Caesar's Propaganda? XenophonTheAthenian's answer

Did Caesar write Commentarii de Bello Gallico as propaganda?

This is a question I found in

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2o39m1/did_caesar_write_commentarii_de_bello_gallico_as/ User superflossman asks this, because "Many of my teachers and professors over the years have said that it was in fact propaganda, but a cursory search on something like Jstor points me toward many scholarly articles that say that it was not. Was it propaganda? Is there a way to truly know? Is there one unified scholarly opinion held by the majority?"

The discussion, as we can see, is pivoting about the fact that the De Bello Gallico has to be considered, in a proper manner, as a self-serving text and not propaganda.

In answering the question, user XenophonTheAthenian first observes that "propaganda" really exists in a world that can utilize modern communication. Then notes the following.

 "First of all you [superflossman] seem to be unclear on what exactly Caesar's commentaries are. You seem to be under the impression that these were originally intended as literary works to be disseminated throughout the city, the way a novel would today. This is untrue. While Caesar's work was later collected and published as a real book, this was not its original purpose at all. The very title of the work is a clear indicator of this - "commentarii" are not "commentaries" at all, the correct translation of the term in the context in which it is being used by Caesar is "dispatches." Roman governors were expected to send dispatches back to the senate (Cicero's "litteras" which he famously claims Piso did not send during his proconsular command in Macedonia), although technically they did not have to. Much of the content and style of the work is directly influenced by this. For example, Caesar's consistent use of the third-person is because the dispatches were intended to be read aloud in the senate, much the same way that dispatches from an American general are often read aloud in the Capitol. Additionally, the (sometimes quite extreme) inconsistencies in style clearly reflect that Caesar was not the only author. ...  it's quite clear that Caesar drew heavily on the dispatches of his subordinates for certain things, although of course he edited them and the overwhelming majority of the work is entirely his own. ... Like I said, that's what the word "commentarii," when used in a legal sense, means. ...

Anyway, I digress. That's really not that important. What is important is Caesar's style. Caesar is not writing so that "the average cives on the street" can read his work. The average citizen probably had very little direct exposure to Caesar's works, as publication in Republican Rome was not the streamlined ...  affair of Augustus' day, books were almost prohibitively expensive, and we know of no public readings of Caesar's works, which were probably published and spread in a manner similar to Cicero's essays, which were essentially sent to his friends and anyone who requested them. Besides the necessity of straightforwardness in military dispatches (Caesar's were probably more ornate than most - Cicero makes fun of Piso for introducing rhetorical style into his military accounting) Caesar's style is also a result of his own rhetorical school. Caesar was a member of the Direct, or Plain Style. This is the style of Homer, the style of Plato, Herodotus, even of Thucydides - of pretty much everyone before Demosthenes really got the Periodic Style perfected. The Plain Style avoids complex subordination (although Caesar's personal form of it used a lot of indirect speech) and whereas the Periodic Style listed clauses in order of logical progression the Plain Style listed them in chronological order. That this is in no way unique to this particular work is quite clear when we note that it is present in de Bello Civili (which had an even narrower audience and which, mind you, is vastly more self-serving, and is quite openly too, than de Bello Gallico - I have always been puzzled why de Bello Gallico is held up in the popular imagination as propaganda but de Bello Civili somehow escapes it) and is present in Sallust's transcript of Caesar's speech against Cicero's decision to execute the Catilinarians. Unless we suppose that Caesar's speech against Cicero was intended to be read by the "average cives," when it was never even published, it's rather silly to suppose that Caesar crafted his style with a populist purpose in mind. Besides, simple as it appears Caesar's style is extremely highly-developed, as ancient commentators noted, and hardly the sort of thing that everyone read - de Bello Civili in particular stands out as a real masterwork of literary craft in the Plain Style.

.... Finally  ... [a] statement [like this] here: "Julius Caesar was accumulating too many fans in the capital and was sent off to the god-forsaken border of Gaul to hold the damn line and stay out of the way, festering in obscurity" is totally and indefensibly untrue. Caesar was awarded as his proconsular command Illyricum and Cisalpine Gaul, to which Transalpine Gaul was later added. These were not "god-forsaken," out-of-the-way provinces whose governors were expected to sit there and simply preserve the status quo. These were not provinces in which one "fester[ed] in obscurity." Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum were, along with Macedonia and Syria, the singlemost important provinces of the late Republic. Cisalpine Gaul in particular is of more importance to us, since Caesar didn't do much in Illyricum. Cisalpine Gaul was where generals became triumphators, where spent fortunes were restored in only a few years, and was one of the key provinces to which every magistrate up for provincial assignments looked. That the province was almost exclusively awarded to proconsular governors, and almost never to propraetors, testifies to its importance, as does the fact that the province was under arms pretty much 100% of the time, even when the governor was being replaced and he was supposed to disband his army. The danger to the Cisalpine frontier was well-known to the state - where had the Teutones come down from, within living memory, after all? Revolts were commonplace, and the constantly shifting Gallic tribes constantly attacked Roman allies along the Transalpine coast, necessitating offensives - the exact reason Caesar uses to justify his attack (whether it really was justified is another story). The immense plunder that could be exacted by even the shortest campaign into Transalpine Gaul was unimaginable, easily comparable to the plunder of the east, and the boost to a politician's dignitas was even greater still, probably greater than out east. Cicero was awarded Cisalpine Gaul at the end of his consulship, as a reward for his service to the state. Cicero ended up resigning his governorship ... and handing it over to his colleague Antony in addition to Antony's province of Macedonia. Cicero makes a big deal that Antony was in control of Macedonia and Cisalpine Gaul, saying that he allowed a monster  [Antony] ... to take the two most important provinces to maintain the peace and stability of the state. And you miss the fact that the senate did not award Caesar his province - the entire reason that Cato claimed Caesar's proconsulship was illegal was not because of anything he did in Gaul, but because Pompey used his influence to stall the senate and allowed Caesar to get a tribune to propose a law (which, like all laws, was voted on in the comitia, not the senate) granting him dual governorship (instead of proconsular command over the trees of Italy, as the senate proposed). Caesar's enemies didn't send him to Gaul - he and Pompey made the decision.

Anyway, enough of that. You [superflossman] are essentially right in that the de Bello Gallico is intended as a self-serving piece. It's initial purpose was to persuade the senate that his command was proceeding legitimately (which Cato contested repeatedly). Now, you're also right in saying that it served as a vehicle to increase his popularity, despite what I say above. The purpose of the publication of Caesar's dispatches was to spread news of his proconsulship beyond the floor of the senate, although the outreach of the work was certainly not as wide as you seem to imply.

... Caesar's works, widely read though they were, certainly did not have to social scope of modern propaganda, nor were they as omnipresent and forceful. True propaganda is increasingly being shown as an element of modern society and in particular modern communications. We should think of Caesar's works less like propaganda and more like political pamphlets. I suggest consulting the relevant sections of Gelzer's biography of Caesar, of which there is an English translation available. Gelzer gives an excellent overview of the initial delivery, collection, editing, and publication of the work (as well as trying to solve some disputes about exactly how they were published, a question that we don't really know) and really not much has progressed since his time."

Thanks to XenophonTheAthenian's discussion, any reasoning about De Bello Gallico is easier. Chapeau! XenophonTheAthenian, Chapeau!

Dal saggio «Caesar als Historiker» di M. Gelzer

A proposito di Giulio Cesare come storico, mi è stato segnalato da Francesco Carotta questo passo dal saggio "Caesar als Historiker" di Gelzer. Carotta,  gentilmente, mi ha anche fornito una traduzione dall'originale in tedesco. Prima della lettura, desidero ricordare che Cesare scriveva per i romani che potevano leggerlo, che erano molto pochi, e che per la stesura del De Bello Gallico ha usato i suoi rapporti di guerra, e quelli dei suoi generali che doveva inviare al Senato di Roma. Nel libro si trovano quindi fatti ben noti al Senato di Roma, nonché ai suoi generale.  Se Cesare avesse inventato, ai suoi nemici in Roma, la cosa non sarebbe passata inosservata e sarebbe stata denucniata. 

Lasciatemi anticipare le parole di Gelzer che troverete nel testo, che ci ricordano che la STORIA è essa pure materia scientifica: "Di fronte a ciò, allo storico di formazione scientifica è lecito  ricordare che una critica appropriata deve partire innanzitutto dalle condizioni politiche e sociali e dai concetti dell’epoca." "Demgegenüber darf der wissenschaftlich geschulte Historiker daran erinnern, daß sachgemäße Kritik zunächst von den politischen und sozialen Verhältnissen und Vorstellungen des Zeitalters auszugehen hat."

Aggiungo una osservazione ed una nota.
Osservazione: il "darf" di Gelzer  rende bene l'idea che, nonostante la pregressa letteratura su Cesare prodotta da  Rambaud e, nel suo solco, da Carcopino e Canfora,  mi è lecito discutere la storia senza mettermi gli "occhiali" moderni. Ed è  mia opinione che, con "occhiali" moderni, non si faccia scienza ma politica. Dal mio punto di vista avrei messo addirittura un "deve".
Ed ecco la nota:  un passo da "Analysen zu Suetons Divus Julius und der Parallelüberlieferung", di Cordula Brutscher, pubblicato in Noctes Romanae Bd.8, 1958, p. 68:
"Dem Erforschen der historischen Wahrheit sind selbstverständliche Grenzen gesetzt : nie wird man ein Ereignis bis in das letzte psychologische Detail reproduzieren können, auch wenn es noch so reich dokumentiert ist, weil die Kategorien des Denkens einer Epoche von keiner anderen ganz verstanden werden können." "Alla ricerca della verità storica sono posti dei limiti ovvii: non si potrà mai riprodurre un avvenimento fin nell’ultimo dettaglio psicologico, per quanto riccamente documentato possa essere, perché le categorie del pensare di un’epoca non possono essere capite completamente da nessun’altra." [Traduzione di Francesco Carotta].

—
M. Gelzer, «Caesar als Historiker», in: Kleine Schriften Bd. 2, Wiesbaden 1963, S. 312–314:

[…] Prendiamo dapprima in considerazione il de bello Gallico. Quest’opera serve da secoli da libro scolastico, essendo dunque uno dei libri antichi più letti. Gli insegnanti di latino di quando andavo a scuola sapevano i 7 libri a memoria; grazie a questo intensivo occuparsene vennero esaminati così attentamente, come il loro autore non avrebbe mai potuto prevedere, scrivendo egli in fretta e figurandosi come lettori innanzitutto i senatori dell’anno 51. Detto per inciso, la formula spesso ripetuta di Mommsen (26), che essi siano 'il rapporto militare del generale democratico al popolo dal quale aveva ricevuto l’incarico' trae sfortunatamente in inganno, perché né Cesare era un 'democratico', né il 'popolo romano' leggeva. Ovviamente vennero letti anche da uomini colti dell’ordine equestre come Attico e soprattutto da quelli che erano al servizio di Cesare, come Cornelio Balbo. Ma l’ordine equestre nel suo insieme non era un fattore politico determinante, orientandosi a seconda dei rapporti di forza.

L’intenso studio moderno di Cesare ha condotto, soprattutto nel de bello Gallico, ad un eccesso di critica, iniziata già nel secolo scorso, ed in tempi più recenti degenerata fino alla mania, nell’intento di smascherare Cesare come uno dei peggiori falsificatori della storia. Di ciò in Germania è sintomatico uno scritto di Peter Huber "Die Glaubwürdigkeit Caesars in seinem Bericht über den Gallischen Krieg" (La credibilità di Cesare nel suo commentario sulla guerra Gallica), pubblicato per la prima volta nel 1912, e nel 1931 in seconda edizione (27). Nella conclusione (p. 110) riassume: "Si andrebbe di molto errati se si volesse addebitare a Cesare principalmente soltanto di tacere od abbellire fatti spiacevoli. Molto peggio è che si possano dimostrare nel suo rapporto non poche affermazioni altamente dubbie quanto alla motivazione delle sue imprese, come pure travisamenti intenzionali e grossolane deformazioni nella narrazione del loro svolgersi." Tale critica fu spinta al colmo da Michel Rambaud nel libro "L’art de la déformation historique dans les Commentaires de Cesar" (1953). Otto Seel ha di recente giustamente messo in luce la fatalità inerente a questo tipo di critica, dovendo essa evincere i suoi argomenti da Cesare stesso, poiché per la guerra Gallica mancano quasi completamente ulteriori fonti da lui indipendenti (28).

Invece nessuno vorrà sottovalutare i meriti dell’acribia filologica quando segnala contraddizioni nell’opera di Cesare. Ciò vale per esempio per le cifre date sulle perdite dei Nervii nella battaglia del fiume Sabis nell’anno 57, …

[...]

Però l’acribia filologica è spesso unita a moventi di natura emozionale. Vi entra in gioco il nazionalismo. Cesare è infatti una fonte importante per la protostoria celtica e germanica, e si tenta di considerare i suoi rapporti dal punto di vista degli antenati. Oppure coloro che studiano la storia del proprio paese o delle tecniche militari cercano solerti i riscontri sul terreno delle indicazioni topografiche scritte per senatori che non disponevano di carte geografiche, e di ricostruire le operazioni belliche in tutti i dettagli. Ultimamente vi si aggiungono passioni pacifiste e socialiste, con rigetto delle guerre di conquista e dell’imperialismo, eppoi risentimenti contro  comandanti nati, che non provengono dagli strati sociali più bassi degli operai e dei contadini. Con grande ingenuità viene presupposta già nell’antichità l’esistenza di una propaganda mendace, quale fu resa possibile solo dalla tecnica moderna, un errore che sta alla base dello zelante libro di Rambaud. Bertolt Brecht lasciò un frammento di romanzo, "Gli affari del signor Giulio Cesare“ (Berlino 1957), dal quale mi sono notato la seguente frase (p. 8): "Aveva persino scritto lui stesso dei libri, per ingannarci. Ed aveva pure speso soldi, e non pochi! Per prevenire il riconoscimento dei veri motivi dei loro atti, i grandi uomini ci hanno messo il sudore."

Di fronte a ciò, allo storico di formazione scientifica è lecito ricordare che una critica appropriata deve partire innanzitutto dalle condizioni politiche e sociali e dai concetti dell’epoca. Si deve sapere prima di tutto che la politica romana veniva allora fatta nel Senato. C’erano altresì assemblee popolari che eleggevano annualmente i magistrati e votavano i progetti di legge. Tuttavia esse si riunivano soltanto a Roma, e del milione di cittadini aventi diritto al voto in Italia vi partecipavano al massimo alcune migliaia. Privatamente i senatori parlavano [con disprezzo] della imperita multitudo, facilmente manovrabile con mezzi demagogici. Proprio per questo i Commentarii [di Cesare] si rivolgevano in primo luogo ai senatori.

[…]
—
(26) p. e. Ed. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (1898), 210. Fr. Bömer Hermes 81, 249.
(27) Bamberg, Buchner Verlag.
(28) Ambiorix, Beobachtungen zu Text und Stil in Caesars B. G. Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 20 (1960), 55. Inoltre nella prefazione dell’edizione, p. 78. Esemplare per la sua prudenza ed avvedutezza di giudizio Fr. Adcock, Caesar as Man of Letters.

II.

Wir fassen zunächst das bellum Gallicum ins Auge. Dieses Werk dient seit Jahrhunderten als Schulbuch, ist also eines der am meisten gelesenen antiken Bücher. Die Lateinlehrer meiner Schulzeit kannten die 7 Bücher auswendig, und dank dieser intensiven Beschäftigung wurden sie in einer Weise unter die Lupe genommen, wie es ihr schnell schreibender Verfasser, der sich als Leser zunächst die Senatoren des Jahrs 51 vorstellte, nicht ahnen konnte. Beiläufig sei bemerkt, daß Mommsens oft nachgesprochene Formulierung(26), sie seien "der militärische Rapport des demokratischen Generals an das Volk, von dem er seinen Auftrag erhalten hatte", bedauerlich irreführt, weil weder Caesar ein 'Demokrat' war noch das 'römische Volk' Bücher las. Selbstverständlich wurden sie auch von gebildeten Männern des römischen Ritterstands wie Atticus gelesen und vorab von denen in Caesars Dienst, wie Cornelius Balbus. Aber der Ritterstand im ganzen war kein selbständiger politischer Machtfaktor, sondern richtete sich nach den Machtverhältnissen.

Das moderne intensive Caesarstudium hat insonderheit beim bellum Gallicum zu einer Überfülle von Kritik geführt, die schon im vorigen Jahrhundert begann und in neuerer Zeit bis zur Manie ausartete, Caesar als einen der schlimmsten Geschichtsfälscher zu entlarven. In Deutschland ist dafür symptomatisch eine Schrift von Peter Huber "Die Glaubwürdigkeit Caesars in seinem Bericht über den Gallischen Krieg", die zuerst 1912 und 1931 in 2. Auflage erschien(27). Im Schlußwort (110) faßt er zusammen: „Man würde aber weit fehlgehen, wollte man Caesar in der Hauptsache bloß Verschweigen und Beschönigen unliebsamer Tatsachen zur Last legen. Viel schlimmer ist, daß sich in seinem Bericht nicht wenige höchst fragwürdige positive Angaben in der Begründung seiner Unternehmungen ebenso wie in der Schilderung ihres Verlaufs, bewußte Verdrehungen und grobe Entstellungen der Wahrheit nachweisen lassen." Auf den Gipfel wurde diese Kritik getrieben von Michel Rambaud in dem Buch "L’art de la déformation historique dans les Commentaires de Cesar" (1953). Otto Seel hat kürzlich zutreffend auf das Fatale dieser Art von Kritik hingewiesen, sofern sie nämlich ihre Argumente aus Caesar selbst gewinnen muß, da für den Gallischen Krieg sonstige unabhängige Überlieferung beinahe ganz fehlt (28).

Dagegen wird niemand die Verdienste philologischer Akribie, die auf Widersprüche im Werk Caesars hinweist, verkennen. Das gilt beispielsweise für die Angabe über die Verluste der Nervier in der Schlacht am Sabis im Jahr 57, …

[...]

Jedoch die philologische Akribie ist vielfach verquickt mit Antrieben emotionaler Natur. Da spielt Nationalismus hinein. Caesar ist ja eine wichtige Quelle für die keltische und germanische Frühgeschichte, und man sucht seine Berichte vom Standpunkt der Vorfahren aus zu betrachten. Oder Heimatforscher und Militärschriftsteller suchen emsig die topographischen Angaben, die für Senatoren geschrieben sind, denen keine Landkarten zur Verfügung standen, im Gelände nachzuweisen und die kriegerischen Operationen in allen Einzelheiten zu rekonstruieren. Neuerdings kommen pazifistische und sozialistische Affekte hinzu mit Ablehnung von Eroberungskriegen und Imperialismus und Ressentiment gegen Herrschernaturen, die nicht der niedrigsten Schicht des Arbeiter- und Bauernstandes entstammen. Mit großer Naivität wird schon im Altertum das Vorhandensein einer Lügenpropaganda vorausgesetzt, wie sie erst die moderne Technik ermöglichte, ein Irrtum, der dem fleißigen Buch von Rambaud zu Grunde liegt. Bertolt Brecht hinterließ ein Romanfragment "Die Geschäfte des Herrn Julius Caesar" (Berlin 19 57), aus dem ich mir folgenden Satz notierte (S. 8): "Er hatte sogar selber Bücher geschrieben, um uns zu täuschen. Und er hatte ebenfalls Geld ausgegeben und nicht wenig! Vor die Erkenntnisse der wahren Beweggründe ihrer Taten haben die großen Männer den Schweiß gesetzt".

Demgegenüber darf der wissenschaftlich geschulte Historiker daran erinnern, daß sachgemäße Kritik zunächst von den politischen und sozialen Verhältnissen und Vorstellungen des Zeitalters auszugehen hat. Da muß man vor allem wissen, daß die römische Politik damals im Senat gemacht wurde. Daneben gab es Volksversammlungen, die jährlich die Magistrate wählten und über Gesetzesvorlagen abstimmten. Doch traten sie nur in Rom zusammen, und von der Million stimmberechtigter Bürger in Italien nahmen bestenfalls einige tausend daran teil. Wenn die Senatoren unter sich waren, sprachen sie von der imperita multitudo, die mit demagogischen Mitteln leicht zu lenken war. Eben darum richteten sich die Commentarien vorab an die Senatoren.

[…]
—
(26) z. B. Ed. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (1898), 210. Fr. Bömer Hermes 81, 249.
(27) Bamberg, Buchner Verlag.
(28) Ambiorix, Beobachtungen zu Text und Stil in Caesars B. G. Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 20 (1960), 55. Ferner in der Praefatio zur Ausgabe S. 78. Vorbildlich mit seiner Vorsicht und Umsicht des Urteils Fr. Adcock, Caesar als Schriftsteller.

Post archiviato
http://archive.is/oDg0w