and is indebted to repay Caesar for his assistance. In fact, Ambiorix describes in detail the nature of what Caesar’s favors to him were, eius opera stipendio liberates esset, “by means of his assistance, he had been released from a tribute” (5.27.6). He goes on to describe how his son and nephew had been held captive by an enemy tribe until Caesar helped to release them. This shows how Caesar was not only powerful against the Gauls, but was also useful to have in Gaul because he was constructively helping to keep the peace and end injustice. There are specific details in this speech to add power and emotional impact to what Ambiorix has to say about Caesar’s power and helpfulness. For example, he says that his son and nephew in servitude et catenis tenuissent, “held in slavery and in chains” (5.27.9). The vivid imagery and emotional impact of slavery and chains serve to emphasize in the reader’s mind just how benevolent Caesar was to end this unjust captivity and just how powerful he was that he was able to do so. Since Caesar is writing this account of the speech, not Ambiorix himself, Caesar is able to embellish and imagine the speech however works best for his own literary purposes. Ambiorix further emphasizes Caesar’s power in this speech by admitting that non… confidat, “he was not so very inexperienced in things that he would feel confident that the Roman people could be conquered by his troops” (5.27.15-17). This statement is rhetorically useful both to Ambiorix and to Caesar: when Ambiorix says this, he’s flattering the Romans and thereby getting them to trust him, and

15 when Caesar includes this statement in his narrative, he’s showing how much his enemies are afraid to mess with him. Ambiorix’s statements in this speech about how powerful he believes Caesar to be and about how much he respects Caesar are partly believable. For one thing, he “could easily prove from his own weakness” how dangerous it would be for him to attack the Romans, id… posse (5.27.15). There is a lot of emphasis placed on this statement: he not only thinks it, but he can probare, “prove” it, and moreover he can do so facile, “easily.” Ambiorix’s statements are also believable because it seems certain that Cesar did in fact end the captivity of his son and nephew (5.27.6-9). That story at least was not made up; it is recounted as fact by Ambiorix, not denied by those he speaks to, and Caesar retells it to his readers as fact. The statements about Caesar’s power are somewhat believable also because of the obvious fact that Ambiorix was having a very hard time overcoming the Roman forces under Caesar. In fact, he gives this speech to Romans who were mittitur ad eos colloquendi cause, “sent to them for the purpose of having a conference” (5.27.1). This sort of discussion was held between enemies to organize a peace treaty after an unsuccessful attack; Ambiorix would not have had to resort to such tactics if his attack on the Romans had been successful. Moreover, Ambiorix’s desire to tell the Romans about the German invasion seems innocent enough at first glance since he provides such good reasons for wanting to give them this information in good faith. Not only was he helping the Romans, he says, but he was also civitati… levetur, “taking care for his own state, because it was being relieved of the winter quarters” (5.27.32). It seems improbable that such a mutually beneficial plan could possibly be treacherous. However, Ambiorix’s statements about Caesar are for the most part very suspicious. He says that he did not attack them aut iudicio aut voluntate sua, “either on purpose or by his own volition” (5.27.10-11). The repetitive structure and polysyndeton in this phrase highlight how emphatic Ambiorix apparently was against making the attack. However, even if the attack had not been his own idea, he was clearly very much involved in it, so much so that he’s the one to lead the negotiations for his side. He explains away his involvement in the attack by saying that his citizens had so much power over him that they were able to coerce him into leading this attack; he only did it, he says, coactu civitatis, “by the compulsion of his state” (5.27.11). However, it still seems clear that he was their leader in this assault, not a follower being unwillingly dragged along behind. If he really, truly felt strongly enough against attacking the Romans, one would think that he could have figured out a way to not be personally involved in it. He says that this was a big plan engineered by the whole of Gaul, omnibus hibernis Caesaris oppugnandis hunc esse dictum diem, “that this day was appointed for the besieging of all Caesar’s winter quarters” (5.27.17-18). However, who exactly decided on this day and what Ambiorix attempted to do to prevent it are never mentioned, leaving open the possibility that he did not actually even make any attempt to prevent this plan from being carried out. The very positive terms in which Ambiorix describes the hoped-for outcome of the Gaul’s attack also throw his supposed opposition to it into a very suspicious light. He says that de… videretur, “a plan appeared to have been formed for recovering their common independence” (5.27.20-21). If Ambiorix truly thought that independence would have been such a bad thing, then he would most likely have described it in a more negative way than calling it libertate. It also seems strange that Ambiorix would have been focusing his energy on fighting the Romans when apparently magnam… biduo, “a large, hired force of Germans had crossed the Rhine and this would

16 be nearby in two days” (5.27.25-26). Ambiorix uses terminology to make this impending attack sound scary and urgent—it is magnam, “large,” and it will be here biduo, “in two days”—but if it was truly such a big concern of his as he says, then neither he nor his overly-ambitious citizens would have been focusing their energy on fighting the Romans. If Ambiorix really has such big news as this, then he would have said so to begin with, not as a last resort to distract the Romans. Although Ambiorix’s repeated gratitude for Caesar’s favors flatters the Romans and helps Caesar in his narrative to show his readers how much even an enemy admires him, it almost seems that Ambiorix is trying too hard to prove his loyalty. He says that quibus… Caesaris, “that since he had satisfied these men in regards to his loyalty, he now had a reason for his allegiance on account of Caesar’s favors” (5.27.22-23). If he were truly loyal, he would be more likely to just say so than to try to convince his listeners that he truly does habere nunc se rationem, “have a reason now.” He also has to illud… daturum, “promise and declare the fact by an oath that he would grant them a safe journey through his territory” (5.27.30-31). This promise is undermined by several issues. If the Romans already had reason to believe that he was kindly disposed towards them, then he would not have to promise a safe journey by an oath; if he could not prevent his people from attacking the Romans now, then why should they think that he would be able to keep them from attacking them while they make their journey through his territory; and again, it simply seems that he has to try way too hard to convince them of his innocence. Caesar’s account of Ambiorix’s speech serves the important role in his narrative of showing his Roman readers how much his power and glory were feared and respected even by an enemy, but it is also becoming obvious, even at this early stage in the plot, that Ambiorix is not actually kindly disposed towards Caesar and his Roman troops.

#10 Caesar’s Self Portrait Through Ambiorix Through Ambiorix’s words, Caesar shows his readers that he is a kind-hearted person who is as powerful a military leader as he is a reliable friend, while contrasting Ambiorix himself as an untrustworthy individual who plans harm to the Romans. After Ambiorix’s unexpected attack on the winter camp is repulsed by the Romans, Quintus Iunius, who consuerat ventitare, “had been accustomed to come often” to Ambiorix, is one of two envoys sent (Caesar line 4). Caesar uses consuerat, “accustomed” to imply that his relationship with the Eburones and Ambiorix has been one of amity, and there was no cause for antagonism. Iunius had met Ambiorix previously missu Caesaris, “by the sending of Caesar” (line 3). The legates in that Roman camp had selected people who knew how to communicate with Ambiorix. By highlighting the selection of Iunius, Caesar shows that his lieutenants follow his lead even when he is absent from the scene, thus emulating his leadership. Ambiorix plurimum confiteri debere, “confessed that he owed very much” to Caesar (lines 5-6). With the word confiteri, “confessed”, Caesar implies that Ambiorix, an enemy, is admitting his indebtedness. Caesar’s readers in Rome would note the superlative plurimum and appreciate that he had done everything to maintain friendly relations with this Gallic tribe. Ambiorix agrees that he owes much to beneficiis Caesaris, “the kindnesses of Caesar” (line 5). Caesar writes that Ambiorix uses the plural form beneficiis, “kindnesses” in two different contexts (line

23). Through Ambiorix’s words Caesar shows that he has been a reliable friend to Ambiorix on multiple occasions, encouraging his readers to view him as a consistent ally. Ambiorix says that he liberatus esset, “had been freed” from the tribute to the Aduatuci by Caesar (line 6). The passive voice here diminishes Ambiorix and emphasizes Caesar’s opera, “effort” (line 6). In this manner Caesar portrays himself to his readers as generous. While indebted to the Aduatuci, Ambiorix consuesset pendere, “had been accustomed to pay” the tribute (line 7). The word consuesset in this context shows that Ambiorix had been forced to give tributes for a long time. That makes Caesar’s benevolence impactful. Ambiorix said that the Aduatuci had retained et filius et fratris filius, “both his son and his brother’s son” as hostages (line 8). By freeing them, Caesar comes off as a sympathetic person who understands the depth of familial bonds. The Aduatuci had kept the hostages in servitute et catenis, “in slavery and in chains” (line 9). Hostages were meant to be treated as guests. Caesar’s words show the Aduatuci to be brutal, and Caesar, by contrast, to be humane. Ambiorix admits he is non imperitus, “not inexperienced” to know that he has no hopes of defeating the Romans (lines 15-16). Ambiorix makes himself appear humble by praising the superiority of the Roman troops. By using a litotes, Caesar indicates that there is some truth in these words because Caesar is at their head. Ambiorix claims that he did not launch the attack aut iudicio, “either by his judgement”, aut sua voluntate, “or by his own will”, sed coactu, “but by the force” of the state (lines 10-11). By stringing together multiple reasons, and with ablatives of cause, Caesar implies that they form series of excuses given by Ambiorix to hide his true intentions. Ambiorix mentions that there was a repentinae coniuratione, “sudden conspiracy” of the Gauls that provoked him to attack the winter camp (line 14). A conspiracy requires deliberation and careful planning, which is a direct contradiction to the word repentinae, “sudden”. This oxymoron makes Ambiorix’s statement unbelievable. The Gauls have reportedly planned to attack all the winter quarters on dictum diem, “an appointed day” (line 18). By placing that phrase at the end of a clause, Caesar highlights its significance. Since this type of large-scale coordination among disparate tribes is not easily achievable, Caesar casts doubts on Ambiorix’s claim. Ambiorix said that the Gauls were fighting recuperanda communi libertate, “for regaining the common liberty” (line 20). The Gauls have been fighting among each other for many years and enslaving each other. So, it would be hard to trust Ambiorix that they worked towards a common goal. Ambiorix claimed that magnam manum Germanorum, “a great band of Germans'' have already crossed the Rhine (line 25). With the adjective magnam, Ambiorix implies that a fearsome group of Germans are on their way to attack the Romans. Caesar writes that Ambiorix says this to instill fear in the Romans, so that they would make a thoughtless decision of which he could take advantage. Ambiorix gave the Romans biduo, “two days” to decide whether to leave their winter quarters (line 26). Caesar says that by pressuring the Romans to make hasty decisions in two short days, Ambiorix is hoping that the Romans will make a mistake so he can harm them. Ambiorix suggests that the Romans head ad Ciceronem aut ad Labienum, “towards Cicero or to Labienus” (line 28). Caesar hints that by giving out exact locations to which the Roman troops can be led, he hopes to lead the Romans straight into a trap where they can be ambushed.

Ambiorix polliceri et confirmare iure iurando, “promised and affirmed by oath” that he would give the Romans safe passage (lines 30-31). He tries to get the Romans to trust his words that they can safely go through Eburones territory. However, given that his previous statements were not trustworthy, Caesar implies that accepting his words would lead to disaster. Ambiorix appeals to Titurius to lead the soldiers out of the camp pro hospitio “on account of the ties of hospitality” (line 24). He states that as a host, it is his responsibility to ensure that his guests are unharmed. Caesar points to the deceit in this statement in that as a dutiful host he should not have attacked the Romans in the first place. Ambiorix states that if the Romans were to depart, his state would be hibernis levetur, “relieved of the winter quarters” (line 32). By placing this statement near the end of Ambiorix’s speech, Caesar reveals this to be the true intention of Ambiorix—not that he was grateful or that he wanted to assist the Romans, but that it was for selfish ends. Using the words of his enemy Ambiorix, Caesar emphasizes that Ambiorix is using his words to cover up his deceitfulness, while portraying himself as a great-hearted hero.

#11 A Shrewd Leader and a Suspicious Rebel Through Ambiorix’s speech, Caesar paints a portrait of himself that would impress his readers with his shrewd leadership skills. A master storyteller, Caesar makes some parts of Ambiorix’s speech believable, while subtly indicating that Ambiorix should not be trusted. By informing his readers that he freed Ambiorix’s son, who had been a hostage “in slavery and chains,” in servitude et catenis, Caesar shows that he pursues justice like a good leader (DBG, 5.27.9). Since hostages were supposed to be treated well, not made into slaves, Caesar shows that he is a just leader by correcting this situation. Not only does Caesar pursue justice, he also shows that he is a generous leader by “return[ing]”, remissi essent, Ambiorix’s son and nephew (5.27.8). Caesar portrays himself as generous leader who shows mercy to Ambiorix’s family. Caesar uses this hostage situation to show his readers that he uses justice and mercy at the appropriate times. Through this discussion of the hostages, Caesar makes the impression that he is a shrewd leader. Not only does he restore Ambiorix’s relatives, but he also “free[s] him from a tribute” stipendo liberatus esset (5.27.6). By doing this, Caesar shows his readers that he tried to build Ambiorix’s loyalty by all means possible. Caesar sets up Ambiorix’s eventual betrayal by showing that he himself has done everything possible to ensure Ambiorix’s loyalty to Rome. Throughout the passage, Ambiorix makes reference to Caesar’s “kindness” beneficiis…beneficiis…meritis three times (5.27.5, 23, 33). These repeated references to Caesar’s generosity serve to emphasize the impression that Caesar is a wise leader who secures loyalty through rewards, not threats. This would have been appealing to Caesar’s readers, since it portrays Caesar not as a tyrant, but as a caring and generous commander- even those he has conquered have nice things to say about him. To keep his readers engaged, Caesar makes parts of Ambiorix’s story seem believable. Ambiorix argues that it was hard to resist the opportunity for “recovering the common freedom” recuperanda communi libertate (5.27.20). Caesar uses the human desire for freedom to make Ambiorix’s speech more believable.

Ambiorix says that he gave them a plan because his state “would be relieved”, levetur from the difficulty of supplying a winter camp (5.27.32). Caesar explains Ambiorix’s logical reasoning in order to explain why his lieutenants were taken in by Ambiorix and also to make Ambiorix seem like a crafty enemy. Caesar abruptly ends Ambiorix’s speech with the words hac oratione habita discedit Ambiorix, “with this speech having been made, Ambiorix departed” (5.27.33-4). Caesar uses this abrupt ending to both reintroduce his clipped style of narration and emphasize that Ambiorix, in some ways, is like Caesar. Ambiorix still comes up with a plan, effectively lays it out and is decisive in his actions. Caesar uses the abrupt ending to portray Ambiorix as an enemy who is skilled enough to be believable and possibly admired for a similar leadership style to Caesar. However, Caesar introduces elements of Ambiorix’s speech that contradict what was said previously and don’t make sense. Ambiorix claims that he did not attack “either by his judgment or by his will” aut iudicio aut voluntate (5.27.10-1). However, in 5.26, Caesar has clearly stated that Ambiorix was responsible for the attack. This inconsistency throws suspicion on Ambiorix’s story, since Roman readers are more likely to believe a fellow Roman than a Gaul. Ambiorix claims that he the revolt happened “by the compulsion of the people” coactu civitatis, effectively saying that he could not control them (5.27.11). This reason does not make sense, because Caesar has just described, in 5.26, a rather organized battle, not a mob’s riot. From the level of organization, the attack on Caesar’s camp requires a leader to co-ordinate efforts. Ambiorix is the only leader who comes forward, so his claim that he was not the author of the attack seems weak. Ambiorix’s, emphasizing the unity of the Gauls, gives the fact that “it was not easy for Gauls to deny Gauls”, non facile Gallos Gallis negare as a reason for the attack (5.27.19). This would be a believable argument except that Ambiorix has just been complaining about how the Aduatici forced him to pay tribute and kept his relative in slavery. Caesar introduces this inconsistency in Ambiorix’s argument to indicate that he should not be trusted. Caesar continues to build suspicion as Ambiorix reveals that magnam manum Germanorum conductam, “a great band of Germans had been hired” (5.27.25). Ambiorix willingly divulges this information, which is suspicious because Caesar has hinted, by conflicting Ambiorix’s report with his own, that Ambiorix only pretends to be friendly to Rome. In addition, Caesar reports that Ambiorix gives specific dates, “in two days,” biduo, when the Germans would attack (5.27.26). This seems suspicious because Ambiorix has just been attacking the Roman camp. By relating how Ambiorix goes from attacking to suddenly giving out valuable information, Caesar hints that Ambiorix should not be trusted. Caesar relates that not only does Ambiorix offer specific details about the German attack, he offers “a plan”, consilium (5.27.27) to the Romans. Caesar makes this seem suspicious in light of Ambiorix’ previous attack by describing how organized and planned Ambiorix is. Caesar shapes the narrative so that it almost seems that Ambiorix is a mastermind who has a complex plan and an almost scripted speech. Caesar writes Ambiorix’s entire speech in indirect statement dependent on locutus est, “he said” (5.27.5). The effect is that Caesar distances himself from Ambiorix’s speech, seeming to imply that Ambiorix’s speech may not be true. The extended indirect statement serves almost as a disclaimer about the truth of the speech’s contents. Locutus est serves to emphasize that the speech is not Caesar’s perspective, but spoken by a devious enemy.

Caesar paints a portrait of himself that would give his readers an impression of a skilled and far-seeing leader who is not tricked by the wily Ambiorix. Caesar shapes Ambiorix’s speech so that, while some of Ambiorix’s arguments make sense on the surface, a closer inspection reveals that Ambiorix is crafty and trying to deceive the Romans.

#12 Just Connect the Dots In this passage, Ambiorix excuses his attack on a Roman camp and provides false military information to the legates Caesar left in command. Through anaphora, juxtaposition with Gallic savagery, careful rhetorical construction, and judicious presentation of flattery, Caesar presents himself as a generous and civilized leader whose legates made an excusable mistake, and Ambiorix as a double agent whose obsequiousness masks the deception which should have been obvious from his logical discrepancies. Caesar begins by painting a favorable picture of himself with the anaphora et…et, “and…and” and filius…filius, “son…son” (DBG 5.27.8). Stacking two repetitions magnifies Caesar’s benevolence to an enemy. With the hendiadys in servitute et catenis, “slavery and chains,” Caesar displays the Aduatucians’ mistreatment of their fellow Gauls (5.27.9). He states twice what needed only one reference, emphasizing the cruelty dealt to Ambiorix and contrasting his civilized Roman diplomacy with Gallic barbarism. In in…multitudinem, “the crowd [had] over him than he [had] over the crowd,” Caesar uses forms of multitudo as dots of deception his legates failed to connect (5.27.12). Repeating “the crowd” emphasizes the sway the Gauls have over Ambiorix and raises a serious question about Ambiorix’s motives. If the attack was carried out by Ambiorix on the masses’ behalf, the same reasoning should be applied to his excuses here. A man who continuously acts as a front for his tribe whose previous command was hostile ought under no circumstances be trusted. Caesar pokes further holes in Ambiorix’s argument with his employment of liberatus, “having been freed,” when describing his benevolent dealings with Ambiorix (5.27.6). The only other word in the entire chapter with the same stem is libertate, “freedom” – used to describe the Gauls’ and Ambiorix’s ultimate aim (5.27.20). This ironic linking at once stresses Caesar’s kindness and Ambiorix’s senseless betrayal. He is now suspiciously fighting for freedom for his child’s captors against the man who freed his kin in the first place. By placing the Gauls right next to each other in Gallos Gallis, “Gauls to Gauls”, Caesar emphasizes the supposed tribal closeness which the legates must believe to buy Ambiorix’s story (5.27.20). Pleading tribal ties with a people who kidnapped his son and nephew smacks of deception. This rhetorical strategy of artificial verbal closeness covers up the logical discrepancy and, in the hands of Caesar, shows Ambiorix’s tale to be a meticulously crafted narrative. Caesar continues this theme with oratione, “oration” (5.27.32). Describing Ambiorix’s speech with a noun reserved for professional discourse presents it as contrived instead of genuine, a stratagem instead of real support. The legates’ susceptibility to this ploy lies in Ambiorix’s smooth delivery. By setting suis copiis, “his soldiers” and populum Romanum, “the people of Rome” without an intervening word, Caesar strengthens Ambiorix’s flattery (5.27.16). This lack of space heightens the contrast between their relative

21 power; consequently, Ambiorix’s winged words ring true in the legates’ ears (and in 5.28, the legates cite these compliments as reason for believing him). While judging his legates for their gullibility, Caesar manages to praise himself with rerum, “of facts” (5.17.16). Roman supremacy in Gaul is so universally known that Ambiorix believably treats it as a fact; the credit for this prowess goes to Caesar. Caesar’s audience will agree with Ambiorix’s praise and be more sympathetic to the legates’ mistake, lessening Caesar’s culpability. Habere nunc se rationem, “[that] he had a reason now,” raises another question about Ambiorix’s allegiances (5.27.23-24). Rationem implies logical thought, but the qualifying nunc, “now”, makes little sense in the context of freedom Caesar carefully constructed. Ambiorix had a reason to help Caesar before this assault, but his first duty is still to his persecutors instead of his deliverer. This exact opposite of rational behavior casts his professed loyalty in doubt. Caesar deals the final blow in Ambiorix’s character assassination with pro pietate, “for sacred duty [to the Gauls],” and pro beneficiis Caesaris, “for Caesar’s benevolence” (5.27.22-23). The anaphora of pro presents these parties as if they were of equal priority, but this impression is sabotaged by the duplicity in feeling sacred duty not to a man who saved his bloodline but to those who endangered it. That such an obvious lie directly precedes the false military intelligence is a red flag to Caesar’s audience. Caesar presents Ambiorix’s narrative as skillful deception of which the only credible element is praise of himself through sophisticated enemy rhetoric and juxtaposition of Roman behavior with barbarism.

#13 A Suspicious Speech In De Bello Gallico 5.27, Caesar uses Ambiorix’s speech to both boost his own reputation as an admired leader and encourage Roman readers at home to support him. Ambiorix’s statements about Gaul’s plan to attack the Romans are believable; his statements about his status as king and his generosity towards the Romans are suspicious. Ambiorix begins by saying that he ought to praise Caesar beneficiis, “in respect of his kindnesses” to himself (DBG, 5.27.5). The dative of respect effectively emphasizes exactly what Ambiorix is grateful to Caesar for. Caesar paints a respectable portrait of himself through the enemy’s words. He praises Caesar for freeing him stipendio “from tribute” paid to the Aduatuci (5.27.6). The force of the ablative of separation removes Ambiorix from the power of the Aduatuci, depicting Caesar as a just leader, even towards his enemies. Romans reading this speech would support Caesar and admire his leadership. Ambiorix states that his kingship is eiusmodi, “of such a kind” that he has little control over his people (5.27.11). The two parts of this word: eius-, “his” and -modi, “manner,” combine to mean “in his own manner.” Ambiorix’s people did not force him to attack the Roman camp, rather he attacked the camp on his own accord. After he detailed his status as king, Ambiorix claims that his state went to war on account of a repentinae “sudden” plan of the Gauls (5.27.14). The prefix re-, “again” shows that this was not sudden, but a recurring plan of Gauls. This is suspicious because Ambiorix could have stopped the attack on the Roman camp but he chose not to.

Ambiorix affirms that this was the day set by Gaul oppugnandis, “for attacking” Caesar’s winter quarters (5.27.18). This statement is believable because the gerund shows purpose, clarifying that the Gauls chose this one specific day. It is also suspicious because Ambiorix emphasizes that this was the one day that they attacked the Romans, undermining the idea of potential attacks in the near-future. The Gauls, according to Ambiorix, had a plan recuperanda, “for recovering” their freedom by attacking the Romans (5.27.20). This is suspicious because -cup- in the middle of this word relates to cupio, “desire,” showing that Ambiorix had a burning desire to violently attack the Romans and take back his land. Ambiorix tells the Romans that the Germans adfore, “would be present” in two days (5.27.26). This syncopated verb form shows that Ambiorix isn’t telling the Romans everything, but rather a shortened version of the truth; this is suspicious. According to Ambiorix, the Romans had the option to leave, eductos, “having been led away” from the camps (5.27.28). The passive voice shows how helpless the Romans would be in this situation. This word’s two parts, ex, “away from” and duco, “lead” foreshadow that the Romans would be lured into a trap by Ambiorix. Ambiorix offers that a safe passage though his borders daturum, “would be given” to the Romans (5.27.31). This is suspicious because the passive voice again puts the Romans in a helpless state and Ambiorix in control of the Romans. Ambiorix says that if the Romans choose to travel though his land, his state levetur, “would be relieved” of the Roman winter quarters (5.27.32). This statement is suspicious because the Romans would be more burdensome wintering in the Eburones’ land than near their land, showing that Ambiorix’s statements are inaccurate and shouldn’t be trusted. Caesar structures this paragraph by using the words of an enemy to strengthen his admirable reputation in Rome. Ambiorix uses believable statements, although many are suspicious, to convince the Romans of his generosity and honesty so that he can mask his true intentions.