ginlindzey

So in our Caesar class, we're supposed to write papers (of course).  We could pick from these sets of words to write about:

hostis/barbarus
iubeo/impero
existimo/arbitror/duco
inductus/permotus/adductus

I think I'm going to do the last, because CLC does use permotus/adductus. CLC doesn't use inductus, but then there were only a couple of instances of this in Caesar.  I'm getting my first experience in using PHI and it's been interesting.  I will go back to that because I think fully understanding participles is critical to reading Caesar well, and is something that CLC does extremely well, especially in the right hands.

Admittedly, I was first fascinated by the idea that barbarus is used differently when put in the mouth of a character as opposed to when Caesar is the narrator.  What interested me was the idea of whether the CLC authors might be sensitive to the same thing.  So I did a little research:

1. Graecus dīcit, “vōs Rōmānī estis barbarī. vōs semper pugnātis.” (Stage 10 model sentences 6)
2. tum Quīntus rhētorī et amīcīs argūmentum explicāvit. “nōs Rōmānī sumus fortissimī. nōs barbarōs ferōcissimōs superāmus.” (Stage 10 contrōversia lines 13-15)
3. Salvius: Cogidubnus, nōs suspictātus, ultiōnem petit. Memor, tibi necesse est mē adiuvāre. nōs enim Rōmānī sumus, Cogidubnus barbarus. (Stage 23 Britannia perdomita lines 8-9)
4. Salvius: rēx Cogidubne, quid fēcistī? tū quī barbarus es, haruspicem Rōmānum dēmovēre audēs? nimium audēs! (Stage 23 Britannia perdomita lines 29-30)
5. “quanta perfidia!” inquit [Agricola]. “quanta īnsānia!  id quod mihi patefēcistī, vix intellegere possum. īnsānīvit Cogidubnus. īnsānīvērunt prīncipēs Rēgnēnsium. numquam nōs oportet barbarīs crēdere; tutius est eōs omnēs prō hostibus habēre.” (Stage 26  in prīncipiīs lines 11-14)
6. Cn. Iūlius Agricola Domitiānō Imperātōrī salūtem dīcit.
   septimus annus est, domine, ex quō pater tuus, dīvus Vespasiānus, ad prōvinciam Britanniam mē mīsit, barbarōs superandī causā. (Stage 37 epistula lines 1-3)
7. [P. Cornēlius Fuscus, praefectus praetōriō, inquit:] “scīlicet Agricola putat sē ad Britanniam missum esse ut puerōs doceat, nōn ut barbarōs superet! revocandus est Agricola et pūniendus.” (37cōnsilium Domitiānī I 45-47)
8. “numquam dēsinit labor,” clāmāvit Memor. “quam fessus sum! cūr ad hunc populum barbarum umquam vēnī?” (Stage 21 Lūcius Marcius Memor lines 21-22)
9. quam aliī, mīrābile dictū, spectāculum splendidissimum vocābant. “Imperātor noster,” inquiunt, “pater vērus patriae, gentēs barbarās iam superāvit; Germānī per viās urbis iam in triumphō dūcuntur!” (Stage 35 ex urbe lines 13-16)

Only in #6, where Agricola is merely reporting back to Rome, is barbarus used neutrally.  It is clearly a sign of being an "other" in #3, 4, and definitely an inferior one at that.  In #5 we have an interesting case because Agricola has used both barbarus and hostis in the same sentence.  Clearly anyone can be a hostis, civilized or not, but is a barbarus totally foreign?   (Of course, Agricola is saying these things after hearing/reading Salvius's report, which is full of lies, thus why he has switched from his position of neutrality.)  In #2, 6, and 7 they are represented as "other" but also as an enemy to be defeated, which is perhaps not really different from #3 & 4. But what of #1?  This is the first instance in CLC in which we meet this word, and it is put in the mouth of a Greek and is used to describe a Roman and their warlike tendencies. (Funny thing coming from the people who gave us the Iliad and the Trojan Horse.)  Yet if truly written with care, was this included to remind us that while the Romans felt civilized because of their ability to pacify and subsume other cultures, demonstrating the manly characteristics of virtus in fighting and perhaps virtus in restraint and desire for order as well (poorly put), that to other nations like the Greeks, they looked like bullies? 

In #8 and 9, the word is used adjectivally--does that make a difference?  Certainly we have the same inferiority feel in #8 as we see in #3 & 4.  And #9 is more like 2, 6, & 7.

We have not talked much about hostis in the Caesar class (yet?), but perhaps it would be worth searching PHI to see...  Here are the CLC instances of hostis:

1. adsunt mīlitēs, ab hostibus vulnerātī. (Stage 21 Lūcius Marcius Memor lines 18-19)
2. Vilbia: minimē! est vir maximae virtūtis. ōlim tria mīlia hostium occīdit. (Stage 22 Vilbia lines 19-20)
3. “venēnum,” inquit [vir callidissimus], “Belimicō, hostī īnfestō, aptissimum est.” (28 in aulā Salviī line 21)
4. intereā dux hostium, Lūcius Flāvius Silva, rūpem castellīs multīs circumvēnit. (29 Masada I lines 32-33)
5.  “multī hostēs periērunt. paucī effūgērunt.” Agricola dīcit multōs hostēs periisse, paucōs effūgisse. (37 model sentences 2)
6. hostēs, adventū nostrō cognitō, prope montem Graupium sē ad proelium īnstrūxērunt. spē glōriae adductī, victōriam nōmine tuō dignam rettulērunt. nōn satis cōnstat quot hostēs perierint; scio tamen paucissimōs effūgisse. (37 epistula 9-13)
7. tum Messālīnus, simulatque haec Epaphrodītī verba audīvit, occāsiōne ūsus, “satis cōnstat,” inquit, “nūllōs hostēs ferōciōrēs Germānīs esse, nūllum ducem Domitiānō Augustō esse meliōrem.” (37 cōnsilium Domitiānī II 12-16)

In none of these does there seem to be any connotation or judgment when using the word hostis. (I'm assuming we'll find the same in Caesar.)  An enemy is an enemy--the one you want dead.  In the case of #3, this is about Belimicus, the British chieftain of the Cantiaci, who had been helping Salvius achieve his domination of the local British tribes.  But once Belimicus wanted too much, he became a hostis too.  And I'm sure in Salvius' mind he will always be barbarus--whether amicus or inimicus.

Hmmmmm. Why isn't inimicus a word we are checking???  Well that thought is for another time.