Skow, Kate. “Well, Aren’t We An Odd Couple: Caesar the Writer and Caesar the General.” Nota Bene, the journal of Classical Studies at UC Davis 11 (2013): 8-13. Immediately in De Bello Gallico, there is something different about Caesar’s commentaries, as opposed to others in the same genre. He refers to himself in third person; Caesar effectively creates a distinct character of Caesar the general, separate from himself, the author. He is able to convey information differently depending on which Caesar’s point of view he chooses to write from. Most of the time, the author is an omniscient narrator, telling the story after it happened with all the information. But sometimes, the general Caesar will surprise him with something he doesn’t know, causing tension in the writing, and making an extremely odd dynamic between two versions of the same person. Caesar is introduced for the first time in chapter seven with Caesari cum id nuntiatum esset (I.VII.1), “when that [the Helvetians’ migration] had been told to Caesar.” For the first six chapters, Caesar the author goes into great detail about the geography of Gaul and the previous events of the Helvetians. He opens this chapter, literally, with Caesar. Because of Latin’s fluid word order, he can start the sentence with the dative Caesari for emphasis. While the previous chapters are important background knowledge, this first declaration of Caesar’s name truly marks the beginning of the Helvetian campaign. He reminds the audience, here and throughout the entirety of the commentaries, who the main character of the war is and who is responsible for the victory. It is repeated in chapter ten with it opening Caesari renuntiatur (I.X.1), “it was reported back to Caesar.” When he talks about himself, Caesar puts his name in an emphatic position, especially when otherwise, his involvement in largely passive. These examples have Caesar in the dative, with verbs in the passive voice. Things are being done to him, yet because of the word order, he is still the most important part of the sentence. Caesar presents himself in a different way than a usual military man when facing a foreigner diplomatically. When confronting foreigners in battle, he is destructive, as evidenced by the final chapter of the Helvetian campaign with the numbers lost. Yet, he is shown to be quite merciful in diplomatic situations. In chapter eleven, the Aeduans, Ambarri, and Allobroges entreat Caesar’s aid against the Helvetians, who are ravaging their country. They send envoys to him to ask for help. His response is Caesar non exspectandum sibi statuit, dum, omnibus fortunis sociorum consumptis, in Santonos Helvetii pervenirent (I.XI.6), “Caesar determined that he ought not to wait, until, all the property of the allies being consumed, the Helvetians should arrive among the Santones.” He agrees to help these people against their common enemy. In chapter eighteen, Dumnorix, the brother of Diviciacus, a friend to the Roman people, is revealed to be the traitor. Caesar the author sets his punishment up at the end of chapter nineteen with Petit et hortatur, ut sine eius offensione animi vel ipse de eo, causa cognita, statuat, vel civitatem statuere iubeat (I.XIX.5), “He requested and urged, that without offense to his spirit, either he himself, having heard his cause, may pass judgment on him, or order the state to pass judgment.” He offers his ally, Diviciacus, a choice regarding his brother; then, in chapter twenty, after Diviciacus’ pleas, Caesar says uti et rei publicae iniuriam et suum dolorem eius voluntati ac precibus condonet (I.XX.5), “that he pardons both an injury of the republic and his own grief in response to his wishes and entreaties.” Voluntati ac precibus is in the dative with condonet, meaning to give something over in the sense of overlooking it. In the end, he forgives Dumnorix for the sake of Diviciacus, showing him to be much more than a battle hungry general. In addition to including his military strategy, these indirect discourses peppered throughout the campaign demonstrate Caesar as a shrewd politician as well. Caesar the author presents a well-rounded character always portrayed in the best light. Most of the time, Caesar the author knows everything the general knows and more. He is an omniscient narrator reporting the war, as Caesar the general, within the story, gradually learns what he himself already knows. Chapter sixteen begins Interim cotidie Caesar Aeduos frumentum, quod essent publice polliciti, flagitare (I.XVI.1), “Meanwhile Caesar every day kept pressing the Aeduans for the grain, which (he said) they had promised publicly.” Esset is in the subjunctive because it is an implied quotation in a subordinate clause. Caesar the writer presents this statement as if it were quoted from somewhere else. As a statement other than his own, it could be potentially untrue, which is also why it is in the subjunctive. If it is indeed false, informing the readers this way lets both Caesars off the hook. Caesar the author knows more than Caesar the general, and looks out for him in his writing. Chapter twenty two uses the two Caesars’ mismatch of knowledge to heighten suspense in the story, and build up the tension before the battle. The possession of the mountain goes back and forth between Caesar and the enemy when it is differently reported to him by sources, as Caesar the writer explains with full hindsight knowledge. First, the mountain was held by Titus Labienus and the enemy does not know about the arrival of either Caesar or him, ut postea ex captivis comperit (I.XXII.2), “as he [Caesar] ascertained from the prisoners after.” The use of ut and an indicative verb underscores the validity of the claim. Caesar the writer, knowing what happens, wants the reader to know that, had other people not made the plan go awry, it would have been a success. Once again, the author is looking out for the general. The mountain seems to go back and forth between the Romans and the enemy, until Caesar believes it belongs to the enemy. Then, Multo denique die per exploratores Caesar cognovit et montem a suis teneri et Helvetios castra movisse et Considium, timore perterritum, quod non vidisset, pro viso sibi renuntiavisse (I.XXII.4), “Finally late in the day, Caesar learned through his scouts both that the mountain was held by his own men and that the Helvetians had moved their camps and that Considius, roused by fear, had reported to him as seen what he had not seen.” It is now revealed that what Caesar believed was false, because what was reported to him was false. Caesar the author knew this as he laid out the scene, and now the audience is angry like Caesar the general and they hold Considius accountable; if Caesar had had correct information, his plan would have been successful. This stresses the same point as earlier in chapter twenty two. The plan may have failed, and Caesar does report that failure, but he illustrates that it was through no fault of his own. By knowing the whole story in advance, Caesar the author can tell the story in a way that shows that any faults do not belong to him. However, sometimes Caesar the general will do something that is conveyed by the writer as if he did not know it already. In chapter thirteen, Caesar builds a bridge and crosses the Arar river. Helvetii, repentino eius adventu commoti, cum id, quod ipsi diebus XX aegerrime confecerant, ut flamen transirent, illum uno die fecisse intellegerent (I.XIII.2), “The Helvetians, disturbed by his sudden coming, when they understood that he had accomplished in one day that which they themselves had finished with the greatest difficulty in twenty days, that they cross the river.” This temporal cum clause has intellegerent in the subjunctive to express the idea of circumstance, condition, or cause. So, the cum is not only translated as “when” but more like “when and because.” Also, the tenses of the infinitive in indirect discourse express time relative to that of the verbs on which they depend. In this case, the perfect infinitive fecisse expressing a time earlier than that of the imperfect subjunctive intellegerent. Caesar has finished accomplishing the task of crossing the river; the Helvetians, after this but still in the past, found this out. Because there are no references to this act before chapter thirteen, the Helvetians, the audience, and Caesar the author are all understanding together what Caesar the general has done. This surprise reveal of information is also utilized in chapter twenty one with his scheme to crush the Helvetians. De tertia vigilia Titum Labienum, legatum pro praetore, cum duabus legionibus et eis ducibus, qui iter cognoverant, summaum iugum montis ascendere iubet; quid sui consilii sit, ostendit (I.XXI.2), “He commanded Titus Labienus, his lieutenant-general in place of the commander, with two legions and those as guides who had understood the journey, to ascend the highest ridge of the elevation on the third watch of the night; he pointed out what his plan was.” Caesar lays out the entire plan and then takes the time to express that he points out what the plan is. This second clause has ostendit in the indicative just like iubet; it acts as an important addendum coming directly from Caesar the general informing the audience and Caesar the author of the plan. Caesar the author frames these moments this way to establish Caesar as a crafty general, capable of surprising even himself. He closes the Helvetian campaign of the Gallic Wars exactly the way he started it: talking about himself. Chapter twenty nine tallies the survivors and their allies. The reason he knows their pre-war numbers is because In castris Helvetiorum tabulae repertae sunt...et ad Caesarem relatae (I.XXIX.1), “In the camp of the Helvetians tablets were found and brought to Caesar.” In case the audience had any doubt his statistics are suspect, he prefaces them with a valid source. To the end, Caesar the author protects himself. The final sentence of chapter twenty nine begins censu habito, ut Caesar imperaverat (I.XXIX.3), “with a census having been taken, as Caesar ordered.” The sentence stands without the ut clause, and in fact, it is not hard to infer that Caesar would be giving the orders to take a census. This subordinate clause is, for all intents and purposes, unnecessary. Just like that very first sentence of chapter seven, with Caesari as the first word for emphasis, the inclusion of his specific command shows who is the reason for the victory of the Romans in this campaign. Caesar won the battles, Caesar ordered the census, and Caesar wrote the commentaries, including statistics that the reader can use to figure out that 257,000 people did not return from the Helvetians’ attempted emigration. He not only takes responsibility for this massive human cost, but ends his report on the Helvetian campaign with himself. Caesar, when writing De Bello Gallico, presents a character distinctly separate from himself because of his style of using third person point of view. This presents an interesting dilemma, because there are now two Caesars. It is an interesting way to give information to the audience, but it also creates a relationship with himself. There is now subtext for the reader to infer, about who knows what and which Caesar is driving the plot forward. Caesar the author can know more than the general and use that knowledge to protect him and his actions in writing; or, he can know less and the general can surprise him with an awesome move that seemingly comes out of nowhere. No matter what, Caesar is always portrayed in the best light. Caesar the author creates a character detached from himself, and can manipulate his actions any way he wishes. By writing the commentaries in the third person, on the surface they may sound more objective, but it is a way for Caesar the writer to plant the subtext even more deeply into the narrative. Skow 2