aka "Bellum Gallicum" or "[De] Bello Gallico "
Commentarii de Bello Gallico is said to be Julius Caesar's firsthand account1 of the Gallic Wars of 58 to 50 BCE,2 written as a third-person narrative. It describes the battles and intrigues that took place in the nine years Caesar spent fighting the Celtic and Germanic peoples in Gaul3 who opposed Roman conquest.
Motivations
The victories in Gaul won by Caesar had increased the alarm and hostility of his enemies at Rome, and his aristocratic enemies, the Optimates, were spreading rumors about his intentions once he returned from Gaul. The optimates intended to prosecute Caesar for abuse of his authority upon his return, when he would lay down his imperium. Such prosecution would not only see Caesar stripped of his wealth and citizenship, but also negate all of the laws he enacted during his term as Consul and his dispositions as pro-consul of Gaul. To defend himself against these threats, Caesar knew he needed the support of the plebeians, particularly the Tribunes of the Plebs, on whom he chiefly relied for help in carrying out his agenda. The Commentaries were an effort by Caesar to directly communicate with the plebeians – thereby circumventing the usual channels of communication that passed through the Senate – to propagandize his activities as efforts to increase the glory and influence of Rome. By winning the support of the people, Caesar sought to make himself unassailable from the 'boni' [the upper classes that held power by virtue of their superior wealth and resources].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... otivations
.
Caesar's reported successes in the wars provided him a legendary reputation and made him extremely wealthy. Both would have been key factors in Caesar's ability to win the Civil War and declare himself dictator.
The full work is split into eight books, Books 1 to 8, varying in size from approximately 5,000 to 15,000 words. Book 8 was written by Caesar's consul or lieutenant Aulus Hirtius, after Caesar's death in 44 BCE: Hirtius must have written the book before his own death in the civil war in 43 BCE.
The original publication time of Bello Gallico is uncertain. It had been definitely published by 46 BCE, when Cicero reviewed it and gave it great praise.* It is unclear whether the books were released individually, or all at once ... The debate as to the time and nature of publication continues, with critical examination of the evolution of the writing style the chief tool for dating the work. Even if the works were published after the wars, it was clear that Caesar was waging a propaganda campaign during the war, including writing copious letters to his political allies back in Rome. Because of the questionable nature of the war, and threats by his enemies to have him essentially tried for war crimes, winning the public relations battle was critical for Caesar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... on_history
* eta:
* it seems that Cicero wrote about Caesar's writings in de Oratore which is said to have been published in 55 BCE, which suggests that Cicero might have been privy to an early version of Caesar's Commentaries or parts of them (and raises the prospect that they were released +/- published piecemeal)
.
Not all contemporaries of Caesar believed the account to have been accurate. Gaius Asinius Pollio, who served under Caesar, noted that the account had been put together without much care or regard for the truth. Still, Pollio attributed this to mistakes by Caesar's lieutenants, or even that Caesar intended to rewrite the text more accurately. Up until the 20th century authors tended to follow Pollio's thinking, attributing mistakes not to Caesar but to the process, such as errors in translation and transcription throughout time.
In 1847 Karl Nipperdey published a manuscript that was considered 'monumental' but which also portrayed Caesar as infallible: Nipperdey even chose to modify his translation where the text he was working from contradicted itself, giving Caesar the benefit of any doubts.
Henige notes that Caesar's matter of fact tone and easy to read writing made it all the easier to accept his outlandish claims. Caesar sought to portray his fight as a justified defense against the barbarity of the Gauls (which was important, as Caesar had actually been the aggressor; contrary to his claims). By making it appear that he had won against overwhelming odds and suffered minimal casualties, he further increased the belief that he and the Romans were godly and destined to win against the godless barbarians of Gaul. Overall, Henige concludes that "Julius Caesar must be considered one of history's earliest – and most durably successful – 'spin doctors'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... o#Accuracy
.
Authorship
Classicist Ruth Breindal* believes it likely that Caesar did not directly write the work, but instead dictated most of it to a scribe at one time and the scribe wrote as Caesar spoke, or that the scribe took notes and wrote the account afterwards. Still, she does believe that Caesar had an overwhelming hand in creating the work, but believes much of the grammar and clarity of the work to be the result of the scribe or scribes involved. Breindal also considers the main point of the work to be as a propaganda piece to protect Caesar's reputation in the vicious politics of Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... Authorship
* https://web.archive.org/web/20210123210 ... ntext=necj
* https://crossworks.holycross.edu/cgi/vi ... ntext=necj
.
Book 8 of Bellum gallicum, compiled by Aulus Hirtius, a consul or lieutenant of Caesar's, valorizes the literary skill of Julius Caesar and thus the quality of his memoirs (commentarii). Hirtius wrote that, while these memoirs were published (editi) for the use of historians (rerum scriptoribus), the care and elegance of the memoirs themselves was such that they could be viewed as history in their own right (Bell. gall. 8.0.4-7):
Thus, Hirtius was blurring the boundaries between memoirs and historiography. Even more than Strabo did, he placed discourse about memoirs into the realm of the literary elite.
3. As a noteworthy aside:
(re uncouth long-haired vs civilised short-haired cf. hair in Judaic and Christian theology and lore)
Commentarii de Bello Gallico is said to be Julius Caesar's firsthand account1 of the Gallic Wars of 58 to 50 BCE,2 written as a third-person narrative. It describes the battles and intrigues that took place in the nine years Caesar spent fighting the Celtic and Germanic peoples in Gaul3 who opposed Roman conquest.
- see Authorship below
- (the imminent Roman Civil War led Caesar to withdraw his troops from Gaul in 50 BCE)
Motivations
The victories in Gaul won by Caesar had increased the alarm and hostility of his enemies at Rome, and his aristocratic enemies, the Optimates, were spreading rumors about his intentions once he returned from Gaul. The optimates intended to prosecute Caesar for abuse of his authority upon his return, when he would lay down his imperium. Such prosecution would not only see Caesar stripped of his wealth and citizenship, but also negate all of the laws he enacted during his term as Consul and his dispositions as pro-consul of Gaul. To defend himself against these threats, Caesar knew he needed the support of the plebeians, particularly the Tribunes of the Plebs, on whom he chiefly relied for help in carrying out his agenda. The Commentaries were an effort by Caesar to directly communicate with the plebeians – thereby circumventing the usual channels of communication that passed through the Senate – to propagandize his activities as efforts to increase the glory and influence of Rome. By winning the support of the people, Caesar sought to make himself unassailable from the 'boni' [the upper classes that held power by virtue of their superior wealth and resources].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... otivations
.
Caesar's reported successes in the wars provided him a legendary reputation and made him extremely wealthy. Both would have been key factors in Caesar's ability to win the Civil War and declare himself dictator.
The full work is split into eight books, Books 1 to 8, varying in size from approximately 5,000 to 15,000 words. Book 8 was written by Caesar's consul or lieutenant Aulus Hirtius, after Caesar's death in 44 BCE: Hirtius must have written the book before his own death in the civil war in 43 BCE.
The original publication time of Bello Gallico is uncertain. It had been definitely published by 46 BCE, when Cicero reviewed it and gave it great praise.* It is unclear whether the books were released individually, or all at once ... The debate as to the time and nature of publication continues, with critical examination of the evolution of the writing style the chief tool for dating the work. Even if the works were published after the wars, it was clear that Caesar was waging a propaganda campaign during the war, including writing copious letters to his political allies back in Rome. Because of the questionable nature of the war, and threats by his enemies to have him essentially tried for war crimes, winning the public relations battle was critical for Caesar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... on_history
* eta:
* it seems that Cicero wrote about Caesar's writings in de Oratore which is said to have been published in 55 BCE, which suggests that Cicero might have been privy to an early version of Caesar's Commentaries or parts of them (and raises the prospect that they were released +/- published piecemeal)
.
Not all contemporaries of Caesar believed the account to have been accurate. Gaius Asinius Pollio, who served under Caesar, noted that the account had been put together without much care or regard for the truth. Still, Pollio attributed this to mistakes by Caesar's lieutenants, or even that Caesar intended to rewrite the text more accurately. Up until the 20th century authors tended to follow Pollio's thinking, attributing mistakes not to Caesar but to the process, such as errors in translation and transcription throughout time.
In 1847 Karl Nipperdey published a manuscript that was considered 'monumental' but which also portrayed Caesar as infallible: Nipperdey even chose to modify his translation where the text he was working from contradicted itself, giving Caesar the benefit of any doubts.
- "Since the work of Nipperdey, the existing manuscripts have been divided into two classes. The first (α) encompasses manuscripts containing only De Bello Gallico and characterized by colophons with allusions to late antique correctores. The oldest manuscript in this class is MS. Amsterdam 73, written at Fleury Abbey in the later ninth century. The second (β) encompasses manuscripts containing all of the related works—not only De Bello Gallico, but De Bello Civili, De Bello Alexandrino, De Bello Africo, and De Bello Hispaniensi, always in that order. The oldest manuscript in this class is MS Paris lat. 3864, written at Corbie in the last quarter of the ninth century. For De Bello Gallico, the readings of α are considered better than β." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... on_history
Henige notes that Caesar's matter of fact tone and easy to read writing made it all the easier to accept his outlandish claims. Caesar sought to portray his fight as a justified defense against the barbarity of the Gauls (which was important, as Caesar had actually been the aggressor; contrary to his claims). By making it appear that he had won against overwhelming odds and suffered minimal casualties, he further increased the belief that he and the Romans were godly and destined to win against the godless barbarians of Gaul. Overall, Henige concludes that "Julius Caesar must be considered one of history's earliest – and most durably successful – 'spin doctors'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... o#Accuracy
.
Authorship
Classicist Ruth Breindal* believes it likely that Caesar did not directly write the work, but instead dictated most of it to a scribe at one time and the scribe wrote as Caesar spoke, or that the scribe took notes and wrote the account afterwards. Still, she does believe that Caesar had an overwhelming hand in creating the work, but believes much of the grammar and clarity of the work to be the result of the scribe or scribes involved. Breindal also considers the main point of the work to be as a propaganda piece to protect Caesar's reputation in the vicious politics of Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentar ... Authorship
* https://web.archive.org/web/20210123210 ... ntext=necj
* https://crossworks.holycross.edu/cgi/vi ... ntext=necj
.
Book 8 of Bellum gallicum, compiled by Aulus Hirtius, a consul or lieutenant of Caesar's, valorizes the literary skill of Julius Caesar and thus the quality of his memoirs (commentarii). Hirtius wrote that, while these memoirs were published (editi) for the use of historians (rerum scriptoribus), the care and elegance of the memoirs themselves was such that they could be viewed as history in their own right (Bell. gall. 8.0.4-7):
[modified by me]
... I have compiled a continuation of the Commentaries of our Caesar's Wars in Gaul, not indeed to be compared to his writings, which either precede or follow them ... I wish that those who may read them could know how unwillingly I undertook to write them, as I might [incur] an imputation of folly and arrogance in presuming to intrude among Caesar's writings. [4] For it is agreed [among all], that no composition was ever executed that is not exceeded in [care] and elegance by these Commentaries, [5] which are published for the use of historians, that they might use these memoirs that [will] stand so high in the esteem of all men, that historians seem rather deprived of, [not] furnished with [such] material: reason for other men to be surprised; for they can only appreciate the elegance and correctness with which he finished them ... Caesar possessed not only an uncommon flow of language and elegance of style, but also a thorough knowledge of the method of conveying his ideas ... though these were partly communicated to me by Caesar himself, in conversation, we listen with a different degree of attention to those things which strike us by their novelty, and those which we design to attest to posterity. But, in truth, while I urge every apology, that I may not be compared to Caesar, I incur the charge of [arrogance], by thinking it possible that I can, in the judgment of any one, be [compared] with him ...
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... hapter%3D0 : English
(Translator: W. A. McDevitte. Translator: W. S. Bohn. 1st Edition. New York. Harper & Brothers. 1869. Harper's New Classical Library)
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D4 : Latin:
[4] Constat enim inter omnes nihil tam operose ab aliis esse perfectum, quod non horum elegantia commentariorum superetur: [5] qui sunt editi, ne scientia tantarum rerum scriptoribus deesset, adeoque probantur omnium iudicio ut praerepta, non praebita, facultas scriptoribus videatur. [6] Cuius tamen rei maior nostra quam reliquorum est admiratio: ceteri enim, quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam, quam facile atque celeriter eos perfecerit scimus. [7] Erat autem in Caesare cum facultas atque elegantia summa scribendi, tum verissima scientia suorum consiliorum explicandorum ... [9] Sed ego nimirum, dum omnes excusationis causas colligo ne cum Caesare conferar, hoc ipsum crimen arrogantiae subeo, quod me iudicio cuiusquam existimem posse cum Caesare comparari. Vale.
modified machine translation:
[4] For it is agreed among all ... that the elegance of these commentaries is not surpassed: [5] which are published lest the knowledge of so many things should [not] be wanting to historians, [so] that the opportunity is given to them and not taken away. [6] We are more amazed at this matter than the rest: for the rest know how well and perfectly and, as we know also, how easily quickly he accomplished them. [7] But Caesar had the greatest faculty and elegance of writing, as well as the truest knowledge of explaining his plans ... [9] But of course, while I collect all the excuses for not being compared with Caesar, I incur this very charge of arrogance because I think that I can be compared with Caesar in anyone's judgment. Vale.
eta:
I wish that those who may read them could know how unwillingly I undertook to write them, as then I might the more readily escape the imputation of folly and arrogance, in presuming to intrude among Caesar's writings. For it is agreed on all hands, that no composition was ever executed with so great care, that it is not exceeded in elegance by these Commentaries, which were published for the use of historians, that they might not want memoirs of such achievements; and they stand so high in the esteem of all men, that historians seem rather deprived of than furnished with materials. At which we have more reason to be surprised than other men; for they can only appreciate the elegance and correctness with which he finished them, while we know with what ease and expedition. Caesar possessed not only an uncommon flow of language and elegance of style, but also a thorough knowledge of the method of conveying his ideas ... we listen with a different degree of attention to those things which strike us with admiration by their novelty, and those which we design to attest to posterity. But, in truth, whilst I urge every apology, that I may not be compared to Caesar, I incur the charge of vanity, by thinking it possible that I can in the judgment of any one be put in competition with him. Farewell.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10657/pg10657.txt via https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10657
.
... I have compiled a continuation of the Commentaries of our Caesar's Wars in Gaul, not indeed to be compared to his writings, which either precede or follow them ... I wish that those who may read them could know how unwillingly I undertook to write them, as I might [incur] an imputation of folly and arrogance in presuming to intrude among Caesar's writings. [4] For it is agreed [among all], that no composition was ever executed that is not exceeded in [care] and elegance by these Commentaries, [5] which are published for the use of historians, that they might use these memoirs that [will] stand so high in the esteem of all men, that historians seem rather deprived of, [not] furnished with [such] material: reason for other men to be surprised; for they can only appreciate the elegance and correctness with which he finished them ... Caesar possessed not only an uncommon flow of language and elegance of style, but also a thorough knowledge of the method of conveying his ideas ... though these were partly communicated to me by Caesar himself, in conversation, we listen with a different degree of attention to those things which strike us by their novelty, and those which we design to attest to posterity. But, in truth, while I urge every apology, that I may not be compared to Caesar, I incur the charge of [arrogance], by thinking it possible that I can, in the judgment of any one, be [compared] with him ...
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... hapter%3D0 : English
(Translator: W. A. McDevitte. Translator: W. S. Bohn. 1st Edition. New York. Harper & Brothers. 1869. Harper's New Classical Library)
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D4 : Latin:
[4] Constat enim inter omnes nihil tam operose ab aliis esse perfectum, quod non horum elegantia commentariorum superetur: [5] qui sunt editi, ne scientia tantarum rerum scriptoribus deesset, adeoque probantur omnium iudicio ut praerepta, non praebita, facultas scriptoribus videatur. [6] Cuius tamen rei maior nostra quam reliquorum est admiratio: ceteri enim, quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam, quam facile atque celeriter eos perfecerit scimus. [7] Erat autem in Caesare cum facultas atque elegantia summa scribendi, tum verissima scientia suorum consiliorum explicandorum ... [9] Sed ego nimirum, dum omnes excusationis causas colligo ne cum Caesare conferar, hoc ipsum crimen arrogantiae subeo, quod me iudicio cuiusquam existimem posse cum Caesare comparari. Vale.
modified machine translation:
[4] For it is agreed among all ... that the elegance of these commentaries is not surpassed: [5] which are published lest the knowledge of so many things should [not] be wanting to historians, [so] that the opportunity is given to them and not taken away. [6] We are more amazed at this matter than the rest: for the rest know how well and perfectly and, as we know also, how easily quickly he accomplished them. [7] But Caesar had the greatest faculty and elegance of writing, as well as the truest knowledge of explaining his plans ... [9] But of course, while I collect all the excuses for not being compared with Caesar, I incur this very charge of arrogance because I think that I can be compared with Caesar in anyone's judgment. Vale.
eta:
I wish that those who may read them could know how unwillingly I undertook to write them, as then I might the more readily escape the imputation of folly and arrogance, in presuming to intrude among Caesar's writings. For it is agreed on all hands, that no composition was ever executed with so great care, that it is not exceeded in elegance by these Commentaries, which were published for the use of historians, that they might not want memoirs of such achievements; and they stand so high in the esteem of all men, that historians seem rather deprived of than furnished with materials. At which we have more reason to be surprised than other men; for they can only appreciate the elegance and correctness with which he finished them, while we know with what ease and expedition. Caesar possessed not only an uncommon flow of language and elegance of style, but also a thorough knowledge of the method of conveying his ideas ... we listen with a different degree of attention to those things which strike us with admiration by their novelty, and those which we design to attest to posterity. But, in truth, whilst I urge every apology, that I may not be compared to Caesar, I incur the charge of vanity, by thinking it possible that I can in the judgment of any one be put in competition with him. Farewell.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10657/pg10657.txt via https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10657
.
Thus, Hirtius was blurring the boundaries between memoirs and historiography. Even more than Strabo did, he placed discourse about memoirs into the realm of the literary elite.
- At the beginning of his Geographica (1.1.22–3),Strabo situates the composition of his current work with in the context of his previous work, which he calls his Historical Memoirs. Strabo's aims, with regard to literary style and contribution to political and moral philosophy, are basically the same in Geographica as they are in Historical Memoirs, and he notes that both works were written for the political official and public servant, that is, those who were among the well-educated. Strabo, however, envisions the readership of Geographica to be an even more elite group. While this description is, to a degree, self-aggrandizing, it also serves to valorize the potential readers of Strabo's two works.
- A story is told that Plato once saw someone playing at dice and rebuked him. And, upon his protesting that he played for a trifle only, "But the habit," rejoined Plato, "is not a trifle." Being asked whether there would be any memoirs of him as of his predecessors, he replied, "A man must first make a name, and he will have no lack of memoirs." One day, when Xenocrates had come in, Plato asked him to chastise his slave, since he was unable to do it himself because he was in a passion. [39] Further, it is alleged that he said to one of his slaves, "I would have given you a flogging, had I not been in a passion" .... [40] ... His wish always was to leave a memorial of himself behind, either in the hearts of his friends or in his books ... https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... hapter%3D1
3. As a noteworthy aside:
(re uncouth long-haired vs civilised short-haired cf. hair in Judaic and Christian theology and lore)
- The "Gaul" that Caesar refers to is ambiguous, as the term had various connotations in Roman writing and discourse during Caesar's time. Generally, Gaul included all of the regions primarily inhabited by Celts which had already been conquered in Caesar's time (aside from the province of Gallia Narbonensis (modern-day Provence and Languedoc-Roussillon)); therefore encompassing the rest of modern France, Belgium, Western Germany, and parts of Switzerland. As the Roman Republic made inroads deeper into Celtic territory and conquered more land, the definition of "Gaul" shifted.
Concurrently, "Gaul" was also used in common parlance as a synonym for "uncouth" or "unsophisticated," as Romans saw Celtic peoples as uncivilized compared with themselves (for example, Caesar called northern Gaul Gallia Comata, or "long-haired Gaul", as opposed to Gallia Narbonensis or Provincia, the Roman province in Southern Gaul, where the inhabitants had been "civilised" enough to cut their hair).
Statistics: Posted by MrMacSon — Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:09 pm