Julius Caesar: an in-depth look at the literary style and a comparison between “De bello Gallico” and “De bello Civili”, two fundamental works of his production.
The literary production of Gaius Julius Caesar began very early: historians and writers such as Suetonius and Tacitus recall that at a young age Caesar wrote love poems and some short poems, one on Hercules and one on the tragedy of Oedipus , later he also wrote the much more important linguistic treatise entitled De analogia; all these works, however, have been lost, as have unfortunately the famous orations in which Caesar excelled and for which he was very famous in antiquity, as reported by both Cicero and Tacitus .
The only works of Caesar that have reached us are the two Commentaries: the De Bello Gallico , in seven books, which are both historical and autobiographical, because they describe his actions during the seven years of war in Gaul, and the De bello Civili , which narrates the civil war against Pompey.
Caesar was not the first among the Latins to write commentaries, but he surpassed all those who had preceded him in this very difficult genre and there was no one after him who managed to equal him. The historians before him, in fact, still told the history of Rome in annals going back to the origins and including legends in the narrations; in none of them was there accurate research and critical examination of the facts.
JULIUS CAESAR, LITERARY STYLE
Caesar’s aim was undoubtedly to narrate his exploits and in a certain sense justify his conduct, but he never lets himself be carried away by passion and pride, he always remains objective and faithful to the historicity of the events he recounts. Caesar does not see history as a pure and simple narration of facts, but as a research and an examination of all those social, political, economic, military and geographical aspects that accompany the events .
The first book of De bello Gallico , for example, opens with a geographical description of Gaul and only later does the attention shift to the military events concerning the Helvetians; moreover, a large part of the sixth book is dedicated to a long digression on the customs of the Gauls and Germans, in which one can perceive a veiled criticism on the part of Caesar towards these populations who were undoubtedly more primitive than the Romans, but there is also a certain admiration on the part of the leader for the courage of these peoples and for their customs which were so different from the Roman ones.
It is immediately noticeable that the style is very detached , Caesar always speaks in the third person, from a syntactic point of view the exposition is linear and objective, even regarding the lexicon Caesar always uses very simple and recurring terms , to the detriment of the variatio, he only cares about being clear and therefore he is not meticulous and verbose, but rather rapid and concise. He thus manages to tell the story of the conquest of Gaul and Britain without boring the reader because the language is simple but his prose is not arid, indeed it is very elegant, objective without being unadorned.
Despite the detached tone and the complete absence of explicit comments from the author , the opinion and the message that Cesare sometimes wants to communicate to the reader still shines through in the narration, perhaps hidden between the lines of the story.
In some cases, although very rarely, Caesar abandons the complete objectivity of the discussion and intervenes in person, getting to the heart of the matter and expressing his opinion, as happens for example in chapter XIV of book VI regarding the scholars’ debate regarding the Druids’ practice of not using writing to transmit their doctrines.
JULIUS CAESAR, OF THE GALLIC BELL
Again in the description of the customs of the Gauls we can observe that Caesar is always precise with regard to language, but avoids using foreign terms unless he is forced to, as in the case of the term druides for which there are no equivalents in Latin, thus resorting to the so-called interpretatio romana of the Celtic deities, which are completely assimilated to the Roman ones even if the similarities were probably very superficial, this in order to facilitate the understanding of the Roman reader.
As for the style, apart from the usual objectivity, from a grammatical point of view each period is constructed in a regular and linear way. In fact, Caesar very often uses the participle both as a predicative and in the construction of the absolute ablative , thus giving speed and fluency to the period; he often uses the relative clause , in its various uses and forms, and indirect speech , eliminating any drama and “rhetoric” from the words of the characters; the narration flows like a war document, even accompanied by official documents and letters to the Senate, without frills, as if the facts themselves were speaking.
JULIUS CAESAR, DE BELLO CIVILI
In De bello Civili , written in three books and which recounts the civil war against Pompey , from the military campaigns in Italy up to the battle of Pharsalus, the objectivity and detachment of the author that had characterised De bello Gallico is somewhat toned down, undoubtedly because now Caesar does not find himself having to face external enemies, enemies of Rome, but has to face his own personal adversary.
Very often, therefore, the general emphasizes the fact that, despite his desire for peace and negotiation, he was forced into conflict with Pompey due to his lack of collaboration and insists on the wrongs suffered by the latter.
Caesar’s involvement and passion in the events thus increases, and they are treated in a much more complex way, rich in pathos and drama, which were absent from De bello Gallico.
Another difference is given by the fact that in these Commentaries Caesar criticizes his enemies much more evidently, often resorting to irony to highlight their petty and personal motivations compared to his interest in the good of the state; in De bello Civili he also places great emphasis on the heroism of his soldiers, underlining the bond of loyalty that unites them to their commander.
It is therefore very evident that there are notable stylistic differences between the De bello Gallico and the De bello Civili, not only because of the much more active presence of the author’s personality, but also because the structure of the second commentary is much more complex and also Caesar’s narrative style becomes richer and more dynamic , sometimes even dramatic, as for example at the beginning of the work which opens with the description of the senate session in which Caesar’s letter proposing the negotiation is not taken into consideration and instead the senate imposes only on him to disband the army so as not to be declared an enemy of Rome; another very dramatic moment is that of the retreat from Durazzo , when Caesar himself would have risked losing his life.
Both works of Julius Caesar therefore appear as true masterpieces, each with its differences perhaps reflecting the two main aspects of the personality of the leader: the general, the soldier, and the politician who demonstrates all his ability, both in De bello Gallico with a lucid but passionate prose, rich in strategy , and in De bello Civili with a more refined and more personal narration , which describes the much more complicated situation of a civil war, a clash between Romans and between adversaries who had once been allies.
