De Bello Caesarii

Caius Julius Caesar - De Bello Gallico and Other Commentaries, Everyman's Library 1929

Traducere din latina de W.A.MacDevitt

Din cand in cand, eu scriu recenzii de carti. Din cand in cand insa, citesc carti atat de adanc patrunse in constiinta universala incat e teribil de greu sa vorbesti despre ele pentru ca, printre altele, carti despre acele carti au devenit clasice. Fara indoiala, De Bello Gallico e una din cele mai importante scrieri ale umanitatii, citata la tot pasul si omniprezenta in studiul antichitatii, beneficiara a mai multor tone de literatura secundara si prima scriere prezentata studentilor limbii latine. Foarte posibil, cea mai importanta scriere in latina de care avem cunostinta astazi (Eneida poate prezenta un argument bun, dar interesul pentru Eneida este cu precadere filologic si in secundar istoric, or De Bello Gallico e citat de o intreaga serie de alte stiinte sociale, printre care antropologia si sociologia cele mai importante). Si asta pentru ca e scrisa de unul din cei mai importanti vorbitori de limba latina care au trait vreodata.

Caius Julius Caesar (100-44 i.Ch.)

Cine a fost Caius Iulius Caesar? Intrebarea asta nu poate avea un raspuns simplu, doar unul simplist. Iar unul simplist o sa dau si eu, printr-o biografie succinta: nascut in 100 i.Ch. intr-o familie influenta din Roma, Caesar ajunge la 15 ani, dupa moartea tatalui sau, capul unei familii nevoita sa se implice in disputa dintre Gaius Marius si Cornelius Sulla. Facandu-si un dusman din Sulla, Caesar nu si-a mai permis sa stea in Roma pana la moartea acestuia, in 78 i.Ch. Intors in Roma isi incepe ascensiunea in politica ajungand, in 63 i.Ch., Pontifex Maximus - cea mai inalta functie clericala. De aici urmeaza 3 ani de guvernare in Hispania Romana, timp in care Caesar reuseste sa scape de suficient de multe datorii incat sa poata candida pentru functia de consul, cea mai importanta pozitie din Republica Romana. La sfarsitul anului consular, in 58 i.Ch., Caesar este delegat guvernator al Galiei Cisalpine, moment in care incep actiunile descrise in De Bello Gallico.

Toate datele ramase despre el il prezinta pe Caesar ca un politician corupt, un individ inglodat in datorii colosale si care cauta in permanenta protectia unei functii politice pentru a nu da socoteala in fata legii si in general un om de moravuri cel putin indoielnice. Primul portret serios al lui Caesar cu care am intrat in contact, cel al lui Dumas, nu e nici el prea magulitor. Istoria l-a judecat si va continua sa-l judece pe Caesar in fel si chip, de multe ori in functie de interesul politic al zilei. Dar realizarile si impactul asupra istoriei pe care l-a avut Caesar depasesc interesele oricarui moment politic, fie el si apogeul republicii romane. Si pentru un individ de buna credinta, toata treaba asta e putin confuza. Manat fara indoiala de ambitie si interese indeobste pecuniare, Caesar, ca si Alexandru, se dovedeste un strateg stralucit, ceea ce il face anti-eroul istoric perfect. Si e greu sa nu iubesti un anti-erou bun.

Ce a fost Caius Iulius Caesar? Si asta e un raspuns foarte greu. Politician si om de stat, categoric. Consul, in cel putin doua randuri. Dictator in mai multe randuri, dar a schimbat incontinuu definitia cuvantului. Guvernator, dar din postura asta s-a facut cunoscut mai degraba ca general, apelativ pe care cele 12 legiuni pe care le va avea pana la urma in subordine il foloseau. Scriitor, pentru ca a scris. Iar felul in care scrie si scopurile in care ii sunt citate scrierile ii pot pune o serie de etichete extrase, din nou, din stiintele sociale (antropolog, ganditor, istoric, explorator etc.). Iar felul in care a folosit banii (in special ai altora) in Roma, ii poate aduce o alta serie de etichete, imprumutate de data asta din viata economica (producator de evenimente, antreprenor etc.).

Din punctul meu de vedere, omul a excelat in multele domenii in care si-a propus sa activeze. Foarte probabil in toate. Sunt tentat sa spun ca o asemenea capacitate si asemenea energii ar fi fost demne de a fi puse in slujba unor scopuri mai nobile, dar cu ce drept pot eu sa-i judec scopurile lui Caesar? Eu ma bucur si ii sunt recunoscator pentru cartea asta, o lectura peste masura de educativa si extrem de placuta in egala masura. Si inteleg ca e posibil ca Vercingetorix sa nu-l fi placut la fel de tare.

Am vrut sa citesc De Bello Gallico dupa ce am citit excelenta fictionalizare a lui Simon Turney. Iar acum, De Bello Gallico m-a facut sa vreau sa grabesc lecturile si sa nu-mi mai aman Suetoniusii, Plutarhii si Gibbonii prea mult. Inca 7 carti din ciclul Marius' Mules (plus 8 in curs de scriere), 4 din ciclul otoman si proiectul meu despre istoria Angliei care trebuie terminat. Imediat, asadar.

Editia pe care am citit-o e digitala, contine cele 8 carti ale De Bello Gallico si pe cele 3 ale De Bello Civili, e in engleza si a fost publicata prima data in 1915. Ceea ce e interesant, pentru ca mai adauga un strat de anacronism lecturii. In secolul care a trecut de atunci limba si limbajul s-au schimbat, Britannia a pierdut un ditamai imperiul, cele mai mari doua imperii din Europa, cel Austriac si cel Otoman, au disparut si harta lumii s-a transformat radical. Ceea ce nu pare prea important, pana cand incepi sa incerci sa descifrezi unde anume este Caesar la un moment dat, avand in vedere ca s-a miscat in tot bazinul mediteranean, intre Germania si Sahara si intre Britannia si Iran, iar cu scrisul acopera o suprafata usor extinsa. Am ales editia asta pur si simplu pentru ca a fost cea mai usor de gasit editie completa. Bonusuri, o introducere a lui Thomas de Quincey si un index interesant prin aceea ca arata de cel fel de explicatii aveau nevoie cititorii inceputului de secol 20 (Italia, de exemplu, e una din cele mai cunoscute tari din Europa, stiati?). Am incercat, in paralel, sa confrunt cu o editie in latina, dar mi-am dat seama ca pentru a citi De Bello Gallico in latina am nevoie de mult mai mult timp si mult mai multa rabdare decat sunt dispus sa-i acord in momentul asta, asa ca am ajuns sa ma refer foarte, foarte sporadic la editia in latina, cu toata ca mi se pare ca limba latina are o anumita poezie interna si este, din punctul asta de vedere, mult mai placuta decat engleza.

Cunoscandu-i acum continutul, as zice ca cea mai buna utilizare a cartii este aceea de referinta. Pentru ca in ziua de astazi nici un cercetator serios nu o sa-si poata permite sa studieze toate momentele si toate locurile prin care Caesar a trecut in cei 10 ani de guvernorat in Gallia si cei doi de razboi civil, e buna o lectura prealabila pentru ca mai apoi sa ne intoarcem la scrierea lui Caesar ori de cate ori aprofundam un anumit aspect al perioadei. Pentru ca Caesar e foarte generos in a furniza toponimii, amplasari, distributii si miscari ale triburilor de pe un teritoriu ceva mai extins decat la Frantei de astazi, obiceiuri sociale, culinare, vestimentare si militare (in special militare) ale acestor triburi, descrieri geografice, printre care si o foarte interesanta trecere in revista a principalei faune care popula Padurea Neagra - intinsa in acea vreme, dupa spusele lui Caesar, de-a lungul intregului arc alpino-carpatic. Aflam foarte multe si despre romani: despre miscarile politice din Roma, despre organizarea militara romana, despre echipamentul roman, despre artileria romana si despre impresionantele lucrari de inginerie romana (dintre care mie mi-a stat mintea la acel pod peste Rin suficient de solid incat sa-l foloseasca masiv 60.000 de oameni, construit in ceva mai putin de doua saptamani si daramat din interese strategice la vreo doua luni dupa). Caesar ne spune si nume si povesti ale unor oameni care in mod normal n-ar lasa prea multe urme in istorie. Cu siguranta a urmarit sa-si faca scrierea placuta si accesibila, batranul pezevenghi. Spune si cifre, chiar abuzeaza in a ne prezenta sume de trupe. Dar stim pana la ora asta ca cifrele nu sunt foarte credibile si ca erau, la vremea scrierii, cel mai puternic instrument de propaganda. De exemplu, daca ne luam dupa Caesar, in batalia de la Alesia cele 12 legiuni romane numarand aproximativ 60.000 de oameni forta combatanta au asediat 80.000 de luptatori gali in cetatea Alesiei si au respins o forta de sustinere din exterior de 320.000 de oameni. Va imaginati cum arata 450.000 de oamni angajati in lupta corp la corp?

Suntem obisnuiti ca romanii sa lupte in inferioritate numerica masiva (generalul Suetonius cu aproximativ 10.000 de oameni in doua legiuni invinge la Watling Street o armata a Boudicai estimata la 230.000 de oameni), dar e foarte posibil ca de fiecare data cifrele sa fie umflate de propaganda. Si cam cat de mult trebuie sa fi mancat cei 60.000 de oameni ai celor 12 legiuni, si cam cat de dificil o fi fost sa se transporte mancarea pentru ei din loc in loc, dat fiind faptul ca una din cele mai eficiente metode folosite de Caesar a fost ultra-mobilitatea trupelor lui, indiferednt de sezon si de teren? Si de multe ori Caesar vorbeste despre cat de dificil era sa asigure hrana unei armate atat de imense intr-un teritoriu ostil in care adversarul incerca din raspunteri sa impiedice colectarea hranei si sa distruga convoaiele care o transportau. Iar felul in care de multe ori isi forteaza norocul ma face sa cred ca Caesar era un mare parior. Zeita Fortuna i-a zambit destul de mult timp, inclusiv in momente cand a fost la un pas de dezastru, ca la esecul de la Gergovia sau in batalia de la Dyrrachium si nu pot sa nu ma intreb, cum de un om cu o asa buna viziune asupra evenimentelor ca Julius Caesar a lasat sa-i scape complotul de la Idele lui Marte din 44 i.Ch.? Cred ca ori era, pana la acea ora, atat de deconectat de realitate si orbit de puterea pe care i-au dat-o realizarile anterioare incat se credea invincibil, ori pur si simplu a vrut sa se inchipuie un al doilea Sulla care, odata ce a renuntat la funtia de dictator pe viata, si-a concediat lictorii si se plimba nepazit prin mijlocul poporului.

Fiecare campanie a lui Caesar si fiecare batalie e fascninata in felul ei si merita comentata si analizata indelung. Dar inainte de asta, e foarte important pentru cei interesati de subiect sa cunoasca la prima mana textul lui Caesar; fie si pentru a vedea in ce fel i-au deturnat sensul cei care ne-au invatat istorie. Pentru ca o covarsitoare majoritate a informatiilor pe care le avem despre campaniile lui Caesar le avem de la Caesar insusi. Si, in ciuda intereselor politice pe care le-a avut, mi-e greu sa cred - mai ales gandindu-ma si la stilul scriiturii, ca batranul vulpoi nu a avut in vedere si posteritatea cand si-a asternut ispravile pe tablite de ceara si pe piei de vitel. Si posteritatea numelui lui, cu siguranta, dar si - pur si simplu - dorinta sincera si dezinteresata de a tine generatiile viitoare informate cu privire la faptele lui. O socoteala in fata Zeului - care o fi el - in care si marele Caesar credea chiar, poate, fara s-o stie.

Citate:

"it generally occurs to most men, that, in their dependence on writing, they relax their diligence in learning thoroughly, and their employment of the memory" (DBG, Book 6, Chapter 14)

"There is an ox of the shape of a stag, between whose ears a horn rises from the middle of the forehead, higher and straighter than those horns which are known to us. From the top of this, branches, like palms, stretch out a considerable distance. The shape of the female and of the male is the, same; the appearance and the size of the horns is the same." (DBG, B6, C26) - 10 puncte pentru cine ma lamureste ce animal e asta.

"as much as he admired the greatness of their courage, since neither the fortifications of the camp, nor the height of the mountain, nor the wall of the town could retard them; in the same degree he censured their licentiousness and arrogance, because they thought that they knew more than their general concerning victory, and the issue of actions: and that he required in his soldiers forbearance and self-command, not less than valor and magnanimity." (DBG, B7, C52)

"no composition was ever executed with so great care, that it is not exceeded in elegance by these Commentaries" (DBG, B8, C0)

"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." (DBG, B8, C0)

"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" (DBG, B8, C0)

"Why should he hazard the loss of any of his men, even in a successful battle? Why should he expose soldiers to be wounded, who had deserved so well of him? Why, in short, should he tempt fortune? Especially when it was as much a general's duty to conquer by tactics as by the sword." (DBC, B1, C72) - Caesar inaintea unei batalii pe care vroia sa o castige fara lupta

"experience is the best master in every thing on which the wit of man is employed" (DBC, B2, C8)

"what we wish we readily give credit to, and what we think ourselves, we hope is the opinion of other men" (DBC, B2, C27)

"I shall not boast of my services to you, which still are inferior to my own wishes or your
expectations." (DBC, B2, C33)

"He likewise restored to their former condition (the praetors and tribunes, first submitting the question to the people) some persons condemned for bribery at the elections, by virtue of Pompey's law, at the time when Pompey kept his legions quartered in the city (these trials were finished in a single day, one judge hearing the merits, and another pronouncing the sentences), because they had offered their service to him in the beginning of the civil war, if he chose to accept them; setting the same value on them as if he had accepted them, because they had put themselves in his power. For he had determined that they ought to be restored rather by the judgment of the people than appear admitted to it by his bounty: that he might neither appear ungrateful in repaying an obligation, nor arrogant in depriving the people of their prerogative of exercising this bounty." (DBC, B3, C1) - despre politica in Roma si in lume

"this was the only time to treat for peace; when each had confidence in his own strength, and both seemed on an equal footing. Since, if fortune showed ever so little favor to either, he who thought himself superior, would not submit to terms of accommodation; nor would be content with an equal division, when he might expect to obtain the whole." (DBC, B3, C10)

"if all their attempts were not crowned with success, the defects of Fortune must be supplied by industry; and whatever loss had been sustained, ought to be attributed rather to her caprices than to any faults in him" (DBC, B3, C73)

"there is a certain impetuosity of spirit and an alacrity implanted by nature in the hearts of all men, which is inflamed by a desire to meet the foe. This a general should endeavor not to repress, but to increase; nor was it a vain institution of our ancestors, that the trumpets should sound on all sides, and a general shout be raised; by which they imagined that the enemy were struck with terror, and their own army inspired with courage." (DBC, B3, C92)

Safety in numbers

S.J.A. Turney - Marius' Mules VII: The Great Revolt, Victrix Books, 2014

Photo credit link

Reading the first book in the MM series has triggered a series of events that has re-ignited my passion for the Roman world possibly stronger than it ever was before. I have read Caesar's De Bello Gallico in its entirety and had a bite of De Bello Civili, enough to realise that the HBO series Rome, which I recently started watching, is a rather close to the letter fictionalization of Caesar's account. I did not finish the great man's commentaries as Simon sent me MM7 one week before its official launch. Honoured and humbled by the gesture, I have made it my mission to read and review the book in time for the launch. Being the behemoth of a book that it is, I have failed, but I hope this review of mine will still serve some marketing purpose. Hence, here's my two cents:

Let me start with a huge spoiler: Caesar has won the war on Gauls. The readers that don't know that are very lucky, as they will have on their hands a very tense historical novel, whose conclusion hangs on a thread up until the very end. For the rest of us, the point of interest rests more with the journey than with the destination. Of course Caesar or Marc Anthony survive and, to an extent, we all know what happened to Vercingetorix in the aftermath of the battle of Alesia, but there's uncertainty over the faith of our main (fictional) heroes. There are a lot of layers to this book and I guess it speaks to different audiences in different ways: for teens and pre-teens it is an excellent introduction to the Roman world and they should certainly read this or something similar before they take on Gibbon; for laypersons with little to no interest in history it does the same job the popular science books do, in that it teaches a few history lessons while being a very entertaining read; for readers familiar with Roman history and Julius Caesar's writings, it puts a lot of flesh over the skeleton of a book that De Bello Gallico is. Even within this last category we could make a separation between historians - interested in dates, numbers and hard facts, military historians - curios to find out about battle tactics, weaponry, siege engines and the like and re-enacters of one sort or another - interested in costume, way of life, way of thinking. There really is something for everyone in this heavily documented account of Caesar's most important campaign in Gaul that, although follows very close the official version of the emperor-to-be, it is over 40 times longer.

Now, there's one thing to be said about Gaius Julius Caesar: the man excelled in everything it did and his merits far expand beyond the limits of any one area. He was a masterful soldier, commander, politician, historian, writer, sociologist and perhaps many others. Although my first serious introduction to character was Alexander Dumas' less-than-flattering account in the namesake book, the more I learn about the man, the more I appreciate it. And there is a lot to be said about how, despite all his merits, he is such a controversial and often negative character of history. However, for the purpose of this article, let us concentrate on just his writing merits. Despite his Commentaries being first and foremost a journalistic account for the senate and the people of Rome, the man certainly kept a view to posterity when writing it. He must've had. There are hints and smells in his writings that is talking not only to his contemporaries, but possibly to many future generations. And while it certainly it does not pass as what it would be called entertaining writing nowadays, there is a clarity and concision in his style that leaves a lot to be admired. Besides, at times his writing is no less than a literary master-stroke, to the point that poor Aulus Hirstius, who wrote the eighth and last book of De Bello Gallico says about the other seven that "no composition was ever executed with so great care, that it is not exceeded in elegance by these Commentaries".

Writing about these same events and willingly submitting your writing to the inevitable comparison with that of the great man is an enterprise bold if nothing else. But Simon does a beautiful job at it and, with the understanding of the difference in purpose, it does exceed Caesar's merits in ways which more than make up for the ones that he falls short in. For example, here's Caesar speaking to the troops in the wake of the reckless failed attack on the walls of Gergovia: "That as much as he admired the greatness of their courage, since neither the fortifications of the camp, nor the height of the mountain, nor the wall of the town could retard them; in the same degree he censured their licentiousness and arrogance, because they thought that they knew more than their general concerning victory, and the issue of actions: and that he required in his soldiers forbearance and self-command, not less than valour and magnanimity."

And here's Simon: " Indeed, I am, on a base level, proud of the daring and fearlessness of you all. For, though by your arrogant insubordination you brought about our defeat here, the manner in which it occurred will become a tale of heroism someday. For no terrain or enemy or even the walls of that great oppidum stopped you when your blood was up. So, from this, take away not a loss for our army, but the knowledge that only our own pride and fierceness brought about our downfall, not the strength or daring of our enemy."

Which one is better? That is for each man to decide. I will say two things about this particular moment:

1. while I see nothing wrong to copy, at times, the general's words letter by letter, Simon tends to avoid that thinking probably it would be in some ways dishonest or unethical. Likewise, he considers it his duty to stick to the letter and to the official account at times when, to my mind, there is a lot of room for fictionalization, fantasy and what if-s.

2. there is something in Simon's books that is entirely missing from Caesar's: the view from the lines, from the other side. Simon continues: "There was almost an imperceptible straightening of the backs". It is, in my opinion, the big plus of the Marius' Mules books. This kind of detail that makes the reader really see the times and events depicted and it is as close as you can get to being an eyewitness from a man which, although has not been an eyewitness himself, he sure wishes he was. It is also what makes the Marius' Mules books - like I said before - only one step away from movie scripts and I sure as hell would like to see this series brought to the screen.

There is a huge gap in my readings, as I have skipped from the first book in the series straight to the seventh which, of course, makes me wonder what happened to characters in-between the 5 years that I do not know of. And when exactly has the series gone astray from De Bello Gallico so that it makes Simon say in the note at the end that this seventh book is a return to the origin of the series. In comparison - strangely enough - I find Fronto a much less likeable character now that he was in the first book. Which is good, I like myself a good anti-hero. It is admirable from the author to try and show things from different perspectives, including the Gauls in the fist person depiction of events. However, it is clear as daylight that there is a lot less hard historical information available about the Gauls than it is about the Romans. And it shows in the book, and this is one instance where Simon could have babbled on about gods, about Ogrimos, master of the dead and how he's viewed and revered by Gauls and their druids or how he's entered the Gallic pantheon via Greece. Or about anything, really. But, because I spoke of gods, I might have touched on the wrong topic as the author himself is clearly a deeply secular man, with a strong conviction that there is no superior order to the world than the one we see and understand. And he borrows this feature to the two main characters: Fronto and Cavarinos the Gaul. Fair enough.

For comparison, he takes all the liberties in depicting the German warriors and their fighting style - to the point where they seem to be the deciding factor in two of the key battles, which both makes them one of the most colourful, vivid and likeable presence in the book and betray where the author's true interests lie: of the categories of readers described above, he's one of the re-enacters. Well, just look at the man's facebook profile picture:

Simon Turney

For some reason, I particularly liked Masgava, the big Numidian mercenary, ex-gladiator and one of Fronto's bodyguards. I would be really curios on reading an account of the events from his prospective, as a complete neutral and alien to this fight and because of the exotic element he brings. The short forays into the minds of Gauls fighting against Gauls I found particularly attractive.

I realise that throughout my review I haven't yet recommended the book directly. Well, of course I recommend it. It is a hugely entertaining reading and you can get anything but bored. If anything, it is a bit too dense and one might be left with the impression that it is nothing more than a series of sieges. By the time we get to the siege of Alesia, I found it hard to recall what happened at Avaricum or Noviodunum. In fairness, I think the siege of Alesia alone would have been deserving of a whole book and I reiterate the idea that this one book could easily have been split into two. Nevertheless, the reader is not forced to race through it like I did and is free to take it all in at its own pace. Oh, and do not be afraid to use those maps in the beginning. They are another great feature which is sorely absent from Caesar's journals and incredibly useful in Marius' Mules. Unlike in the first book, I have now learnt to refer to them every few pages, and they are incredibly useful in figuring out the battle plans and strategies that the characters talk about.

Now, get your asses to Amazon and buy the book. Link is in the book title at the top.

Excerpts:

2316/8961: "if ever there was a true and just cause for the invasion of Gaul, it had been to rid humanity of the inhuman sound of the carnyx."

5740/8961: "retrospective wisdom is a useless gift"

8394/8961: "The horses - Germanic steeds of their own selection - trampled the unwitting and more than once Varus saw the animals lunge down and bite the enemy, something he'd never seen a horse do in his life."